Following the set of informal proposals by Wright and Gillman (2022) to modify the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN, the Code: Turland et al., 2018), in which the authors demanded to allow the retroactive replacement of well-established, valid and legitimate scientific names of organisms with some “indigenous” names, meaning supposedly “pre-existing” vernacular names used by Indigenous Peoples, I presented my detailed counterarguments (Mosyakin, 2022/2023). I advocated for the stability of biological nomenclature, protested against its possible large-scale disruption, and concluded that any “attempts or proposals aimed at granting preferences in biological nomenclature to any political, racial, ethnic, social, gender, religious or other group or groups should be rejected as discriminatory acts”. In response to my criticism, Wright and Gillman (2023) tried to address and debunk some of my arguments. They denied the potentially discriminatory nature of their proposals, insisted on their ideas of using “indigenous” names for replacing retroactively at least some well-established scientific names of organisms, but at the same time modified some of their earlier claims. Unfortunately, these modifications also fail to fit the principles and rules of the current Code, and even those of any other rationally built code of biological nomenclature. In particular, the earlier proposals by Wright and Gillman (2022) on author citations and authorship clearly contradict their new ideas. They now propose to ascribe the authorship of the nomenclaturally new “indigenous” replacement names to the authors of the replaced names, and at the same time they think that those authors are not the authors of names but the authors of “descriptions”. I analyze here these and some other misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the Code. I also demonstrate and confirm, with proper references to relevant sources, the potentially discriminatory nature of any nomenclatural proposals aimed at providing the exceptional or preferential rights to any groups of authors and/or users of biological nomenclature on the basis of their racial, national, ethnic, or ethnocultural identity. I conclude that the “modified” proposals of Wright and Gillman (2023), still aimed at possible replacement of established valid and legitimate scientific names with some vernacular, folk, legendary, fabulous, or traditional (including “indigenous”) names based on the supposed “chronological priority” going before the starting date of 1753, are disruptive for biological nomenclature, illogical or naïve, and simply non-implementable in practice. I briefly consider here some rational and acceptable alternatives for addressing the issues of non-discrimination, real equity, diversity, representation, and recognition of traditional knowledge in biological nomenclature, including several formal proposals to amend the Code, to be considered at the Nomenclature Section of the XX International Botanical Congress (July 2024, Madrid, Spain).

Keywords: authorship, biological nomenclature, botanical nomenclature, discrimination, Indigenous People, non-discrimination, taxonomy, traditional knowledge

Full text: PDF (Eng) 1.04M

1. Abbot D., Bikfalvi A., Bleske-Rechek A.L., Bodmer W., Boghossian P., Carvalho C.M., Ciccolini J., Coyne J.A., Gauss J., Gill P.M.W., Jitomirskaya S., Jussim L., Krylov A.I., Loury G.C., Maroja L., McWhorter J.H., Moosavi S., Nayana Schwerdtle P., Pearl J., Quintanilla-Tornel M.A., Schaefer H.F. III, Schreiner P.R., Schwerdtfeger P., Shechtman D., Shifman M., Tanzman J., Trout B.L., Warshel A., West J.D. 2023. In defense of merit in science. Journal of Controversial Ideas, 3(1): art. 1 (26 pp.). https://doi.org/10.35995/jci03010001
2. Al-Khalili J. 2022. The joy of science. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, xv + 200 pp.
3. American Anthropological Association (AAA). 1998. American Anthropological Association Statement on ‘Race’. Available at: https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
4. American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA). 2019. AABA Statement on Race and Racism (unanimously accepted by the AABA Executive Committee at its meeting on March 27, 2019 at the 88^th Annual Meeting in Cleveland, Ohio). Available from: https://bioanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
5. American Psychological Association (APA). 2023–onward. APA Style (online). Bias-Free Language: Racial and Ethnic Identity. Available from: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities
6. Antonelli A., Farooq H., Colli-Silva M., Araújo J.P.M., Freitas A.V.L., Gardner E.M., Grace O., Gu S., Marline L., Nesbitt M., Niskanen T., Onana J.M., Pérez-Escobar O.A., Taylor C., Knapp S. 2023. People-inspired names remain valuable. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7: 1161–1162. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02108-7
7. APF & OHCHR. 2013. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A manual for national human rights institutions. Sydney: Asia Pacific Forum (APF) of National Human Rights Institutions; Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), vi + 142 pp. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/UNDRIPManualForNHRIs.pdf
8. Bae C.J., Radović P., Wu X.-J., Figueiredo E., Smith G.F., Roksandic M. 2023. Placing taxonomic nomenclatural stability above ethical concerns ignores societal norms. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 199(1): 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlad061
