Content uploaded by Pedro Jiménez-Mejías
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pedro Jiménez-Mejías on Jun 19, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
BioScience , 2024, 0 , 1–6
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae043
Advance access publication date: 0 2024
Forum
Protecting stable biological nomenclatural systems
enables universal communication: A collective
international appeal
Pedro Jiménez-Mejías , Saúl Manzano , Vinita Gowda , Frank-Thorsten Krell , Mei-Ying Lin , Santiago Martín-Bravo ,
Laura Martín-Torrijos , Gonzalo Nieto Feliner , Sergei L. Mosyakin , Robert F.C . Naczi , Carmen Acedo , Inés Álvarez ,
Jorge V. Crisci , Modesto Luceño Garcés , John Manning , Juan Carlos Moreno Saiz , A. Muthama Muasya ,
Ricarda Riina , Andrea Sánchez Meseguer , Daniel Sánchez-Mata and 1543 additional coauthors
Pedro Jiménez-Mejías ( pjimmej@upo.es), Santiago Martín-Bravo , and Modesto Luceño Garcés are afliated with the Área de Botánica, Departamento de Biología
Molecular e Ingeniería Bioquímica, at the Universidad Pablo de Olavide, in Seville, Spain. Saúl Manzano ( saul.manzano@unileon.es) is afliated with the
Quaternary Palynology Lab, at the Instituto de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Biodiversidad, and with the Área de Botánica, Departamento de
Biodiversidad y Gestión Ambiental at the Universidad de León, in León, Spain, as well as with the African Centre for Coastal Palaeoscience, at Nelson Mandela
University, in Gqeberha, South Africa. Carmen Acedo is afliated with the Área de Botánica, Departamento de Biodiversidad y Gestión Ambiental, at the
Universidad de León, in León, Spain. Vinita Gowda is afliated with the Department of Biological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research, in Bhopal, India. Frank-Thorsten Krell is afliated with the Department of Zoology at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, in Denver, Colorado, in
the United States. Mei-Ying Lin is afliated with the Engineering Research Center for Forest and Grassland Disaster Prevention and Reduction, at Mianyang
Normal University, in Mianyang, Sichuan, China. Laura Martín-Torrijos is afliated with the Department of Mycology at Real Jardín Botánico (RJB), CSIC, in Madrid,
Spain. Gonzalo Nieto Feliner, Inés Álvarez, Ricarda Riina, and Andrea Sánchez Meseguer are afliated with the Department of Biodiversity and Conservation at
Real Jardín Botánico (RJB), CSIC, in Madrid, Spain. Sergei L. Mosyakin is afliated with the M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany, at the National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine. Robert F.C. Naczi is afliated with the New Yor k Botanical Garden, in the Bronx, New Yor k , in the United States. Jorge V. Crisci is
afliated with the Museo de La Plata, in La Plata, Argentina. John Manning is afliated with the Compton Herbarium, at the South African National Biodiversity
Institute, in Cape Tow n , South Africa. Juan Carlos Moreno Saiz is afliated with the Departamento de Biología at the Universidad Autónom a de Madrid, in Madrid,
Spain. A. Muthama Muasya is afliated with the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Cape To w n, in Cape Tow n , South Africa. Daniel
Sánchez-Mata is afliated with the Botany Unit, in the School of Pharmacy at the Complutense University of Madrid, in Madrid, Spain, and with the Harvard
University Herbaria, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the United States.
Abstract
The fundamental value of universal nomenclatural systems in biology is that they enable unambiguous scientic communication.
However, the stability of these systems is threatened by recent discussions asking for a fairer nomenclature, raising the possibility of
bulk revision processes for “inappropriate” names. It is evident that such proposals come from very deep feelings, but we show how
they can irreparably damage the foundation of biological communication and, in turn, the sciences that depend on it. There are four
essential consequences of objective codes of nomenclature: universality, stability, neutrality, and transculturality. These codes provide
fair and impartial guides to the principles governing biological nomenclature and allow unambiguous universal communication in
biology. Accordingly, no subjective proposals should be allowed to undermine them.
