Indigenous Species Names in Algae, Fungi and Plants: A Comment on Gillman & Wright (2020)

Abstract

A recent comment in the journal Communications Biology (Gillman & Wright, 2020) advocates re-examination of the principle of priority in species epithets to extend this to indigenous names for plants that pre-date the first valid publication in the scientific literature. While at first sight this might seem hugely disruptive and an idea to be dismissed out of hand, we think that a wider discussion of indigenous knowledge and contributions to the science of naming of algae, fungi and plants is important. As museums and herbaria re-examine themselves in the light of colonial history and the origins of their collections, biodiversity scientists who are involved in the classification and naming of species must also join the conversation. Any kind of name is a mechanism by which knowledge is transmitted, and the use of algae, fungi and plants by people far pre-dates the Linnaean naming system we use today. Gillman & Wright (2020) cite several examples of species epithets derived from names in indigenous languages, and others where an epithet incorporating a long-standing indigenous name for a species has been relegated to synonymy in light of priority (e.g., the endemic Aotearoa/New Zealand Podocarpaceae tree Matai, Prumnopitys taxifolia (D.Don) de Laub. and its synonym Dacrydium mai A.Cunn.). The authors suggest changes both to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (governing naming in zoology), but here we confine ourselves to discussing their ideas for changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. They suggest that indigenous names would replace the oldest names currently in use on the “basis of their chronological precedence, both in discovery and usage, as opposed to the priority afforded under existing nomenclatural rules”. Thus, a species with a long-standing indigenous name like the threatened timber tree Agathis australis (D.Don) Loudon, whose Māori name is Kauri, could be renamed “Agathis kauri” after appropriate submission of evidence. An important element of their proposals is that they imply active involvement of indigenous groups and appropriate investigation and careful thought before changes would be proposed – a consensus involving both scientists and indigenous peoples is posited. Two principal additions to the ideas they present are the need for types – another pillar of modern nomenclature – and the already existing system for conservation and rejection of names. First, conservation and rejection. There already exist mechanisms for the conservation or rejection of names to preserve nomenclatural stability. Proposals are made to the appropriate Committee under procedures laid out in Art. 14 and 56 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland & al., 2018). We see no reason why recognition of indigenous knowledge and contribution could not be included in the criteria for conserving or rejecting a name, and in fact, it could be a positive step to consider the replacement of species epithets where an overwhelming desire for such an action was to come from an indigenous people. The wide discussion and consensus across the indigenous community “covering the geographic area that included the whole distribution of the species under consideration” [italics ours] could mean that the idea would not cause as much disruption as it appears at first glance. It is no coincidence that the authors are from Aotearoa/New Zealand, where there are many endemics and where the use of indigenous names and languages in taxonomy has been previously highlighted and discussed in detail (Veale & al., 2019). The proposed mechanism could be orders of magnitude more difficult for species with wide distributions where many different peoples speaking different languages live. Gillman & Wright's (2020) suggestion that Diospyros virginiana L. could become “Diospyros pessamin” neglects to mention that the Powhatan name Pessamin is only one of the names in that language for that species, or that the persimmon has a much wider distribution than coastal Virginia extending west through Texas and through the lands of many peoples. In regions such as central Africa, New Guinea or the Amazon basin, where many different languages are spoken by indigenous communities, a single indigenous vernacular name may be difficult to find, except for very narrow endemics. This does not mean that considering such name changes should never be contemplated. The importance of a type specimen cannot be overestimated. To establish an indigenous name on the basis of temporal precedence would also necessitate the establishment of a type specimen in order that comparative study – the foundation of taxonomic science – could be undertaken by subsequent generations of biologists. Were an entirely new name to be proposed, it should, as with any such name, be validly published and accompanied by a type specimen as defined in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. All names for algae, fungi and plants must and should be underpinned by type specimens, physical pieces of evidence that can be critically examined by others. Names can also be seen as symbolic ownership; think of the many honorific epithets that take the form “of someone”. Often these honour a collector, but just as often not. This can lead to a whole flora being seen by local botanists as “belonging” to, as Gillman & Wright (2020) put it, “collectors, sponsors, colleagues or employers who were often distanced from the country in question”. This is often done out of habit as an easy option and is an emergent cumulative effect of an ingrained tradition. Such practices can be alienating for in-country scientists. Recommendations in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants are suggestions as to best practice in nomenclature and often steer a community to change practices. A new Recommendation to discourage the practice of what, for want of a better term, might be called “honorific naming” would go some way to opening up discussion of the future use of such epithets. Gillman & Wright (2020) also discuss species epithets that derive from pejorative names applied to groups of people, such as the epithet “caffra”, derived from a word for black Africans that has been considered extremely offensive since the mid-20th century and is now illegal to use in South Africa. A quick search of the International Plant Names Index (https://www.ipni.org/) reveals more than 120 species names with this epithet, Index Fungorum (http://www.indexfungorum.org/) lists 31, and Index Nominum Algarum (https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/INA.html) lists 9. Rejecting such names that are in common use would be a useful step in the de-colonisation of taxonomy more broadly. It could be achieved by the established processes, and perhaps encouraged with a new Recommendation about epithets with pejorative meaning in the next edition of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. It is important not to forget local people and local scientists who may or may not identify as indigenous. Local scientists are critical contributors to the understanding of biodiversity and how it is named; amplification of their voices and the voices of local communities they come from is another important way in which to acknowledge contribution and broaden the dialogue about the naming of biodiversity. It is no accident that one of the objectives of the International Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is “enhanced recognition of and work with indigenous and local knowledge systems” (https://ipbes.net/indigenous-local-knowledge). We feel that Gillman & Wright (2020) open an important topic for discussion in the nomenclatural community and more widely in the study of algae, fungi and plants. Affirmation and acknowledgement of indigenous and local peoples' contribution to nomenclature and to the knowledge of biodiversity will be an important step in the de-colonisation of science. Even though the changes they propose to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants need further thought and refinement, there is no time like the present to begin the conversation. As a community, we mustn't forget that 20 years ago, the thought of electronic publication of new names for algae, fungi and plants was thought totally unworkable. Look at us now.

Topics & Concepts