From the University of Oxford’s Department of Biology, a new opportunity for ostentatious fretting:

The reality is that the use of eponyms in the naming of species poses a wider, more problematic nature. Traditionally, eponyms typically reflect benefactors, academics and officials affiliated with the individual who discovered a species – which is a practice that continues today. With science of the 19th and 20th century largely dominated by white men from colonising European nations, this meant many of those honoured are strongly associated with the negative legacy of imperialism, racism, and slavery.

A suitably concerned survey of the scientific names of African vertebrates revealed – presumably, to gasps and much rending of garments – that,

1,565 species of bird, reptiles, amphibians and mammals – around 24% of their sample – were eponyms, notably of white, male Europeans from the 19th and 20th centuries.

The rewards, I would guess, of doing the actual leg work, and of funding said leg work, resulting in, well, knowledge.

However, all this whiteness and maleness is, for some, terribly troubling. Among them, Associate Professor of Conservation Science, Ricardo Rocha:

Arguments against reforming biological nomenclature do not stand up to scrutiny.

Actually, and while I can claim no expertise, I’d guess that rewriting the entire scientific literature, in any number of countries, to alter thousands of obscure Latin names, which very few people know or remotely care about, in order to accommodate modern political fashion – which is what this is – might be rather impractical, somewhat confusing, and perhaps not the best use of limited resources.

Undeterred, our associate professor continues his tearful trajectory:

The naming of species to celebrate and honour people was too often used as a political act and given the demographic of scientists of the 19-20th Centuries, those commemorated were almost universally white, upper-class, male Europeans.

Well, er, yes. Again, leg work.

After a brief acknowledgement that eponyms are also used to raise funds for good causes, including research and conservation efforts, Dr Rocha returns to his main theme – the white devilry of yesteryear, and the delicacy of those who supposedly bear the brunt of the “numerous negative consequences” of obscure Latin names that almost no-one knows about:

For instance, how can we still justify subjecting people from former colonies to constant reminders of imperial and/or political regimes reflected in the names of their native and endemic species?

I don’t wish to be difficult, but, frankly, I’m struggling to believe that the average person in, say, Zimbabwe or Botswana is being left trembling and distraught by the Latin textbook name of a lizard or beetle. But hey, for those moved to tears, tissues are available at the bar.

Regarding the rumblings of colonialism and inclusivity, the somewhat less sensitive biologist, Professor Jerry Coyne, adds,

I have yet to find a single person who left the field, or refused to enter it, because species were named after people, odious or otherwise.

Professor Coyne’s post is, I think, worth reading in full.

Update, via the comments:

In an attempt to sway readers, the University press release wheels out what are presumably considered the Big Guns:

Another striking example of the dangers of overtly politicising biological names is Anophthalmus hitleri, a cave beetle named after Adolf Hitler in 1933 that is currently threatened due to high demand from collectors of Nazi memorabilia. Due to codes around renaming species, whereby the first name given to a species is deemed its correct one, known as the “Principle of Priority,” proposals to rename this species were rejected.

This, I’d venture, is where the performative tutting is supposed to go.

Thing is, and as Professor Coyne notes in his post, I’m pretty sure one can raise an eyebrow at this retrospectively suboptimal choice without falling to pieces or feeling in any way oppressed. And one can likewise resist any urge to erase it from history without being a devotee of Sturmabteilung or racial annihilation. To pretend that neither is possible is itself “overtly politicising,” and contrived, one might say sly. As is the conceit that would-be botanists and biologists are in some way being injured by the existence of Latin taxonomy, or by the fact that much of the “flora of New Caledonia” is “named after a man.”

Via Tom Joyce.




Subscribestar
Share: