Dealing with inappropriate honorifics in a structured and defensible way is possible

Abstract

In a recent article electronically published in Taxon as a “Point of View” in 2021 (and subsequently in hardcopy as a “Perspective” in 2022), Gideon F. Smith and Estrela Figueiredo commented on the undesirability of the continued commemoration of people of severely questionable ethics, including the imperialist Cecil John Rhodes (1853–1902), in botanical nomenclature. Independently addressing a similar topic at around the same time, Timothy A. Hammer and Kevin R. Thiele published proposals to amend Articles 51 and 56 and Division III of the Code, to allow the considered rejection of culturally offensive and inappropriate names. Subsequently, widely circulated responses to Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and Hammer & Thiele (2021) severely misrepresented our positions and views. We here respond to allegations that what we proposed will damage plant nomenclature, and clarify and further substantiate our views.

Defending Art. 51 of theCode: Comments on Smith & al. (2022)

“…Statements we did not make and views to which we do not subscribe were attributed to us and require refuting.” However, I have not found in the article by Smith & al. (2022) even a single undeniable example of any part of my article in which I supposedly attributed to the said authors the statements they did not make and views to which they did not subscribe. Also, the word “misrepresented” (instead of, for example, “misunderstood” or “misinterpreted”) used by Smith & al.…”

“…After reading the article by Smith & al. (2022), I have a strong feeling that the authors misunderstood or misinterpreted (I hope, most probably unintentionally) at least some of my arguments (in Mosyakin, 2022), and because of that I would like to clarify some points and provide some explanations and additional arguments here.…”

“…Smith & al. (2022), in their new opinion article (“Dealing with inappropriate honorifics in a structured and defensible way is possible”), commented on my recent article (Mosyakin, 2022), which, in turn, was a response to several recent proposals and discussion articles (Hammer & Thiele, 2021; Smith & Figueiredo, 2021, 2022; Thiele & Hammer, 2021; Wright & Gillman, 2022, etc.) that, as I view it, undermine important principles and traditions of scientific nomenclature of living organisms.…”

“…In the Introduction of their article, Smith & al. (2022) stated that “the views of Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and proposals of Hammer & Thiele (2021) were severely misrepresented [emphasis added – SM] by Mosyakin (2022). Statements we did not make and views to which we do not subscribe were attributed to us and require refuting.” However, I have not found in the article by Smith & al.…”

“…Also, the word “misrepresented” (instead of, for example, “misunderstood” or “misinterpreted”) used by Smith & al. (2022) most probably indicates that the authors believe that I intentionally presented (misrepresented) their views in a distorted way. In my humble opinion, I simply demonstrated possible logical outcomes of the proposals by Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and Hammer & Thiele (2021) in a hypothetical case if these proposals are accepted and actually implemented into the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants ( ICN : Turland & al., 2018).…”