Taxonomy is the science that aims to classify and describe the bio-
diversity of the planet. As such, taxonomy provides a foundation
necessary for other sciences; knowing biodiversity is the rst step
needed for any biology-based discipline or service to develop. Tax-
onomic names are transmitted to the rest of the scientic commu-
nity through regulated, internationally agreed-on protocols: the
nomenclatural systems. Biological nomenclature enables science
and society to apply shared, unambiguous names when referring
to species and other taxa.
The fundamental value of universal nomenclatural systems
in biology—and the key to their success—is that they have en-
abled unambiguous scientic communication among and across
different cultures. These binomial or binominal systems (here-
after, nomenclatural systems ) are codied in sets of rules for zoology
(the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; ICZN 1999 ),
botany (the International Code of Nomenclature [ICN] for algae,
fungi and plants; Turla n d et al. 2018 ), and other branches of bi-
ology (e.g., the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokary-
otes; Oren et al. 2023 ). Such systems have helped advance bio-
logical research (including paleontology) for more than 250 years.
However, the very principles and fundamental conventions of bi-
ological nomenclature are now being questioned, and its stabil-
ity compromised. Recent discussions and debates on biological
nomenclature have asked for fairer, more inclusive and socially
just scientic nomenclature for species and other taxa, with a pos-
sible collective aim to heal some of the wounds that colonialism,
sexism, racism, casteism, and other human failings have inicted
in communities all over the planet (e.g., Hammer and Thiele 2021 ,
Smith et al. 2022 , Thiele et al. 2022 , Tr a cy 2022 , Wright and Gill-
man 2022 , Guedes et al. 2023 , Harris and Xavier 2023 , Mabele et
al. 2023 , Roksandic et al. 2023 , Sanderson 2024 ). These debates
have also led to the suggestion that bulk revisions should be ad-
vanced to remove “inappropriate” names, such as eponyms ded-
icated to controversial people or words perceived as offensive in
certain languages or regions. It is evident that such contentions
come from very deep feelings, but it is unclear whether the conse-
quences of some of these proposed revisions have been thought-
fully pondered, considering whether the intended good could be
Received: March 12, 2024. Accepted: April 16, 2024
©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. This is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits
non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact
journals.permissions@oup.com
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae043/7696204 by guest on 19 June 2024
2|BioScience, 2024, Vol. 0, No. 0
outweighed by negative effects. Taking into account the diverse
societal and geographical backgrounds of the proponents of such
name changes, the number of names affected over time could eas-
ily be in the hundreds of thousands (Ceríaco et al. 2023 ), includ-
ing eponyms, toponyms, racial slurs, names reecting colonialism,
and so forth.
Claimants for nomenclatural justice have moved some legit-
imate, nonscientic, social concerns into the scientic arena,
where other considerations should prevail, in the spirit of cross-
cultural, international understanding. Although their intentions
are undoubtedly good and their pursuit laudable, most of these
revisionist authors seem not to realize that their proposals try
to address alleged problems mostly built on post hoc premises
and attack the foundations on which biological nomenclature is
built. These proposals essentially disregard that present nomen-
clatural systems are intended to allow transcultural communi-
cation through a shared, operationally neutral system of scien-
tic names that is stable over time, already serving as a vehicle
of social justice. These benets may not be maintained if efforts
to address injustice destabilize the nomenclatural systems and
undermine the pillars of universal scientic communication and
mutual understanding.
Recent proposals, suggestions, and demands for extensive
change dominate the discourse of critics who, by narrowly focus-
ing on particular facets or by holding local perspectives of a much
broader and complex picture, fail to acknowledge the critical im-
portance of our current nomenclatural systems at global scale.
Although the legitimacy of the authors’ aspirations is beyond re-
proach, it is paradoxical that their relative impact on the discus-
sion of biological nomenclature is amplied by several scientic
journals that have allowed subjective appreciations to develop.
