Renaming taxa on ethical grounds threatens nomenclatural stability and scientific communication

Ceríaco, Luis M. P.; Aescht, Erna; Ahyong, Shane T.; Ballerio, Alberto; Bouchard, Patrice; Bourgoin, Thierry; Dmitriev, Dmitry A.; Evenhuis, Neal L.; Grygier, Mark J.; Harvey, Mark S.; Kottelat, Maurice; Kluge, Nikita J.; Krell, Frank-Thorsten; Kojima, Jun‐ichi; Kullander, S.; Lucinda, Paulo H. F.; Lyal, Christopher H. C.; Pyle, Richard L.; Rheindt, Frank E.; Scioscia, Cristina Luisa; Welter-Schultes, Francisco; Whitmore, Daniel; Yanega, Douglas; Zhang, Zhiqiang; Zhou, Hong-Zhang; Pape, Thomas

doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac107

Cited by 36 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the ICZN advises that authors should not knowingly propose offensive names (Ride et al., 1999), judgments on their inappropriateness are arguably subjective and culturally shift over time (Ceríaco et al., 2023; Chen‐Kraus et al., 2021; Poulin et al., 2022). Thus, nomenclatural stability is prioritized over ethical reasoning in taxonomy (Ceríaco et al., 2023). While we appreciate that widespread changes in nomenclature could be highly disruptive and laborious (Ceríaco et al., 2023), like Driver and Bond (2021), we contend that taxonomists should have appropriate flexibility and guidance to revise eponyms if namesakes demonstrate untenable actions or beliefs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, strict and highly formalized rules produced by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) govern scientific names and make it difficult to revise those currently deemed problematic (Chen‐Kraus et al., 2021; Guedes et al., 2023). Although the ICZN advises that authors should not knowingly propose offensive names (Ride et al., 1999), judgments on their inappropriateness are arguably subjective and culturally shift over time (Ceríaco et al., 2023; Chen‐Kraus et al., 2021; Poulin et al., 2022). Thus, nomenclatural stability is prioritized over ethical reasoning in taxonomy (Ceríaco et al., 2023).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact on species' online attention when named after celebrities

Blake,

Anderson,

Gleave

et al. 2023

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Celebrities can generate substantial attention, and influence public interest in species. Using a large‐scale examination of publicly available data, we assessed whether species across six taxonomic groups receive more attention on Wikipedia jj(according to their page views) when named after celebrities than when not. We conducted our analysis for four increasingly strict thresholds of how many average daily Wikipedia page views define a celebrity (1, 10, 100, and 1000). Overall, we found a high probability (0.96–0.98) that species named after celebrities had more page views than their closest relatives that are not named after celebrities, irrespective of the celebrity threshold. The multiplicative effect on species’ page views was larger but more uncertain with increasing celebrity page‐view thresholds, and ranged from 1.08 (1.00–1.18 95% credible interval [CI]) for a celebrity threshold of 1 view to 1.76 (0.96–2.80 95% CI) for a celebrity threshold of 1000. The hierarchical estimates for the various taxa tended to be positive; the strongest effects were for invertebrates, followed by amphibians, reptiles, fish, and mammals, whilst the weakest effect was for birds at lower page‐view thresholds defining a celebrity. Our results suggest that naming species after celebrities could be particularly significant for those belonging to taxonomic groups that are generally less popular than others (e.g., invertebrates). Overall, these findings provide a novel contribution to the conservation marketing literature. We discuss how celebrities, and their attributes, may influence the effectiveness of this marketing strategy. We also consider the potential social implications of using eponyms. Finally, we encourage taxonomists to examine whether naming threatened species after celebrities could affect conservation support, especially for species that are otherwise typically overlooked by the public.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact on species' online attention when named after celebrities

Blake,

Anderson,

Gleave

et al. 2023

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be clear however that, for some at least, status quo should continue to prevail. 36,37 In fact, the ICZN issued a formal statement that taxonomic nomenclature is above ethical and societal concerns 38 (but see Roksandic and colleagues 27,28 ). Based strictly on ethical grounds, the vast majority of the NS'23 workshop participants had serious issues with the name H. rhodesiensis.…”

Section: Should H Rhodesiensis Be Suppressed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving away from “the Muddle in the Middle” toward solving the Chibanian puzzle