9. Berlin B. 2014. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 354 pp.
10. Bretschneider E. 1871. On the study and value of Chinese botanical works: With notes on the history of plants and geographical botany from Chinese sources. Foochow [Fuzhou]: printed by Rosario, Marcal & Co., 51 pp. + 8 tab. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.137100
11. Chen C.-J. 1978. A preliminary study of the thoughts of plant classification in ancient China. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica, 16(3): 101–112. [In Chinese, with English abstract] https://www.jse.ac.cn/EN/Y1978/V16/I3/101
12. Ceríaco L.M.P., Aescht E., Ahyong S.T., Ballerio A., Bouchard P., Bourgoin T., Dmitriev D., Evenhuis N., Grygiero M.J., Harvey M.S., Kottelat M., Kluge N., Krell F.-T., Kojima J.-I., Kullander S.O., Lucinda P., Lyal C.H.C., Pyle R.L., Rheindt F.E., Scioscia C.L., Welter-Schultes F., Whitmore D., Yanega D., Zhang Z.-Q., Zhou H.-Z., Pape T. 2023. Renaming taxa on ethical grounds threatens nomenclatural stability and scientific communication. Communication from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 197(2), 283–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac107
13. Duke J.A., Duke P.-A.K., duCellier J.L. 2008. Duke’s handbook of medicinal plants of the Bible. Boca Raton: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), 528 pp. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420043174
14. Earp C., Mosyakin S.L. 2023. (374) Proposal to amend Article 38.3 to clarify what local, indigenous or traditional information is to be accepted in a validating description or diagnosis. Taxon, 72(5): 1167–1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13042
15. Feero W.G., Steiner R.D., Slavotinek A., Faial T., Bamshad M.J., Austin J., Korf B.R., Flanagin A., Bibbins-Domingo K. 2024. Guidance on use of race, ethnicity, and geographic origin as proxies for genetic ancestry groups in biomedical publications. Journal of the American Medical Association. Editorial. Published online 12 March 2024. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3737
16. Gillman L.N., Wright S.D. 2020. Restoring indigenous names in taxonomy. Communications Biology, 3: art. 609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-01344-y
17. Gillman L.N., Wright S.D. 2021. A reply to ‘Science versus vernacular’: should some taxa of animals and plants be renamed according to ‘indigenous’ practices? Bionomina 25: 93–97. https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.25.1.8
18. Goodman A. 2020. Race is real, but it’s not genetic. Sapiens, an editorially independent anthropology magazine of the Wenner-Gren Foundation & University of Chicago Press, published online 13 March 2020. Available at: https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/
19. Graham L.R. 1993. Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A short history (Series: Cambridge Studies in the History of Science). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press, x + 321 pp.
20. Greenberg J. 2023–onward. Torah Flora. Plants and nature in Bible and Jewish tradition. Available at: https://torahflora.org/
21. Guedes P., Alves-Martins F., Arribas J.M., Chatterjee S., Santos A.M.C., Lewin A., Bako L., Webala P.W., Correia R.A., Rocha R., Ladle R.J. 2023. Eponyms have no place in 21st-century biological nomenclature. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7: 1157–1160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02022-y
22. Hammer T.A., Thiele K.R. 2021. (119–122) Proposals to amend Articles 51 and 56 and Division III, to allow the rejection of culturally offensive and inappropriate names. Taxon, 70(6): 1392–1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12620
23. Harris D.J., Xavier R. 2023. Name and shame: can taxonomists agree on systematic reforms? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 38(11): 1022–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.07.008
24. Hayova V.P., Boiko G.V., Mosyakin S.L. 2023. (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. Taxon, 72(2): 455. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12907
25. Heard S.B., Mlynarek J.J. 2023. Naming the menagerie: creativity, culture and consequences in the formation of scientific names. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Ser. B (Biological Sciences), 290(2010): art. 20231970. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1970
26. Heenan P.B., McGlone M.S., Wilton A.D. 2021. Te reo Māori and botanical nomenclature as complementary naming systems for New Zealand’s flora. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 59(3): 291–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.2020.1861031
27. Hirsch E.G., Löw I. 1906 (online version: 2023–onward). Plants. In: Jewish Encyclopedia. The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (online version). https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12203-plants
28. Hochman J., Weller M. (eds.) 2018. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A commentary. Oxford, etc.: Oxford University Press, 654 pp.