Proposals to modify current nomenclature on the basis of ethi-
cal arguments have consistently met resistance from nomenclat-
ural practitioners, who provide practical and technical counterar-
guments (e.g., Mosyakin 2022 , Ceríaco et al. 2023 , Garbino 2023 ,
Katumo et al. 2023 ). However, the discussion arena has been un-
equal so far. The papers fueling the controversy receive coverage
in transdisciplinary journals with wide audiences, whereas tech-
nically argued opposing views are largely published in specialized
journals with narrower audiences.
In this article, we present a response that aims at uniting a
much more widespread concern that has remained in the back-
ground: that the functionality of communication within the sci-
entic community and across society is the greatest contribu-
tion of the nomenclatural systems and that this benet may
become jeopardized. Many of us, researchers in taxonomy, sys-
tematics, evolutionary biology, and other biological sciences, are
concerned about well-intentioned but ill-considered and irre-
sponsible opinions published on the subject that may irreparably
damage biological communication that unites us all and, thereby,
the fundamental discipline that underlies and connects all others:
taxonomy. In contrast to previous replies, which provided detailed
responses to the multiple technical aws in the well-meaning pro-
posals, we would like to make explicit four essential, nontechni-
cal considerations that arise from the very reason we have and
need shared codes of nomenclature with objective rules: univer-
sality, stability, neutrality, and transculturality. These considera-
tions, implicit in our nomenclatural systems, seem to go unno-
ticed by many non-taxonomists, who inadvertently undermine
these systems in an attempt to solve pervasive social or political
problems that transcend the scope of biological nomenclature.
The authors call on the scientic community to endorse the
considerations we enumerate below on the grounds that they pro-
vide rational guides to the principles governing the current sys-
tems and practice of biological nomenclature and that they al-
low unambiguous universal communication in biology and re-
lated disciplines, as well as transfer of taxonomic knowledge to
the wider society. Accordingly, no subjective, politically motivated,
or opinion-based proposals should undermine them.
Universality: Biological nomenclature must
be shared across the entire planet
Universality of nomenclature is the most efcient way to ensure
cross-cultural, universal communication. The biological nomen-
clatural systems were adopted for the reason that they avoid the
conundrum that multiple vernacular names present for effective
global communication. The current nomenclatural systems strive
for each species to have a single and unique two-word disam-
biguator as the species name to be used in scientic contexts
within every language on the planet. This is a practicality de-
void of any colonial, racial, national, regional, cultural, or other
nonuniversal legacies other than the de facto Linnaean origin of
the systems in Europe. To avoid conict among different scientic
names applying to a same taxon, biological nomenclature utilizes
nomenclatural priority: Older scientic names should prevail over
more recently coined names.
The principle of priority is a convention conceived to apply to
scientic names within their regulated contexts, not to be ex-
panded to vernacular names, which would be highly disruptive.
Extending the principle of priority to vernacular and scientic
names has been proposed on the grounds that vernacular names
predate scientic ones (Gillman and Wright 2020 , Wright and Gill-
man 2022 , Rivas et al. 2024 ). Replacing existing scientic names
with new names based on vernacular names poses a situation
with no single fair solution: Among all the possible competing
native names for the same taxon, which one should be used
and based on which language? It goes without saying that most
species do not have a local name, and if local names are avail-
able, we often have several in different languages for the same
species when its geographic range spreads over several linguis-
tic communities. In fact, most European common names—which
are, by denition, indigenous names—are not used as the generic
or specic epithet for the corresponding taxa. Moreover, no living
language should have an objective priority over another when it
comes to naming taxa.
All these issues have already been contemplated by scientists
(see Palma and Heath 2021 , McGlone et al. 2022 , Mosyakin 2023b )
and have been solved by diligently respecting nomenclatural pri-
ority (older scientic names should prevail over more recently
coined names), which is a core principle in all of the current inter-
national biological nomenclatural systems. Recently, it has been
suggested that to compensate for any perceived bias and move to-
ward cultural inclusion, the scientic names proposed in the fu-
ture will be the ones for which local terms should be considered
(see Hayova et al. 2023 ). There is no barrier to honoring local ver-
nacular names: the codes make provisions for names to be derived
from any language, proactively avoiding any potential language-
based discrimination when coining new names and, therefore, not
banning the use of local terms in scientic naming. Indeed, Heard
and Mlynarek (2023 ) compiled examples of scientic names based
on a variety of languages, including Norwegian, Quechua, te reo
M¯
aori, Tselagi, Afrikaans, and Russian.
