You make an excellent points. It is difficult to counter your logic regarding public structures that in some respects ought to evolve like common language. Yet, something about efforts to demote historic figures, like the removal of a window honoring geneticist Ronald Fisher at Cambridge because of his views on eugenics, remind me of the destruction of archaeological sites in the Middle East for extreme religious views. I can't help but think that both the good and bad from history have valuable lessons to teach us and I'm not sure that denial or diminishment of the bits we dislike is an entirely good thing. While there is room for debate on this point, the Code seems a clear place to draw the line.
Thanks for your comments. Although some scholars, such as Coe, interpret Jefferson's words, "all men are created equal," to be a reference to the colonists as a whole rather than to individuals, I remain skeptical and, in any event, in post-Revolutionary America those words did come to be so interpreted, giving voice to the principle of individual equality that, if believed and adhered to, led only to one place: the eventual rejection of slavery. I agree with you that every compromise prior to the Civil War that permitted the continuation of slavery was morally reprehensible as that institution is simply indefensible under any circumstance I can imagine. Nonetheless, it is important to temper our view and criticism of decisions and stands, taken at an earlier time, recognizing that we have the advantage of hindsight. I'm no historian, and claim no specially enlightened insights, but my sense of fair play that tells me that it is unfair to impose contemporary norms on those living in a different time. This does not excuse support for slavery, by any one at any time, that is an absolute evil. But it may help us better understand decisions made in a different era. Aspects of contemporary society, mistakes that we are making, including cancel culture, will likely be seen as absurd and wrongheaded with the passage of time and difficult to understand or defend in a more rational milieu.
Your position, that we avoid creating new names that are actually or potentially offensive, is sage advice—within limits. There are intuitively obvious lines that ought not be crossed when formulating new names. But there are also no bounds to the names that might, today or at a later time, be seen as offensive to someone. I remain convinced that looking historical facts square in the eye is the best way to deal with names from the past. There is much that can be learned by exploring why certain names from the past offend, and we are ultimately better served by learning those lessons rather than removing names we dislike from the taxonomic lexicon and risking never learning them.
"Gary Nelson once commented that honest men must exist, but that he had never actually seen one. The same may be said of perfect people. If they’re out there, I have yet to meet one."
Don't be ridiculous, Quentin! You have met me!
Seriously, though -- thank you for an excellent summary of this nuanced issue. There's not much more I could add beyond what you and commenter @Halooie1 wrote. I don't see this issue in stark terms of right or wrong, but as with almost everything else, it is a cost/benefit analysis. I do not dispute that humanity could benefit in some way from the purging of offensive scientific names (by whatever metric they are determined to be so). But at what cost? The system of scientific nomenclature is probably the most universally adopted, longest-standing standard in all of science. It serves an extremely practical function, and its value stems directly from the principle of stability of the names. In the case of animal names, that stability has existed (and continues to exist) because the crafters of the ICZN Code go to enormous lengths to implement rules that are as objective as possible. The idea that a set of rules could be structured to objectively define some threshold of offensiveness beyond which a name should be purged is absurd (for all the reasons you mention, and more). Anyone who understands the system of scientific nomenclature appreciates the potentially large costs of implementing such a rule. Moreover, as you note, the "benefit" side of the equation is further diminished by the fact that such names are never "purged" because they live on into perpetuity via synonymy.
As someone who leans politically pretty far "left" myself, I am absolutely sympathetic to the intentions behind calls for purging (truly) offensive scientific names. But as someone who appreciates the value to humanity of the stability of scientific nomenclature, I want to remain in a world where Agathidium bushi, Tosanoides obama, and Neopalpa donaldtrumpi all remain as valid scientific names, regardless of who might be offended by them.
This is pretty mealy-mouthed and I'm not certain who you think you're going to convince. I actually share your position, but your arguments leave me feeling a little weird and maybe even less sure about my stance than I was to begin with. Your reference to Jefferson, for example, is unconvincing on multiple fronts: I don't have judge Jefferson by modern standards in order to condemn him because there were plenty of people who condemned slavery during and even before his own time, and his words did not set the nation on the path to abolition — if anything, Jefferson directly contributed to the perpetuation of slavery, and it is ahistorical to think that abolition depended on him in some vital way.
