Placing taxonomic nomenclatural stability above ethical concerns ignores societal norms

In a recent editorial published in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the ICZN states clearly that they will not consider renaming taxa based on ethical grounds (Ceríaco et al. 2023). Despite this, a growing number of researchers and end users believe there are enough grounds and support to review the ICZN guidelines regarding the continued use of certain names for biological, including zoological, organisms. We renew the calls for the creation of an ethics committee that can review such examples on a case-by-case basis. The biological sciences are inextricably a part of society. As such, it is important to understand that biology, including the associated field of zoological nomenclature, where scientific names are attached to animals, should not operate in a vacuum completely independent of societal norms. We believe the recently published editorial, entitled ‘Renaming taxa on ethical grounds threatens nomenclatural stability and scientific communication’, misses this point. As a growing number of biologists [e.g. botany (Hammer and Thiele 2021; Smith & Figueiredo 2021, 2022, Smith et al. 2022); primatology (Chen-Kraus et al. 2021); palaeoanthropology (Roksandic et al. 2022a, b); and more general biological sciences (Guedes et al. 2023, Roksandic et al. 2023)] have pointed out, there are multiple nomenclatural conventions that should be reconsidered. For example, we believe that certain taxa named after people such as Adolf Hitler (Anophthalmus hitleri Scheibel, 1937 and Rochlingia hitleri Guthörl, 1934; the latter name also honouring Hermann Röchling), Cecil Rhodes (Homo rhodesiensis Woodward, 1921) and George Hibbert (Hibbertia Andrews, 1800 and Erica hibbertia Andrews, 1804) are problematic. As such, we think there should be a mechanism in the zoological Code (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) to allow for replacement names for biological species that have been named after tyrants, dictators, colonialists and slave traders. Ceríaco et al. (2023) acknowledge that the zoological Code has a Code of Ethics, but that it ‘is not part of the Code’s legislative text’. In other words, the ICZN is not obligated to abide by any ethical complaints. Although Ceríaco et al. (2023) ‘…emphasize the importance of taxonomists being aware of and following the Code of Ethics’, this position suggests that taxonomists can knowingly name species after problematical people or places named for them, using the argument that they are not ‘bound’ by the Code of Ethics. From our perspective, this is an indication that the ICZN is operating in a vacuum outside of social norms of accountability. The biological sciences in their broadest definition, like most things in life, need to evolve (pun intended) with the changes, including those in society, or run the risk of going extinct. As Smith et al. (2022) justifiably note: ‘[t]he alternative, to do nothing … is no longer acceptable to society at large’. We concur with other researchers (e.g. Hammer and Thiele 2021) who support the creation of an ICZN ethics committee to review potentially problematic names on a case-by-case basis. Of course, we are not advocating the replacement of names for every taxon commemorating a person or place. An example of how biological sciences and the associated sphere of scientific nomenclature can correct themselves in a structured way is the proposal of Smith and Figueiredo (2021) to amend the botanical Code by permanently and retroactively eliminating offensive epithets with the root caf[e]r- or caff[e]r- from the nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants. Smith et al. (2022: 934) justifiably observed earlier: ‘[botanical] nomenclature is regulated by the Code and not by traditions, and improvements in scientific nomenclature should not be obstructed solely to maintain tradition’. Further comments on how the botanical Code and its governance may inform zoological practices appear in another editorial in this issue (Figueiredo et al. 2023). Our editorial provides the perspective that the biological sciences should not operate outside of societal norms. We find the ICZN’s position on renaming taxa on ethical grounds to be out of step with modern society. Furthermore, in scientific nomenclature there should not be pre-emptive efforts to suppress debate on this and similar matters that are of broad concern in a global society increasingly sensitive to past practices that can no longer be countenanced. Unfortunately, one could interpret the editorial by Ceríaco et al. (2023) in this way. It is important to understand that if there is justification to support taxonomic change, it is imperative for all researchers across the biological sciences to self-reflect and decide for themselves whether we need to revisit and rethink nomenclatural practices. Even if not formally suppressed, existing mechanisms should be used, or new ones developed, to remove problematic scientific names from lists of names in current and future use. This is why we need the ICZN not to protect the status quo, but to allow for organized and meaningful change to be implemented after reasonable scientific discussion. The Code is not immutable dogma, but a series of guidelines that need to change and evolve with the sciences to which it is relevant and the society in which it is practised. We appreciate the comments from two reviewers, including Thomas Pape, and the Editor, Jeffrey Streicher.

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.