However, creating a scientic name from an indigenous lan-
guage must not be considered a justication for disregarding
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae043/7696204 by guest on 19 June 2024
Jiménez-Mejías et al. |3
available older names. Recently, the extension of the principle
of priority to vernacular names was misapplied in a high-prole
case of a newly recognized species of green anaconda (Rivas et al.
2024 ). Rivas and colleagues acknowledged that potential scientic
names exist for the taxon, but instead of studying the case in de-
tail, they dismissed all of them, presuming priority of the indige-
nous name they chose. As a result, the validity of their new name
is in doubt from its inception, worsening the already complicated
nomenclatural situation.
Stability: Biological nomenclature must be
stable over time, now and in the future
Stability is the most efcient way to ensure transgenerational
communication. Critics argue that a bulk revisionary process
should happen within the nomenclatural systems to help heal the
open wounds of colonialism in science (e.g., Wright and Gillman
2022 , Guedes et al. 2023 , Mabele et al. 2023 ). These authors seem
to think that this process will solve the complex problem posed by
judging the past by today’s standards, forgetting that their views
and grievances will likewise be subject to future judgment. It is
entirely possible that, in the future, other people will see the de-
cisions we are making now as unfair, resulting in never-ending re-
visionary processes. This likelihood of future grievance threatens
transgenerational communication and, therefore, stability in sci-
entic names. The stability in scientic names and their use over
time is specically addressed by our codes and implemented on a
case-by-case basis, when universal communication is threatened
(e.g., conserved types under the ICN, Tu r la n d et al. 2018 ; reversal
of precedence under the ICZN, ICZN 1999 ).
Preserving the stability of our universal nomenclatural systems
seems the most reasonable and responsible way to ensure that
names for taxa will be protected over time against the evolution
of future grievances.
Neutrality: Biological nomenclature must be
understood simply as a universal
operational system of disambiguators for
taxa
Most members of society perceive scientic names as names only
and devoid of any explicit or implicit content. Names can be an
arbitrary combination of letters, although in many cases, they are
derived from Latin or Ancient Greek. Being either idiosyncrati-
cally composed or (mostly) based on largely dead languages, the
vast majority of scientic names make as little sense to the gen-
eral public as do personal names, making them neutral in their
meaning and use. This is true in most cases, even for speakers
of Latin-derived languages. Despite this situation, proponents of
nomenclatural change claim that some scientic names contain
or embody targeted oppressive or offensive messages that are per-
ceived by parts of society. Offense is not generally a component of
a given scientic name, although it may occur in rare instances
(e.g., Centaurea latronum Pau, meaning “thieves’ Centaurea ,” target-
ing several colleagues of Pau who gave preferential treatment to
another botanist).
Although biological scientic names were initially intended to
act as descriptors and bear a meaning, names do not have to
make semantic sense, to the point that they can be wrong or con-
founding but still act as valid and available or accepted and le-
gitimate names as long as they fulll relevant code regulations.
For example, toponymic specic epithets created in error are well
known. The tree Quercus canariensis Willd., believed to have been
collected in the Canary Islands, is absent from these; the geophyte
Scilla peruviana L., an Old-World species, does not exist in Peru;
and the moss Bryoxiphium norvegicum (Brid.) Mitt. was described
from Iceland and is apparently absent from Norway. The biologi-
cal nomenclatural systems have unquestionably evolved from an
initial intention of creating short descriptors to names being sim-
ply understood as taxonomic disambiguators.
