(126) Proposal to add a new Article 61.6 to permanently and retroactively eliminate epithets with the root <i>caf[e]r‐</i> or <i>caff[e]r‐</i> from the nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants

Abstract

Article 51.1 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) states that a legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable. However, at present there are epithets used in validly published names, mostly dating from the 18th and 19th centuries, that are highly offensive because a derivative of them is a racial slur that goes well beyond being merely “inappropriate or disagreeable” (see, e.g., Knapp & al. in Taxon 69: 1409. 2020). We propose that the continued use of these epithets in the nomenclature of organisms covered by the Code must be eliminated permanently and retroactively. The epithets in question have the root caf[f][e]r- and derive from an Arabic word meaning “infidel” that was used in the toponym of a region in southern Africa and for its inhabitants. Although, when initially published, the epithets may not have been intended to offend, in present-day society they have taken on a decidedly negative connotation because the noun from which they derive is a racial slur in languages such as English, Afrikaans, Spanish and Portuguese. Aversion to using these epithets arguably applies more to plant scientists and other users of scientific plant names from Africa or of African heritage, but increasingly also to a larger user community. The same term exists in several vernacular names, for example for a species of lime, Citrus hystrix DC., and for Erythrina caffra Thunb. In widely used lists of common names these and other such insulting names have been replaced by alternative names such as Makrut lime and Cape coraltree, respectively. Therefore, because presently the epithets derived from the Arabic word meaning “infidel” are highly offensive, they are to be eliminated from use in the nomenclature of organisms covered by the Code. These epithets are cafer / caffer, cafferiana, cafra / caffra, caffraria, caffrorum and caffrum. Eradicating them can be easiest achieved by treating them as orthographical variants that are to be corrected by removing the letter c and the second f, if applicable, i.e. by changing them to, respectively, afer, aferiana, afra, afraria, afrorum and afrum, with retention of author and place of publication. Epithets such as afra and afrum are already in use in scientific plant names, for example in Portulacaria afra Jacq., the well-known spekboom, and refer to the material described as having the continent of Africa as geographical origin. Where such an action will create a later homonym, the correct name is determined by Art. 11.4. The removal of the letter c from the offensive epithets has been mooted before, for example by Dendrophilus (in Dendron 31: 61. 1993), albeit not through a proposal to amend the Code. As far as could be determined, the aforementioned epithets occur in 218 validly published names of vascular plants and bryophytes (see suppl. Appendix S1), while 13 names of algae (see AlgaeBase, https://www.algaebase.org/) and 70 names of fungi (see MycoBank, https://www.mycobank.org/) are similarly affected. For vascular plants and bryophytes, 56 of these names are accepted and in use, 155 are synonyms and 7 are unplaced. A change in the epithets, as proposed here, creates four cases of homonymy. Two of these cases refer to synonyms, one refers to an unplaced name and only one affects an accepted name. The latter is Plantago cafra Decne. (1852), which would become an illegitimate later homonym when changed to P. afra, because of the pre-existence of P. afra L. (1762) (see Example 4, below). It is time for the nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants to get to grips with what has been perceived, at least by some, as its colonial past and deliberately, completely and irreversibly eliminate the use of such offending epithets from scientific plant names. “61.6. Epithets with the root caf[f][e]r-, such as cafra, caffra, cafrorum, and cafrum, are not permitted in the nomenclature of organisms covered by this Code. Where these epithets were used in validly published names, they are to be treated as orthographical variants that are to be replaced by epithets with the root af[e]r-, such as afra, afrorum, and afrum, respectively. If this results in a later homonym, the correct name is determined by Art. 11.4.” “Ex. 4. When the epithet ‘cafra’ in Plantago ‘cafra’ Decne. (in Candolle, Prodr. 13(1): 719. 1852) is replaced by afra, P. afra Decne. (l.c.), i.e. with retention of author attribution and date and place of publication, is a later homonym of P. afra L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 168. 1762) and therefore illegitimate. Under Art. 11.4 the name that has to be adopted is P. capillaris E. Mey. ex Decne. (in Candolle, Prodr. 13(1): 719. 1852), which is widely treated as a heterotypic synonym of P. cafra.” “Ex. 5. Portulaca ‘caffra’ Thunb. (Prodr. Pl. Cap.: [85]. 1800) is to be treated as having been published as P. afra Thunb. (l.c.), i.e. with retention of author attribution and date and place of publication. When treated as a species of Talinum Adans., the name is T. afrum [with one f] (Thunb.) Eckl. & Zeyh. (Enum. Pl. Afric. Austral.: 282. 1836).” Nicholas J. Turland, Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, and John H. Wiersema, Department of Botany, Smithsonian Institution, are thanked for helpful comments. Appendix S1. Validly published names and isonyms of vascular plants, extracted from IPNI and POWO, and bryophytes that have the root “caf[f][e]r-”. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Topics & Concepts