A recently published letter in Marine Mammal Science features an appeal from a large group of marine biologists calling for a change in the common English name of the beaked whale. They argue that the current name references a 19th-century scientist who contributed to the spread and justification of racist theories
To create a more inclusive science, we must perhaps reconsider some of the names we use for objects and organisms. Plants, animals, diseases, units of measurement, phenomena, and biological and physical processes… In the scientific world, many names honor those who first recognized and described them. Examples include Faraday’s law, Avogadro’s law, Rett syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, Schrödinger’s equation, and Higgs particles. Eponyms, or names derived from individuals who first described specific phenomena, objects, or organisms, are also common in natural sciences. Numerous species are named after their discoverers, from the Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti), described by explorer Alexander von Humboldt, to Darwin’s frog (Rhinoderma darwinii), discovered by Darwin during his voyage on the Beagle.
In English—the reference language for the academic community—not only do scientific names bear traces of the scientist (for historical reasons, female eponyms are very limited, almost absent), but so do common names. For instance, there’s the Grauer’s gorilla and Wilson’s bird-of-paradise.
However, the scientific community now believes something must change. This is the call from an appeal signed by a group of marine biologists, including Massimiliano Rosso, Paola Tepsich, and Anna Borroni from CIMA Research Foundation, published in Marine Mammal Science. The authors request a change in the common English name for the beaked whale, from Cuvier’s beaked whale to goose-beaked whale.
The main reason is the problematic legacy of Georges Cuvier. A French naturalist from the late 18th to early 19th centuries, Cuvier described the beaked whale in one of his treatises, mistakenly considering it an extinct species. Since then, his name has remained associated with the species in English. Although Cuvier had a prolific scientific career, his ethical record is not entirely commendable. Notably, in 1829, he published Le Règne Animal, where he classified the human species into three distinct races and proclaimed the superiority of the Caucasian race. In addition to promoting the foundations of scientific racism, his writings and works exhibit strong disdain for certain ethnic groups, whom he considered “almost completely savage.” Particularly egregious and misogynistic were his observations on Saartjie, a Khoikhoi woman exhibited in Europe as a sideshow attraction, known as Sara Baartman.
In light of this history of racism, the authors of the appeal write: “We believe that the continued use of his name perpetuates the harm that he inflicted on Sara Baartman and continues to harm Black women, people who identify as women, and the Black community in general.” Citing the recent decision by the American Ornithological Society to eliminate eponyms for birds, they request that the common name of the beaked whale also abandon its reference to Cuvier.
“It is evident that there should no longer be any space in our society for common names (of animals and plants) considered offensive and exclusive to any community or culture. We also support the more controversial choice within the scientific community to limit or eliminate, where possible, the use of eponyms. Eponyms are frequent in English common names, much less so in those of other cultures, and are aimed at crediting a particular person who played a role in discovering, defining, or studying a particular species. We believe that eponyms are not inclusive: consider, for example, the indigenous communities who had already named particular local species hundreds of years before the ‘discoverer’ or specific researcher, or simply consider colonialism,” concludes Massimiliano Rosso, researcher at CIMA Research Foundation and one of the authors of the letter. “The choice to move towards reducing the use of eponyms is not an affront to anyone: the possible merit of the researcher referred to by the eponym generally remains evident within the scientific community, even if not linked to common names. The latter are more connected to the local language and/or biogeographic elements and are not necessarily stable over time; taxonomic stability is guaranteed by the scientific name.”