New Tropibio paper published
News
Tropibio team members (Patrícia Guedes, Fernanda Alves-Martins, Javier Martínez Arribas, Ricardo Rocha & Richard J. Ladle) together with researchers from Africa, the Middle East and Europe published a new paper entitled Eponyms have no place in 21st-century biological nomenclature at Nature Ecology and Evolution journal.
They argue that the practice of naming species after individuals, known as eponyms, is perpetuating the negative legacies of imperialism, racism, and sexism. One of the article’s authors, Professor Richard Ladle (Porto University), says "Naming a species after a person is always a political act, even if you are naming it after a family member. Enshrining the history of colonialism in the names of species is bad for taxonomy and for nature, as it devalues the important work of trying to protect biodiversity. When people do not culturally identify with nature it becomes far harder to mobilize support to protect it.” There is already a common perception in many post-colonial nations that ecology and biodiversity conservation are western constructs, shaped by and for Europeans, that privileges Western perspectives over others. Eponyms honouring colonial figures do nothing to reduce this perception. Lead author, Patrícia Guedes (Porto University), adds "Over 25% of endemic vertebrate species in Africa are eponyms, which can serve as a reminder of colonialism and exploitation of natural resources. Moving forward, we should reassess how we name species in order to promote a more culturally sensitive and inclusive representation of biodiversity, supporting a more equitable and respectful approach.”
Dealing with the problem of eponyms will not be simple, since there are huge technical, administrative and cultural barriers to changing a large number of species names. Indeed, many taxonomists passionately defend the practice if naming species after people, with some arguing that it is not the role of science to engage in politically motivated censorship or the "cleansing" of scientific history, and that name stability should be a paramount concern in taxonomy. However, the researchers contend that their proposal does not seek to alter scientific history, as the historical name of the species would remain in historical records. The authors argue that it would be much better to call species after aspects of their biology or geography that have cultural significance or which identify unique aspects (e.g., colour, shape, behaviours, etc.). In this way, stronger connection can be made between communities and the biodiversity they live with. As human culture evolves, biological practice should keep pace.
Naming species after people was never a good idea, even though it has been widespread practice throughout the history of biological exploration. The scientific community has a chance to make biodiversity more meaningful to people and to remove the negative connotations of colonial histories. Professor Ladle concludes "Each species is special, the product of millions of years of evolution. They do not deserve to be named after someone’s mother, boyfriend or favourite politician, far less the often disreputable figures associated with Europe’s shameful history of colonialism”.
Reference:
Guedes, P., Alves-Martins, F., Arribas, J.M. et al. Eponyms have no place in 21st-century biological nomenclature. Nat Ecol Evol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02022-y