(091–092) Proposals to amend Recommendation 7A on deposition of type material in institutions of countries of origin, and to add a new Recommendation 51A regarding avoiding potentially inappropriate or unacceptable names of taxa

Abstract

The “Convention on Biological Diversity” Art. 17 (Exchange of Information: https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-17; all online sources cited here and below accessed 5 Aug 2021) states: “1. The Contracting Parties shall facilitate the exchange of information, from all publicly available sources, relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account the special needs of developing countries. 2. Such exchange of information shall include exchange of results of technical, scientific and socio-economic research, as well as information on training and surveying programmes, specialized knowledge, indigenous and traditional knowledge as such and in combination with the technologies referred to in Article 16, paragraph 1. It shall also, where feasible, include repatriation of information.” Also, The Nagoya Protocol (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011, https://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf) states that the countries of origin of biodiversity resources should have just access to the relevant biodiversity information and resources. Several initiatives (in particular, those relevant to taxonomy) have been established and developed in that respect. In particular, the “Global Plants Initiative” (GPI, http://plants.jstor.org), an international partnership of many herbaria from more than 70 countries of the world, has the goal to digitize, unite and provide access to type specimens of plants, fungi and algae worldwide (see Ryan in Taxon 62: 417–423. 2013; Smith & Figueiredo in Taxon 63: 703–709. 2014). However, even the best digital images cannot replace the actual specimens, which can be used for molecular, biochemical, micromorphological and other studies. Also, deposition of type material in collections located in the countries of origin of the new taxa will promote local interest in these taxa and their conservation (if necessary). Considering the above ideas and goals, I think that it would be useful to amend the current Rec. 7A.1 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), therefore encouraging the authors of new taxa to deposit at least some representative type material in herbaria and/or other institutions/collections in the countries of origin of the newly described taxa. “7A.1. It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, especially the holotype, be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection with a policy of giving bona fide researchers access to deposited material, and that it be scrupulously conserved. Authors publishing names of new species or infraspecific taxa are encouraged to deposit some type material (holotype, isotypes, and/or paratypes) in one or more herbaria, collections, or other specialized institutions in the country or countries of origin of the newly described taxon.” Article 51.1 of the Shenzhen Code states: “A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known (but see Art. 56.1 and F.7.1), or because it has lost its original meaning.” However, authors of recent publications (Gillman & Wright in Commun. Biol. 3: art. 609. 2020; Knapp & al. in Taxon 69: 1409–1410. 2020) initiated a discussion regarding options of possible rejection or replacement of at least some names that may be considered inappropriate, disagreeable or even offensive by some national, ethnic, political, racial and/or other groups. In my opinion, such considerations not directly relevant to the nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants should not be ruled on by the Code, because that would be contrary to the mentioned Art. 51.1 and the centuries of nomenclatural tradition. Only rare, well-justified ad hoc exceptions are possible in such cases, and those cases should be dealt with based on the existing principles, procedures and practice of botanical, mycological and phycological nomenclature, e.g. conservation (Art. 14) and rejection (Art. 56) (see, e.g., de Lange & al. in Taxon 69: 1373–1375. 2020). Nevertheless, I suggest that a new Recommendation after Art. 51, aimed at avoidance of potentially inappropriate, disagreeable or unacceptable names of new taxa and replacement names, would be a good response and solution to the concerns that have been expressed. It should be also noted that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN; International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999, https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/) contains Appendix A: Code of Ethics, with ethical provisions regarding potentially problematic (offensive, unacceptable, disagreeable etc.) names: “4. No author should propose a name that, to his or her knowledge or reasonable belief, would be likely to give offence on any grounds.” The provisions of that Code of Ethics are de facto directly comparable to Recommendations of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants because (ICZN App. A) “7. The observation of these principles is a matter for the proper feelings and conscience of individual zoologists, and the Commission is not empowered to investigate or rule upon alleged breaches of them.” I therefore propose to add the following Recommendation after Art. 51. “51A.1. When publishing names of new taxa or replacement names, authors are strongly encouraged to avoid such names as may be viewed or treated as inappropriate, disagreeable, offensive, or unacceptable by any national, ethnic, cultural, or other groups of actual or potential users.” I am grateful to John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. & Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada), Nicholas J. Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany) and John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for their discussion and advice on nomenclatural issues.