Scientic names that include or are derived from terms that
may be perceived as an offensive word in certain languages are,
in most cases, a matter of coincidence. These names now con-
sidered offensive may be perceived as such by decontextualizing
the moment in which they were coined and either predate nega-
tive connotations or simply refer to something different (e.g., niger ,
the Latin word for black color is not intended to be used as a racial
slur in biological nomenclature; the epithet marica, referring to a
mythological nymph and certainly unrelated to the homonymous
derogatory term in Spanish for homosexual men). In the particu-
lar case of eponyms, although they are coined to honor particular
people, such meaning is rarely understood beyond the immedi-
ate expertise eld. Eponyms are also to a great extent devoid of
any connotations for laypeople, who are more likely to think that
Magnolia derives from the Latin root magnus (big), rather than be-
ing eponymic to the French botanist Pierre Magnol. Names based
on pop culture, such as the fern genus Gaga Pryer et al. and the
y Scaptia beyonceae Lessard (named after the artists Lady Gaga
and Beyoncé, respectively) or the sedge Carex leviosa Míguez et al.
(referring to a spell from the Harry Potter universe), were coined
with the intention of raising attention among the general public
and policymakers, who clearly perceive them with a conspicuous
meaning, creating some immediate interest (Blake et al. 2023 ). Ac-
cordingly, these names are not neutral at present. But the duration
of such a semantic sense through time is unlikely, and although
the dedication is understood at present, the connotations will in-
evitably be diluted over time as most of the personalities and ref-
erences progressively sink into oblivion.
For all these reasons, we believe that neutrality in the mean-
ing of scientic names is the rule; offensive content in scientic
names is the exception or needs to be actively sought beyond its
author’s original intentions and, in such cases, is therefore the
product of decontextualization. According to our consideration, a
revision of potentially offensive scientic names might be doomed
to nd a large number of false positives of inappropriateness.
Transculturality: Biodiversity and its
associated scientic nomenclature must be
understood as a universal heritage, and
this fact should take precedence over any
locally biased interest
At its very essence, the value of biodiversity is universal and tran-
scultural and must transcend political boundaries to be shared
across all cultures. So too must be the associated nomenclatu-
ral system that we use to refer to it. Nature and its parts, as ab-
stract entities, are shared world heritage (not to be confused with
material resources derived from nature). Conversely, issues with
nomenclature arising within or involving particular cultures or
countries (e.g., the Anglosphere) should in no way affect the oth-
erwise neutral globality of nomenclatural codes. Science goes far
beyond the views imposed by our immediate cultural spheres, his-
torical moments, and personal contexts. Observing the principle
of nomenclatural priority that has so far governed codes—with
some precisely outlined exceptions—rather than regarding every
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae043/7696204 by guest on 19 June 2024
4|BioScience, 2024, Vol. 0, No. 0
name as susceptible to change is the only fair way to avoid en-
couraging nationalist or even chauvinist stances in biology and
the extreme consequences of gravely disrupting biology.
Conclusions
We acknowledge and agree that the pervasive problems derived
from colonial, imperial, totalitarian, racist, casteist, sexist, and
other regrettable legacies are still present in society and should
be addressed in science. We must work together to avoid per-
petuating them and to reform society prospectively. In addition,
where productive for the common good and nomenclatural sta-
bility, we must provide the codes of biological nomenclature with
appropriate tools to promote fairness and sensitivity in future de-
velopments (e.g., Mosyakin 2023a ,2023c , Orr et al. 2023 ) while
not disturbing the existing fundamental nomenclatural proce-
dures. Some straightforward measures that may add better op-
portunities for equity and inclusion in nomenclatural practice
could be the incorporation of cultural references in newly coined
names (e.g., vernacular names, local terminology, and cultural
traditions); active consultation with knowledgeable collaborators
when choosing names, to avoid inaccurate or offensive use of
terms (e.g., naming organisms deemed as repulsive after sacred
entities could be considered inappropriate); honoring local re-
searchers, naturalists, environmentalists, and eld experts (Jost
et al. 2023 ); and including and suggesting vernacular names in
scientic publications, preferably in local scripts (Marinho and
Scatigna 2022 ). Some examples of names already coined follow-
ing such good practices are the ant Pheidole klaman Gómez et al.