I much prefer your arguments that are rooted in practical concerns, like the inability to properly document species in the long term if we change up the names on a regular basis. The best that we can do is avoid generating names that are currently offensive, because regular revision defeats the very purpose of scientific nomenclature.
Thanks for this cogent critique of recent efforts by some throw animal taxonomy into confusion for the sake of...what exactly? They say it’s to make science "more inclusive." Until someone can produce an individual from an historically marginalized group who says they declined to pursue a career in organismal biology after learning some species are named for racists I will remain skeptical that such people exist. Has the beetle named for Hitler dissuaded individuals of Jewish ancestry from pursuing careers in entomology?
In my group of interest (mormyrid fishes) there are no species named for Hitler, but there is one named for King Leopold of Belgium who some say was worse than Hitler, based on the body count attributed to him. I agree with your point that we don't need to see these names as honorifics, even if that's how the author(s) of the species intended it. These names have things to teach us about the era in which they were minted. One can't understand the sorry state of affairs in the D.R. Congo today without knowing the history of Leopold, someone who has no defenders today to my knowledge. As you say, it can be salutary to reflect how far we've come ethically and morally in a century. This is a thought that will occur to no one if we erase all reminders of history. I know and work with several Congolese ichthyologists. If they were asked to describe the many challenges encountered while pursuing their studies and careers, I don’t think the fish named for Leopold would be enumerated among them.
I see renaming public places like roads and schools quite differently. These are named by the community to honor individuals and so when community values evolve they can and in some case should rescind these honors. Organismal species epithets do not represent the collective value judgment of any community, only the decision of one or a small number of people in the original species description. It is a complete misunderstanding to see eponymous epithets as some kind of endorsement or celebration of those named by the community-at-large.
I see some on Twitter calling for not just doing away with all eponymous names, but also with descriptive names that could cause offense. An example given of one such offensive adjectival name is “niger,” the Latin word for dark. It’s hard for me not to despair that people have really lost their minds when I see such things. But it gives you some sense what would happen were the ICZN to open this Pandora’s Box. Thank goodness that for now at least they have sense to keep it shut.
You make an excellent points. It is difficult to counter your logic regarding public structures that in some respects ought to evolve like common language. Yet, something about efforts to demote historic figures, like the removal of a window honoring geneticist Ronald Fisher at Cambridge because of his views on eugenics, remind me of the destruction of archaeological sites in the Middle East for extreme religious views. I can't help but think that both the good and bad from history have valuable lessons to teach us and I'm not sure that denial or diminishment of the bits we dislike is an entirely good thing. While there is room for debate on this point, the Code seems a clear place to draw the line.
Thanks for your comments. Although some scholars, such as Coe, interpret Jefferson's words, "all men are created equal," to be a reference to the colonists as a whole rather than to individuals, I remain skeptical and, in any event, in post-Revolutionary America those words did come to be so interpreted, giving voice to the principle of individual equality that, if believed and adhered to, led only to one place: the eventual rejection of slavery. I agree with you that every compromise prior to the Civil War that permitted the continuation of slavery was morally reprehensible as that institution is simply indefensible under any circumstance I can imagine. Nonetheless, it is important to temper our view and criticism of decisions and stands, taken at an earlier time, recognizing that we have the advantage of hindsight. I'm no historian, and claim no specially enlightened insights, but my sense of fair play that tells me that it is unfair to impose contemporary norms on those living in a different time. This does not excuse support for slavery, by any one at any time, that is an absolute evil. But it may help us better understand decisions made in a different era. Aspects of contemporary society, mistakes that we are making, including cancel culture, will likely be seen as absurd and wrongheaded with the passage of time and difficult to understand or defend in a more rational milieu.
Your position, that we avoid creating new names that are actually or potentially offensive, is sage advice—within limits. There are intuitively obvious lines that ought not be crossed when formulating new names. But there are also no bounds to the names that might, today or at a later time, be seen as offensive to someone. I remain convinced that looking historical facts square in the eye is the best way to deal with names from the past. There is much that can be learned by exploring why certain names from the past offend, and we are ultimately better served by learning those lessons rather than removing names we dislike from the taxonomic lexicon and risking never learning them.
