Defending Art. 51 of the Code: Comments on Smith & al. (2022)

Smith & al. (2022), Hammer & Thiele (2021), and some other authors recently discussed and proposed dramatic changes to the International Code of Nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) aimed at the provisions allowing rejection and replacement of valid and legitimate names that reflect the “colonial and imperialist power” or may be considered, at least by some experts and users, as “culturally offensive or inappropriate” because of several broadly and vaguely formulated reasons, such as names considered to be “derogatory or insulting to a person or group of people”, those honoring “a person that the taxonomic community agrees should not be honoured”, and even any name that “otherwise causes deep offense”. These proposals and their possible outcomes were analyzed and criticized in my article (Mosyakin, 2022), which was, in turn, criticized in a recent article by Smith & al. (2022). In the present note I respond to that criticism, discuss additional cases of possible “culturally offensive or inappropriate” names, and provide additional evidence of possible (and, in my opinion, highly probable) confrontational and disruptive outcomes in case if the proposals to reject “culturally offensive or inappropriate” names are accepted and incorporated into the ICN. I appeal to the international community of taxonomists to reject such proposals, to protect the fundamental Preamble 1 and Art. 51 of the ICN, to protect the scientific freedom and principles of nomenclatural stability and political neutrality, and to protect our science from politically motivated decisions. The Pandora's Box of anticipated fights for or against “culturally offensive and inappropriate names” should remain firmly closed. Scientists in general and plant taxonomists in our case should firmly stand for the common values of scientific freedom, mutual understanding and respect, tolerance, reconciliation, a bold, open‐minded and honest view of history (including history of taxonomy), and, specifically, the principle of neutrality of biological nomenclature well expressed in Art. 51 of the ICN. Essentially the same provisions in earlier versions of the Code or other earlier rules of botanical nomenclature served well the generations of taxonomists and users of taxonomic information, preventing unnecessary conflicts between people and peoples over names of organisms, which someone sometime somehow may or may not consider “culturally offensive or inappropriate”. Preamble 1 and Art. 51 of the I