Taxacom: botanical names with racist history

[Stephen Thorpe]

 It seems very odd indeed that a word would be illegal to use, per se. Maybe it is illegal to use *as an insult*, for fear of sparking racial violence. I suspect that it isn't illegal in South Africa for a botanist to use the word as part of an existing taxonomic name. I think we need to be very clear on what exactly is or isn't illegal and whether it has any real bearing on taxonomic names. I suspect that some people are making a very big deal out of nothing!
Stephen
    On Thursday, 25 July 2024 at 08:12:43 pm NZST, Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:  
 
 Let’s not get confused. What ‘botanical’ nomenclature governs
is what particular name is to be used for a taxon with a particular
circumscription, position, and rank. Also its correct spelling.
‘Botanical’ nomenclature does not govern the ‘meaning’ of a name.

The question “What does this name mean?” should be understood
as “What is the trick to remembering this name?”. If a name has an
epithet /grandifolia/, this should not be taken to mean that the plant
to which it applies has big flowers, in an absolute sense. In fact,
if the plant is moved to another genus, such an epithet can become
quite inappropriate (this was the rationale for the ‘Kew Rule’).

In the case of names with epithets /caffra/, etc, the question “What
is the trick to remembering this name?” immediately involves a
word that in today's world carries such negative connotations that
a country has made it illegal to use. It should be at least understandable
that the Congress has decided to take this issue seriously and to act.

Paul

On 24/07/2024 21:17, alberto ballerio wrote:

    The circumstance that you found my comment "unduly arsh" means that
    I hit the target.

    Maybe kaffir has acquired an offensive nuance in some restricted
    geographical/cultural areas, this does not justify to ask the whole
    world to change an international name. Similarly there are several
    geographical names which are somewhat banned in some countries, so,
    by following the botanists' reasoning, we should seriously think to
    suppress the scientific names of plants which refer to those toponyms. 

    I find a little bit weird that the Congress "did not care about fine
    points of etymology": if an action dealing with the meaning of names
    taken by the body in charge of nomenclature  does not involve some
    research on the etymology, this means to be really careless.  The
    final result is, as we can see, a little bit comical. And they fully
    deserved this paradoxical exitus. 

    The decision is of course on a single case but it's an open
    invitation to other similar appplications driven by ideologies,
    political views and other such things, that in the long run will
    unermine the credibility of the scientific community.

    Sincerely,

    Alberto



_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years, 1987-2024.