(the term klaman referring to the beauty of the Akan tribe of West
Africa), the dinosaur Yi qi Xu et al. (from the Chinese , “strange
wing,” referring to its odd-looking appearance), and the thistle Cir-
sium tukuhnikivatzicum Ackerf. (honoring indigenous peoples and
cultures in western North America). Current and future genera-
tions of taxonomists must have the right to be free to decide the
names we will create but should also take responsibility for be-
ing thoughtful, fair, and considerate, paying attention to ethics
to avoid harm or upset in the future. Actions toward such more-
inclusive and up-to-date nomenclature will certainly arise by col-
laboration and exchange with local scientists, especially from the
Global South.
We understand that a revision process for existing names may
be considered by some in rare, exceptional instances—for exam-
ple, as redress for agrant direct violations of human rights. Nev-
ertheless, these decisions must each be made very carefully and
deliberately, under the technical provisions of the relevant codes
and the corresponding governing bodies, and in consultation with
stakeholders, weighing the potential confusion caused to com-
munication against any positive reinforcement of these human
rights, but certainly not as a bulk process.
Above all else, we must preserve the immense value of the cur-
rent nomenclatural systems and their universality and stability,
which have withstood the tides of time for more than 250 years,
enabling universal communication and contributing to the un-
precedented development of the biological sciences. Raising the
issue and acknowledging the problems derived from past lega-
cies is important, and we must nd ways to compensate and, at
the same time, progress. However, such endeavors cannot become
impediments to the ongoing scientic process. Science is univer-
sal and, if a common technique or procedure can be maintained
for the benet of all, it is worth protecting. Attempts to retro-
spectively revise and correct perceived mistakes of the past are
as emotionally tempting as they are futile, and maintaining pub-
lished scientic names is not an endorsement of the intention
behind the names but a practical and functional consideration
that rests on the principle of priority as the fairest and most im-
partial of solutions. Moreover, every act of coining a new name
increases the load of synonyms and adds noise to the nomen-
clatural frameworks, making it more difcult to trace taxa across
published works and checklists. The potential number of name
changes based on ethical grounds would add many new names
with the subsequent nomenclatural noise, and still, the removed
name could not be entirely expunged, because it will necessar-
ily persist in synonymy lists. That should not be mistaken for
nomenclatural changes derived from systematic reasons, which,
albeit sometimes perceived as annoying, are necessary for achiev-
ing natural classications.
Currently, humanity faces urgent challenges like global cli-
mate change, deforestation, and species extinction but also a di-
minishing interest in biodiversity and ecology. Meanwhile, basic
biodiversity exploration struggles to survive under unfavorable
scientic climates (e.g., Löbl et al. 2023 ). A bulk revision of sci-
entic names could too easily divert the scarce human and eco-
nomic resources allocated for taxonomy into an endless pro-
cess that will backre on all of us as scientists (Antonelli et al.
2023 ) and on taxonomists in particular. Especially those from the
Global South would be affected, because this region of the planet
hosts the richest biological diversity and often suffers from even
more lack of economic and trained human resources. Moreover,
the possible destabilization of biological nomenclatural systems
threatens the applications of the life sciences and risks the cor-
rect understanding not only of scientic texts but also of tech-
nical reports and laws. To avoid dire consequences for the rest
of human society, nature needs to be understood and named in
a stable, universal, and operationally neutral and transcultural
manner.
Supplemental material
Supplemental data are available at
BIOSCI online.
Supplementary material S1. List of the 1543 additional coauthors.
Co-authors who contributed revising translations are listed rst.
Then, the rest of the coauthors are listed according alphabetic or-
der of countries/territories.
Supplementary material S2. Automatic revised translations to
Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, French, German, Korean, Polish, Russian,
Spanish, Portuguese and Turkish.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge funding to Ramón y Cajal postdoctoral
program for a fellowship towards PJ-M (RYC2021-031238-I), and
for funding for open access publishing: Universidad Pablo de Ola-
vide/CBUA.