29. Honko L. (ed.) 1990. Religion, myth, and folklore in the World’s epics: The Kalevala and its predecessors. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Greuter, xi + 587 pp. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874556
30. Hudson C., Williams J. (eds). 2016. Why academic freedom matters: A response to current challenges. London: Civitas, Institute for the Study of Civil Society, xvi + 229 pp.
31. Jablonski D., Dufresnes C. 2024. Nomenclatural censorship puts biodiversity conservation and taxonomic science at risk. Alytes, International Journal of Batrachology, 41(1–4): 1–4.
32. Jiménez-Mejías P., Manzano S., Gowda V., Krell F.-T., Lin M.-Y., Martín-Bravo S., Martín-Torrijos L., Nieto Feliner G., Mosyakin S.L., Naczi R.F.C., Acedo C., Álvarez I., Crisci J.V., Luceño Garcés M., Manning J., Moreno Saiz J.C., Muasya A.M., Riina R., Meseguer A.S., Sánchez-Mata D., and >1500 signatories from >110 countries. 2024. Protecting stable biological nomenclatural systems enables universal communication: a collective, international appeal. BioScience, in press. [Preprint: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10277.27361/1]
33. Josephson P.R. 2005. Totalitarian science and technology. 2^nd ed. New York: Humanity Books, an imprint of Prometheus Books, 181 pp.
34. Jost L., Yanez-Muñoz M.H., Brito J., Reyes-Puig C., Reyes-Puig J.P., Guayasamín J.M., Ron S.R., Quintana C., Iturralde G., Baquero L., Monteros M., Freire-Fierro A., Fernández D., Mendieta-Leiva G., Morales J.F., Karremans A.P., Vázquez-García J.A., Salazar G.A., Hágsater E., Solano R., Fernández-Concha G.C., Arana M. 2023. Eponyms are important tools for biologists in the Global South. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7: 1164–1165. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02102-z
35. Keita S.O.Y., Kittles R.A., Royal C.D.M., Bonney G.M., Furbert-Harris P., Dunston G.M., Rotimi C.M. 2004. Conceptualizing human variation. Nature Genetics, 36(11s): S17–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1455
36. Knapp S. 2022. In the name of plants: From Attenborough to Washington, the people behind plant names. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 192 pp. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226824314.001.0001
37. Knapp S., Vorontsova M.S., Turland N.J. 2020. Indigenous species names in algae, fungi and plants: A comment on Gillman & Wright (2020). Taxon, 69(6): 1409–1410. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12411
38. Kolbert E. 2018. There’s no scientific basis for Race—It's a made-up label. National Geographic, published online 22 Oct 2018. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/people-and-culture/2018/04/theres-no-scientific-basis-for-race-its-a-made-up-label
39. Krishna N., Amirthalingam M. 2014. Sacred plants of India. Gurgaon (Gurugram): India Penguin, 312 pp.
40. Krylov A.I. 2021. The peril of politicizing science. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 12(22): 5371–5376. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01475
41. Mabry M.E., Caomhanach N., Abrahams R.S., Gaynor M.L., Pham K.K., Williams T.M., Murphy K.S., Smocovitis V.B., Soltis D.E., Soltis P.S. 2024. Building an inclusive botany: The “radicle” dream. Plants, People, Planet, published online before print 21 January 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10478
42. Mayr E. 1982. The growth of biological thought. Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge (Mass.): Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, xiii + 974 pp.
43. McGlone M.S., Heenan P.B., Wilton A.D., Anderson A. 2022. Proposal to ‘restore’ indigenous names misunderstands the complementary nature of botanical nomenclature and indigenous vernacular plant names. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 60: 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.2021.2011752
44. Métailié G. 2015. Science and civilisation in China, vol. 6, Biology and biological technology, part 4, Traditional botany: An ethnobotanical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xli + 748 pp.