"Gary Nelson once commented that honest men must exist, but that he had never actually seen one. The same may be said of perfect people. If they’re out there, I have yet to meet one."
Don't be ridiculous, Quentin! You have met me!
Seriously, though -- thank you for an excellent summary of this nuanced issue. There's not much more I could add beyond what you and commenter @Halooie1 wrote. I don't see this issue in stark terms of right or wrong, but as with almost everything else, it is a cost/benefit analysis. I do not dispute that humanity could benefit in some way from the purging of offensive scientific names (by whatever metric they are determined to be so). But at what cost? The system of scientific nomenclature is probably the most universally adopted, longest-standing standard in all of science. It serves an extremely practical function, and its value stems directly from the principle of stability of the names. In the case of animal names, that stability has existed (and continues to exist) because the crafters of the ICZN Code go to enormous lengths to implement rules that are as objective as possible. The idea that a set of rules could be structured to objectively define some threshold of offensiveness beyond which a name should be purged is absurd (for all the reasons you mention, and more). Anyone who understands the system of scientific nomenclature appreciates the potentially large costs of implementing such a rule. Moreover, as you note, the "benefit" side of the equation is further diminished by the fact that such names are never "purged" because they live on into perpetuity via synonymy.
As someone who leans politically pretty far "left" myself, I am absolutely sympathetic to the intentions behind calls for purging (truly) offensive scientific names. But as someone who appreciates the value to humanity of the stability of scientific nomenclature, I want to remain in a world where Agathidium bushi, Tosanoides obama, and Neopalpa donaldtrumpi all remain as valid scientific names, regardless of who might be offended by them.
This is pretty mealy-mouthed and I'm not certain who you think you're going to convince. I actually share your position, but your arguments leave me feeling a little weird and maybe even less sure about my stance than I was to begin with. Your reference to Jefferson, for example, is unconvincing on multiple fronts: I don't have judge Jefferson by modern standards in order to condemn him because there were plenty of people who condemned slavery during and even before his own time, and his words did not set the nation on the path to abolition — if anything, Jefferson directly contributed to the perpetuation of slavery, and it is ahistorical to think that abolition depended on him in some vital way.
I much prefer your arguments that are rooted in practical concerns, like the inability to properly document species in the long term if we change up the names on a regular basis. The best that we can do is avoid generating names that are currently offensive, because regular revision defeats the very purpose of scientific nomenclature.
Thanks for this cogent critique of recent efforts by some throw animal taxonomy into confusion for the sake of...what exactly? They say it’s to make science "more inclusive." Until someone can produce an individual from an historically marginalized group who says they declined to pursue a career in organismal biology after learning some species are named for racists I will remain skeptical that such people exist. Has the beetle named for Hitler dissuaded individuals of Jewish ancestry from pursuing careers in entomology?
In my group of interest (mormyrid fishes) there are no species named for Hitler, but there is one named for King Leopold of Belgium who some say was worse than Hitler, based on the body count attributed to him. I agree with your point that we don't need to see these names as honorifics, even if that's how the author(s) of the species intended it. These names have things to teach us about the era in which they were minted. One can't understand the sorry state of affairs in the D.R. Congo today without knowing the history of Leopold, someone who has no defenders today to my knowledge. As you say, it can be salutary to reflect how far we've come ethically and morally in a century. This is a thought that will occur to no one if we erase all reminders of history. I know and work with several Congolese ichthyologists. If they were asked to describe the many challenges encountered while pursuing their studies and careers, I don’t think the fish named for Leopold would be enumerated among them.
I see renaming public places like roads and schools quite differently. These are named by the community to honor individuals and so when community values evolve they can and in some case should rescind these honors. Organismal species epithets do not represent the collective value judgment of any community, only the decision of one or a small number of people in the original species description. It is a complete misunderstanding to see eponymous epithets as some kind of endorsement or celebration of those named by the community-at-large.
I see some on Twitter calling for not just doing away with all eponymous names, but also with descriptive names that could cause offense. An example given of one such offensive adjectival name is “niger,” the Latin word for dark. It’s hard for me not to despair that people have really lost their minds when I see such things. But it gives you some sense what would happen were the ICZN to open this Pandora’s Box. Thank goodness that for now at least they have sense to keep it shut.