[Taxacom] indigenous names and priority

[John Grehan]

Anyone interested in the following article can get a copy from me or from
the first author (at ricardop at tepapa.govt.nz)

Palma, R.L. & Heath, A. C.G. 2021. Science versus vernacular: should some
taxa of animals and plants be renamed according to ‘indigenous’ practices?
Bionomia 22: 1-7.

Abstract
A recent publication recommended that so-called ‘indigenous’ names should
be given priority over conventional binominals when assigning nomina to
taxa. Explicit political and sociological reasons were given why such a
practice should be considered. Apart from the fact that taxonomy should
not be used as an agent for cultural change, a system that has been in
unquestioned use for over 250 years has clearly unambiguity, utility,
precision and standardisation in its favour, and is also supported and
defined by carefully considered rules. In this rebuttal, reasons are given
for the value and continuance of the current nomenclatural system and it is
argued that the concept of indigeneity as applied to humans is not only
questionable, but imprecise. Difficulties with deciding priority within a
melange of languages and dialects overlain by diasporic movements, as well
as the narrow range of available terms for biota in native languages, adds
to the inutility of the system that is being argued against here, and which
we reject utterly.