45. Montgomery S.L., Kumar A. 2016. A history of science in world cultures: Voices of knowledge. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, xiv + 349 pp. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315694269
46. Mosyakin S.L. 2021. (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. Taxon, 70(6): 1379–1380. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12606
47. Mosyakin S.L. 2022a. If “Rhodes-” must fall, who shall fall next? Taxon, 72(2): 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12659
48. Mosyakin S.L. 2022b. Defending Art. 51 of the Code: Comments on Smith & al. (2022). Taxon, 71(6): 1141–1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12820
49. Mosyakin S.L. 2022c. (177) Proposal to amend Recommendation 23A.3 with the advice not to dedicate species to persons quite unconnected with botany, mycology, phycology, or natural science in general. Taxon, 71(6): 1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12846
50. Mosyakin S.L. 2022/2023 (online 26 November 2022, published in the issue of June 2023). Attempts to introduce a system of national, racial and/or ethnocultural discrimination in codes of biological nomenclature should not be tolerated: Comments on some recent proposals (Wright & Gillman, 2022, etc.). Taxon, 72(3): 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12837
51. Mosyakin S.L. 2023a. (195) Proposal to amend the Preamble by adding a “potentially sensitive content disclaimer and limitation of liability”. Taxon, 72(2): 442–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12897
52. Mosyakin S.L. 2023b. (349) Proposal to amend the Preamble by adding a “Non-Discrimination Statement”. Taxon, 72(5): 1149–1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13033
53. Mosyakin S.L. 2023c. Eponyms in biological nomenclature and the Slippery Slope and Pandora’s Box arguments. Ukrainian Botanical Journal, 80(5): 381–385. https://doi.org/10.15407/ukrbotj80.05.381
54. Musselman L.J. 2007. Figs, dates, laurel, and myrrh. Plants of the Bible and the Quran. Portland, OR: Timber Press, 336 pp.
55. Musselman L.J. 2012. A dictionary of Bible plants. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press, xi + 173 pp.
56. Musselman L.J. 2022. Solomon described plants: A botanical guide to plant life in the Bible. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers, 346 pp.
57. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Using population descriptors in genetics and genomics research: A new framework for an evolving field. Consensus study report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, xxi + 217 pp. https://doi.org/10.17226/26902
58. Palma R.L., Heath A.C.G. 2021. Science versus vernacular: Should some taxa of animals and plants be renamed according to ‘indigenous’ practices? Bionomina, 22: 32–38. https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.22.1.1
59. Patil D.A. 2020. Ethnotaxonomy as mirrored in Sanskrit plant names. Plantae Scientia (Osmanabad) 3(5): 56–64. https://doi.org/10.32439/ps.v3i5.56-64
60. Pethiyagoda R. 2023. Policing the scientific lexicon: The new colonialism? Megataxa, 10(1): 20–25. https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.10.1.4
61. Pinker S. 2018. Enlightenment now. The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. New York: Viking, an imprint of Penguin Random House LLC, xix + 556 pp.
62. Pinker S. 2022. Rationality: what it is, why it seems scarce, why it matters. New York: Viking, an imprint of Penguin Random House LLC [e-book, 432 pp.].
63. Pluckrose H., Lindsay J. 2020. Cynical theories: how activist scholarship made everything about race, gender, and identity — and why this harms everybody. Durham, North Carolina: Pitchstone Publishing, 351 pp.
64. Pollock E. 2006. Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, ix + 269 pp. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400843756
65. Prontzos P.G. 2019. The concept of “Race” is a lie. Scientific American, published online 14 May 2019. Available at: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-concept-of-race-is-a-lie/
66. Raven P.H., Berlin B., Breedlove D.E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. Science, 174(4015): 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.174.4015.1210
67. Scharpf C. 2023. Changing scientific names on ethical grounds: Six reasons to say "No". The ETYFish Project. Fish Name Etymology Database. Comment, posted December 2023. 7 pp. https://www.etyfish.org/ETYFish-changing_names.pdf
68. Shermer M. 2015. The Moral Arc. How science and reason lead humanity toward truth, justice, and freedom. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Macmillan USA [e-book, 560 pp.].
