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

Abstract

, , and some other authors recently discussed and proposed dramatic changes to the International Code of Nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) aimed at the provisions allowing rejection and replacement of valid and legitimate names that reflect the "colonial and imperialist power" or may be considered, at least by some experts and users, as "culturally offensive or inappropriate" because of several broadly and vaguely formulated reasons, such as names considered to be "derogatory or insulting to a person or group of people", those honoring "a person that the taxonomic community agrees should not be honoured", and even any name that "otherwise causes deep offense". These proposals and their possible outcomes were analyzed and criticized in my article (Mosyakin, 2022), which was, in turn, criticized in a recent article by . In the present note I respond to that criticism, discuss additional cases of possible "culturally offensive or inappropriate" names, and provide additional evidence of possible (and, in my opinion, highly probable) confrontational and disruptive outcomes in case if the proposals to reject "culturally offensive or inappropriate" names are accepted and incorporated into the ICN. I appeal to the international community of taxonomists to reject such proposals, to protect the fundamental Preamble 1 and Art. 51 of the ICN, to protect the scientific freedom and principles of nomenclatural stability and political neutrality, and to protect our science from politically motivated decisions. The Pandora's Box of anticipated fights for or against "culturally offensive and inappropriate names" should remain firmly closed. Scientists in general and plant taxonomists in our case should firmly stand for the common values of scientific freedom, mutual understanding and respect, tolerance, reconciliation, a bold, open-minded and honest view of history (including history of taxonomy), and, specifically, the principle of neutrality of biological nomenclature well expressed in Art. 51 of the ICN. Essentially the same provisions in earlier versions of the Code or other earlier rules of botanical nomenclature served well the generations of taxonomists and users of taxonomic information, preventing unnecessary conflicts between people and peoples over names of organisms, which someone sometime somehow may or may not consider "culturally offensive or inappropriate". Preamble 1 and Art. 51 of the ICN are crucial tools for maintaining nomenclatural stability, civility, and tolerance in our diverse, complicated and, unfortunately, not so peaceful present-day world, and especially in our science of biological taxonomy reflecting the amazing diversity of the living world of our planet.

Taxonomists have an opportunity to rid botanical nomenclature of inappropriate honorifics in a structured and defensible way

“…The best we can find is his statement that “scientific nomenclature should be politically neutral, free from political or social biases, and tolerant, as, […], clearly follows [our emphasis] from Preamble 1 and Art. 51 of the ICN” (Mosyakin, 2022b). As with Art.…”

“…The bulk of Mosyakin (2022a,b) concerns the “slippery slope” argument, which was anticipated and dealt with in Hammer & Thiele (2021). In brief, Mosyakin's contention is that if we were to include a provision in the Code and create a mechanism that would allow the rejection, following careful assessment and consideration, of names such as Hibbertia (commemorating George Hibbert, a prominent and wealthy slave trader and key opponent in the English Parliament of Abolition) or epithets that honour Cecil Rhodes (see Smith & Figueiredo, 2022 for arguments and reasoning), then we must inevitably also reject names such as Banksia , Victoria , Darwinia , Linnaea , Aristotelia and a host of others, on the grounds that Joseph Banks, Queen Victoria, Darwin, Linnaeus, Aristotle, and many others also held some views that we disagree with today.…”

“…Mosyakin also asserts that, for our proposals to be properly considered, we need to provide “precise and explicit criteria” by which cases can be judged, and that such criteria are “needed in [his emphasis] the Code ” (Mosyakin, 2022b). A single example will suffice to invalidate this criticism.…”

“…The preceding commentary by Sergei Mosyakin (2022b) is the latest in a discussion in the pages of Taxon concerning proposals made by us (Hammer & Thiele, 2021; Smith & Figueiredo, 2021) to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (the Code ) (Turland & al., 2018). Our proposals would allow, in certain highly prescribed circumstances, the rejection of scientific names that commemorate historical individuals who committed egregious crimes against humanity (Smith & Figueiredo, 2022; Smith & al., 2022).…”

“…(2022), where we believe we dealt with them adequately and in detail. Nevertheless, it remains necessary to address Mosyakin's key concerns and persisting misrepresentations in the above commentary, which are summarised in the following quote (Mosyakin, 2022b):

“[We must] protect the fundamental Preamble 1 and Art. 51 of the ICN , protect scientific freedom and the principles of nomenclatural stability and political neutrality, and protect our science from any vaguely shaped but politically motivated decisions.

…”