Bae,

Aiello,

Hawks

et al. 2023

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sixty years ago, Sherwood Washburn 1 edited an influential volume entitled Classification and Human Evolution, which were the proceedings from the 1962 Wenner-Gren Symposium that was held in Burg Wartenstein (hereafter "BW'62") in Austria that focused on hominin systematics. One of the primary results from the BW'62 meeting was that the biological species concept (hereafter "BSC") became firmly entrenched in paleoanthropology as the structural framework for understanding hominin variation. The symposium results contributed toward the reduction in species names in human evolution, a trend that started in the late 1940s and became more prominent after 1950. 2 The effect of this paradigm shift resulted in an untenable assumption that a paleontologically defined hominin taxon represents a biological species (as defined by the BSC)-a problem that, to some extent, still exists in the field today. Unfortunately, this foundation has made it difficult to discuss the growing complexity in light of various evolutionary processes, particularly given how much the hominin fossil record has grown over the past 60 years. These questions and others were the focus of a recent Chibanian hominin systematics workshop (Meet the Chibanians: Late Middle and Early Late Pleistocene Hominin Systematics) that was held in Novi Sad, Serbia in May 2023 (hereafter "NS'23") that was funded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. NS'23 fell on the 60th anniversary of the BW'62 symposium that was formally published in 1963. 1 Importantly, NS'23 gathered 12 of the most active paleoanthropologists working on Chibanian hominin fossils, in addition to a paleogeneticist, a paleoproteomics specialist, and a paleoprimatologist to provide broader perspectives. The goals of the NS'23 meeting were to reassess the Chibanian hominin fossil record and move the field forward by identifying ongoing problems and suggesting steps to move toward solutions. Ultimately, we were interested in finding a way forward in hominin systematics that would allow us to move the field conceptually from the proverbial "Muddle in the Middle" toward a solvable "Chibanian puzzle."The Chibanian (ca. 774-129 ka) is increasingly recognized as an important geochronologic age (and chronostratigraphic stage) in which many major events affected our own evolutionary history.Among the topics that continue to receive substantial attention is what to make of the extent of morphological variation we observe among the Chibanian hominins discovered so far, and whether a single chronospecies can be used to effectively delimit a diverse range of specimens from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Between Homo

show abstract

“…In zoology, such an outlet for change currently remains closed. Ceríaco et al (2023) reiterated the ICZN's commitment to its core principles and to its not entertaining proposals to change names on ethical grounds. In sum, the world's zoological taxonomists have agreed to create and use scientific names as dictated by the Code (though this is still debated; Bae et al 2023;Harris & Xavier 2023).…”

Section: Going Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bird names as critical communication infrastructure in the contexts of history, language, and culture.

Winker¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardized taxonomies and lists of birds were created to improve communication. They are linguistic infrastructure―biodiversity indices and dictionaries―that have been painstakingly built and maintained and that have enhanced regional and global participation in the study and enjoyment of birds. Inclusion of people has been a core objective in creating and maintaining these standardized lists, and dissatisfaction and desires to overwrite objectionable names have been associated with them for nearly two centuries. Suggestions that bird names should be changed are continuous. Today, these suggestions include the view that some bird names must be changed to make them more accurate, inoffensive, and culturally appropriate to further increase diversity and inclusion among ornithologists and bird watchers. The latter, meritorious goal has been largely successful thus far despite many ongoing objections. Historic examples indicate that large-scale name changes, however, are not needed to accomplish major societal goals of inclusion. Some barriers to inclusion likely remain, and some changes are likely needed for English names. Often overlooked or underappreciated in name change discussions are that: 1) standardized names lists have had staggering success in fostering inclusion of diverse participants globally; 2) stability is vital in such systems, and destabilization is exclusionary; 3) dissatisfaction with such lists and the names they include has been ongoing since these naming systems began; 4) important flexibilities exist in conjunction with these communication systems that enhance local and regional communication (e.g., alternative names in English and other languages); and 5) cultural values, important as they are, are neither universally shared nor constant, and thus bring inherent divisiveness and instability when used as a central reason for change. Consideration of standardized lists of bird names as communication systems in the fuller context of history, language, and culture will improve our management of these systems and their continued utility in fostering inclusion. With standardized, stable, naming systems acting as a skeleton, proactively building outwards, both within and among languages and cultures, offers a positive and productive way to increase inclusion and to improve cultural and biodiversity conservation.

show abstract

Renaming taxa on ethical grounds threatens nomenclatural stability and scientific communication

Cited by 36 publications

References 17 publications

Impact on species' online attention when named after celebrities

Impact on species' online attention when named after celebrities

Moving away from “the Muddle in the Middle” toward solving the Chibanian puzzle

Bird names as critical communication infrastructure in the contexts of history, language, and culture.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About