(221) Proposal to add a new Recommendation after Article 38, with the advice to report local/indigenous vernacular names (if available) of new taxa and to use such names, if appropriate, in scientific nomenclature

Abstract

Vernacular names and ethnobiological classifications of plants, fungi and other organisms form a valid ethnobotanical/ethnobiological system that is independent of, but at the same time complementary to, the system of scientific biological nomenclature (see Berlin, Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. 2014; Heenan & al. in New Zealand J. Bot. 59: 291–322. 2021; McGlone & al. in New Zealand J. Bot. 60: 215–226. 2022; and references therein). However, many scientific (Latin/latinized) names of organisms are based on or derived from ancient Greek or Latin vernacular names (Stearn, Bot. Latin, ed. 3. 1983), while some other scientific names use vernacular names of organisms in other languages. Wright & Gillman (in Taxon 71: 6–10. 2022; see also Gillman & Wright in Commun. Biol. 3: 609. 2020) proposed to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) by allowing the retroactive replacement of scientific names and/or epithets of plants and other organisms in favour of “indigenous names”, meaning vernacular names used by indigenous peoples. These ideas received much public attention and were discussed or criticized in several publications (see Knapp & al. in Taxon 69: 1409–1410. 2020; Heenan & al., l.c.; Palma & Heath in Bionomina 22: 32–38. 2021; McGlone & al., l.c.); see also detailed, critical comments by Mosyakin (in Taxon, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12837, and references therein). However, we understand that for many people the recognition of traditional knowledge of plants, fungi, and algae and the reflection of local/indigenous vernacular names of those organisms in scientific nomenclature is indeed important. In partial response to these sentiments and concerns, we propose the following new Recommendation to be added after Art. 38. “38F.1. When describing new taxa that have existing local or indigenous vernacular names, authors are advised to report these names and associated information on traditional knowledge in the protologue and, if appropriate and feasible, to use the local or indigenous vernacular names in forming the scientific names of new taxa.” The present proposal does not encourage any rejection or replacement of existing legitimate names with “indigenous” ones (as suggested by Wright & Gillman, l.c. and Gillman & Wright, l.c.). We strongly believe that Art. 51.1 of the Code, stating that “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”, should remain in full force. We are grateful to Nicholas J. Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) for his valuable advice and editorial improvements.