69. Smith G.F., Figueiredo E. 2021. (126) Proposal to add a new Article 61.6 to permanently and retroactively eliminate epithets with the root caf[e]r- or caff[e]r- from the nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants. Taxon, 70(6): 1395–1396. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12622
70. Smith G.F., Figueiredo E. 2022. “Rhodes-” must fall: Some of the consequences of colonialism for botany and plant nomenclature. Taxon, 71(1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12598
71. Smith G.F., Figueiredo E., Hammer T.A., Thiele K. 2022. Dealing with inappropriate honorifics in a structured and defensible way is possible. Taxon, 71(5): 933–935. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12742
72. Sokal A., Bricmont J. 1998. Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectual's abuse of science. New York: Picador, xiv + 300 pp.
73. Sowell T. 2004. Affirmative Action around the World: An empirical study. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, x + 239 pp.
74. Sowell T. 2011. The Thomas Sowell Reader. New York: Basic Books, 432 pp.
75. Sowell T. 2019. Discrimination and disparities. Revised ed. New York: Basic Books, 320 pp.
76. Theophrastus. 2019. Collected works. The Delphi Ancient Classics Series. Hastings: Delphi Classics [e-book].
77. Thiele K. 2023. Some, but not all, eponyms should be disallowed. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7: art. 1170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02106-9
78. Thiele K., Smith G.F. Figueiredo E., Hammer T.A. 2022. Taxonomists have an opportunity to rid botanical nomenclature of inappropriate honorifics in a structured and defensible way. Taxon, 71(6): 1151–1154. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12821
79. Topachevskyi A. 2014. From God’s Garden. Plants and animals in the Holy Scripture. Ed. 2. Kyiv: Veselka, 269 pp.
80. Terbish B. 2022. State ideology, science, and pseudoscience in Russia: between the Cosmos and the Earth. Lanham; Boulder; New York; London: Lexington Books, xxii + 287 pp.
81. Tucker S.D. 2023. Hitler's and Stalin's misuse of science: When science fiction was turned into science fact by the Nazis and the Soviets. Yorkshire; Philadelphia: Frontline Books, an imprint of Pen & Sword Books, LTD, 256 pp.
82. Turland N.J., Wiersema J.H., Barrie F.R., Greuter W., Hawksworth D.L., Herendeen P.S., Knapp S., Kusber W.-H., Li D.-Z., Marhold K., May T.W., McNeill J., Monro A.M., Prado J., Price M.J., Smith G.F. 2018. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress, Shenzhen, China, July 2017 [Regnum Vegetabile, vol. 159]. Glashütten: Koeltz Botanical Books, xxxviii + 254 pp. https://doi.org/10.12705/Code.2018
83. Turland N.J., Wiersema J.H. 2024. Synopsis of Proposals on Nomenclature — Madrid 2024: A review of the proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants submitted to the XX International Botanical Congress. Taxon, 73(1): 325–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13114
84. United Nations. 1969. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2106 (XX), adopted on 21 December 1965. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial
85. United Nations. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 61/295, adopted on 13 September 2007. Pdfs available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html
86. Veale A.J., de Lange P., Buckley T.R., Cracknell M., Hohaia H., Parry K., Raharaha-Nehemia K., Reihana K., Seldon D., Tawiri K., Walker L. 2019. Using te reo Māori and ta re Moriori in taxonomy. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 43: art. 3388. https://doi.org/10.20417/nzjecol.43.30
87. Williams J. 2016. Academic freedom in an Age of Conformity: Confronting the fear of knowledge. (Series: Palgrave Critical University Studies). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, vi + 217 pp.
88. Winker, K. 2024. The inordinate unpopularity of changing all eponymous bird and other organismal names. Bionomina, 37(1): 59–69. https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.37.1.3
89. Wolters E.A., Steel B.S. 2018. When ideology trumps science: Why we question the experts on everything from climate change to vaccinations. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, an imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC, xii + 187 pp. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216034902
90. Wright S.D., Gillman L.N. 2022. Replacing current nomenclature with pre-existing indigenous names in algae, fungi and plants. Taxon, 71(1): 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12599
91. Wright S.D., Gillman L.N. 2023. Reply to “Attempts to introduce a system of national, racial and/or ethnocultural discrimination in codes of biological nomenclature should not be tolerated: Comments on some recent proposals (Wright & Gillman, 2022, etc.)”. Taxon, 72(3): 483–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12891
92. Zack N. 2001. Philosophical aspects of the AAA Statement on “Race”. Anthropological Theory, 1(4): 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/14634990122228836
93. Zohary M. 1982. Plants of the Bible. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press, 223 pp.