Author contribution
Pedro Jiménez-Mejías and Saúl Manzano conceived the idea and
wrote a rst version of the text. Vinita Gowda , Frank-Thorsten
Krell, Mei-Ying Lin, Santiago Martín-Bravo, Laura Martín-Torrijos,
Gonzalo Nieto Feliner, Sergei L. Mosyakin, Robert F. C. Naczi,
Carmen Acedo, Inés Álvarez, Jorge V. Crisci, Modesto Luceño
Garcés, John Manning, Juan C. M. Saiz, A. Muthama Muasya,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae043/7696204 by guest on 19 June 2024
Jiménez-Mejías et al. |5
Ricarda Riina, Andrea Sánchez Meseguer, and Daniel Sánchez-
Mata commented on this early version, providing criti-
cal feedback, and rendering it to a pre-denitive form.
The rest of the 1,534 additional co-authors received the
text and either expressed agreement or provided addi-
tional feedback in the form of comments or corrections.
Pedro Jiménez-Mejías, Saúl Manzano, Vinita Gowda , Frank-
Thorsten Krell, Mei-Ying Lin, Santiago Martín-Bravo, Laura
Martín-Torrijos, Gonzalo Nieto Feliner, Sergei L. Mosyakin, Robert
F.C. Naczi, Carmen Acedo, Inés Álvarez , Jorge V. Crisci, Modesto
Luceño Garcés, John Manning, Juan C. M. Saiz, A. Muthama
Muasya, Ricarda Riina, Andrea Sánchez Meseguer, and Daniel
Sánchez-Mata discussed all the feedback received to consider its
inclusion in the nal form of the text. This nal form was again
distributed among all the co-authors for their approval. Language
was thoroughly edited by Frank-Thorsten Krell and Robert F.C.
Naczi. Translations were edited by the co-author listed in the
corresponding version of the text.
References cited
Antonelli A , et al. 2023. People-inspired names remain valuable. Na-
ture Ecology and Evolution 7: 1161–1162. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41559-023-02108-7.
Blake K , Anderson SC, Gleave A, Verissimo D. 2023. Impact on species’
online attention when named after celebrities. Conservation Biol-
ogy 38: e14184. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14184
Ceríaco LMP , et al. 2023. Renaming taxa on ethical grounds threat-
ens nomenclatural stability and scientic communication: Com-
munication from the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 197: 283–286.
https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac107
Garbino GST . 2023. Rethink changing of species names that
honour real people. Nature 616: 433. https://doi.org/10.1038/
d41586-023-01276-7
Gillman LN , Wright SD. 2020. Restoring indigenous names in taxon-
omy. Communications Biology 3: 609.
Guedes P , et al. 2023. Eponyms have no place in 21st-century bio-
logical nomenclature. Nature Ecology and Evolution 7: 1157–1160.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02022-y
Hammer TA , Thiele KR. 2021. Proposals to amend articles 51 and
56 and division III, to allow the rejection of culturally offensive
and inappropriate names. Taxon 70: 1392–1394. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tax.12620
Harris DJ , Xavier R. 2023. Name and shame: Can taxonomists agree
on systematic reforms?. Tr e n ds in Ecology and Evolution 38: 1022–
1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.07.008
Hayova VP , Boiko GV, Mosyakin SL. 2023. 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 scientic nomenclature.
Taxon 72: 455. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12907
Heard SB , Mlynarek JJ. 2023. Naming the menagerie: Creativity, cul-
ture and consequences in the formation of scientic names. Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society B 290: 20231970.
[ICZN] International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . 1999.
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th ed . International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.
Jost L , et al. 2023. Eponyms are important tools for biologists in the
Global South. Nature Ecology and Evolution 7: 1164–1165. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02102-z
Katumo DM , Wei M, Jiao B, Deng Y, Wan t W, Gao T. 2023. Preserving
scientic merit and legacy in biological eponyms. Phytotaxa 626:
73–77. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.626.1.9
Löbl I , Klausnitzer B, Hartmann M, Krell F-T. 2023. The silent ex-
tinction of species and taxonomists: An appeal to science policy-
makers and legislators. Diversity 15: 1053. https://doi.org/10.3390/
d15101053
Mabele MB , Kiwango WA, Mwanyoka I. 2023. Disrupting the epis-
temic empire is necessary for a decolonial ecology. Nature Ecology
and Evolution 5: 109910.
