Governance of biological nomenclature: mechanisms to address the needs of end-users are available and not onerous to implement

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) recently felt ‘compelled’ (Ceríaco et al. 2023) to present their official position on ‘proposals to replace “culturally offensive and inappropriate names” […], to “permanently and retroactively eliminate epithets” containing perceived racial slurs […] or honouring colonial actors […]; or to replace established and accepted scientific names with new scientific names based on indigenous ones’. These proposals have been published and discussed in, broadly speaking, botany, palaeontology, and zoology. The ICZN’s official position is that these changes ‘threaten[s] nomenclatural stability and scientific communication’ and that ‘replacing accepted scientific names because of perceived offensiveness is not, and should not be, regulated by the Code [International Code of Zoological Nomenclature]’ (Ceríaco et al. 2023). The ICZN statement was made without attempting to address and resolve, based on mutually negotiated terms, the issues, as enumerated above, in zoological nomenclature. In botanical nomenclature, when a topic of concern for the users of the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (hereafter the botanical Code) and the names it regulates, requires consideration and, probably, discussion, the situation is clear. The botanical Code is governed by its users, who are represented by members of a Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Congress acting under the authority of that Congress and, between such Congresses, by the Permanent Nomenclature Committees and any Special-purpose Committees (Turland et al. 2018: Div. III, 1.1). Starting with Candolle’s Lois (1867), what is now the botanical Code, reflects a significant history of just over 155 years of increasingly refined Rules and Recommendations that govern the naming of organisms traditionally studied by botanists, mycologists, and phycologists (Turland et al. 2018: Preamble, footnote 1). Inevitably, over the years, various nomenclatural mechanisms have been developed and implemented to enable taxonomists to validly publish a name for a new taxon, or to determine which one of existing validly published names to apply to a specific taxon. In addition, the mechanisms available to parties interested in proposing amendments to the botanical Code have a section (‘Division III. Provisions for the governance of the Code’, see especially Prov. 2) at their disposal to guide the submission of such proposals, by publication, presently in Taxon. This governance section of the botanical Code was comprehensively overhauled shortly before the Nomenclature Session most recently took place in Shenzhen, China (Knapp et al. 2016a, b), inter alia following concerns expressed by Smith et al. (2010, 2011). To quote from Smith et al. (2010: 930): ‘Globally, in every single sphere of life and human endeavour, minority rule is not only frowned upon, it is rejected, often with contempt. There is no reason why, in the second decade of the 21st century, decision-making in plant nomenclature should be affected by a minority of institutions from countries with some of the world’s most depauperate floras’, a statement that we feel is equally applicable to zoological nomenclature. The ICZN currently lacks equitable demographic and geographic representation and cannot be viewed as reflecting the whole community of zoologists, much less global users of scientific zoological names. For instance, it does not include anyone from the African continent. The lack of representation extends to taxon-expertise with many zoological disciplines not represented in the ICZN (e.g., only one commissioner studies vertebrates, none is a palaeontologist). Therefore, it is perplexing that the ICZN felt compelled (but is not required) to provide an official position on potentially divisive and controversial matters such as those referred to above (see first paragraph). Further, the position of the ICZN does not appear to be the result of any consultation with the broader zoological community, nor of any voting. Regardless of the different sets of rules and modes of operation, the principles of both botanical and zoological Codes are similar, aiming at a ‘precise and simple system of nomenclature that is used in all countries’ (Turland et al. 2018: Preamble 1) and ‘universality in [the] scientific names’ (Ride et al. 1999). It is clear to us that the ICZN could operate the zoological Code in a more inclusive and democratic manner. Inclusiveness, and respect and understanding of other people’s needs, experiences, and concerns, should be considered in society at large, including in biological nomenclature. The ICZN justifies its position based on the argument that their aim is nomenclatural stability. However, it is clear that its position on this matter is not based on a concern for stability only. There is no threat to nomenclatural stability in names of new taxa, but the ICZN also refuses to address the possible creation of newly coined offensive names, recommending instead that names should follow the Code of Ethics which states that authors should not propose names that to their ‘[…] knowledge or reasonable belief, would be likely to give offence’. The knowledge or belief of the authors is as subjective and unverifiable as can be. In fact, we note that Ceríaco et al. (2023) refer to problematic names (including racial slurs) as ‘perceived offensiveness’, which may imply that actual offences are just perceptions of the people they are aimed at and, therefore, not real. If some people do not perceive those words as offensive this does not make the words less offensive to those against whom they are aimed. It appears that when coining new names, authors can breach the Code of Ethics without any consequence because the ICZN ‘[…] is not empowered to investigate or rule […]’ on such breaches. This stance is one of potential antagonism to the changes that are needed to align biological nomenclature with the values, ethics, and morals of a multicultural society [see also Bae et al. (2023), this issue]. We do not see biological nomenclature as an immutable system that cannot be changed and improved. Nomenclature is a means of communication that must evolve in line with changing times. We believe it is possible to implement changes in nomenclature by creating the appropriate mechanisms within the Code without disrupting the system and creating taxonomic chaos. Such changes can be made by refining existing, or by establishing appropriate, newly formulated mechanisms in the various Codes, and by having equitable demographic, gender identity, geographic, and taxon-expertise representation in governing and implementation bodies. However, no change will be achieved if a governing body is not receptive to the discussion of new ideas and does not consider associated proposals. Prof. Anjali Goswami, President of the Linnean Society of London, invited the first author to submit a paper on the matters addressed here to the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. The first author extended the invitation to the co-authors. Four reviewers are acknowledged for their extensive comments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.