Marinho LC , Scatigna AV. 2022. A good practice: Why we should sug-
gest vernacular names for new plant species. Bionomina 31: 108–
114. http://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.31.1.7
McGlone MS , Heenan PB, Wilton AD, Anderson A. 2022. Proposal
to “restore” indigenous names misunderstands the complemen-
tary nature of botanical nomenclature and indigenous vernacu-
lar plant names. New Zealand Journal of Botany 60: 215–226. https:
//doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.2021.2011752.
Mosyakin SL . 2022. If “Rhodes ” must fall, who shall fall next? Taxon
71: 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12659
Mosyakin SL . 2023a. Proposal to amend the preamble by adding
a “potentially sensitive content disclaimer and limitation
of liability.” Taxon 72: 442–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.
12897
Mosyakin SL . 2023b. Attempts to introduce a system of national,
racial and/or ethnocultural discrimination in codes of biological
nomenclature should not be tolerated: Comments on some re-
cent proposals (Wright & Gillman 2022, etc.). Taxon 72: 469–482.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12837
Mosyakin SL . 2023c. Proposal to amend the preamble by adding a
“non-discrimination statement.” Taxon 72: 1149–1150. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tax.13033
Oren A , Arahal DR, Göker M, Moore ERB, Rossello-Mora R, Sutcliffe
C, eds.2023. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes:
Prokaryotic code (2022 Revision). International Journal of Systematic
and Evolutionary Microbiology 73: 005585. https://doi.org/10.1099/
ijsem.0.005585
Orr MC , et al. 2023. Inclusive and productive ways forward needed for
species-naming conventions. Nature Ecology and Evolution 7: 1168–
1169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02103-y
Palma RL , Heath ACG. 2021. Science versus vernacular: Should some
taxa of animals and plants be renamed according to “indige-
nous” practices? Bionomina 22: 32–38. https://doi.org/10.11646/
bionomina.22.1.1
Rivas JA , et al. 2024. Disentangling the Anacondas: Revealing a new
green species and rethinking yellows. Diversity 16: 127. https://
doi.org/10.3390/d16020127
Roksandic M , Musiba C, Radovi ´
c P, Lindal J, Wu X-J, Figueiredo E,
Smith GF, Roksandic I, Bae CJ. 2023. Change in biological nomen-
clature is overdue and possible. Nature Ecology and Evolution 7:
1166–1167. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02104-x
Sanderson K. 2024. 200 years of naming dinosaurs: Scientists call
for better rules. Nature 626: 936–937. https://doi.org/10.1038/
d41586-024-00388-y
Smith GF , Figueiredo E, Hammer TA, Thiele KR. 2022. Dealing with in-
appropriate honorics in a structured and defensible way is pos-
sible. Taxon 71: 933–935. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12742
Thiele KR , Smith GF, Figueiredo E, Hammer TA. 2022. Taxonomists
have an opportunity to rid botanical nomenclature of inappro-
priate honorics in a structured and defensible way. Taxon 71:
1151–1154. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12821
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae043/7696204 by guest on 19 June 2024
6|BioScience, 2024, Vol. 0, No. 0
Tra c y BH . 2022. What’s in a sh species name and when to
change it? Fisheries 47: 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.
10750
Turland NJ , et al., eds. 2018. International Code of Nomenclature for
algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nine-
teenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July
2017. Regnum Vegetabile 159. Koeltz Botanical Books.
Wright SD , Gillman LN. 2022. Replacing current nomenclature with
pre-existing indigenous names in algae, fungi and plants. Taxon
71: 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12599
Received: March 12, 2024. Accepted: April 16, 2024
©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. This is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits
non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact
journals.permissions@oup.com
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae043/7696204 by guest on 19 June 2024
