Yes, it was inevitable. Now that birds and other animals are undergoing woke scrutiny to see which names are problematic (though scientific names cannot be changed), the Pecksniffs have begun to examine the names of dinosaurs, too. And according to this article from Nature (which contains a blatant misspelling), they have found some “bad” names, though not many. Click to read.
First, remember that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has decreed that, for purposes of scientific communication, the Latin binomial names of animals (e.g., Anas platyrhynchos—the mallard) cannot be changed, though “mallard” could be changed. (The equivalent plant group hasn’t yet weighed in.) Thus what has been at issue is “problematic” common names, seen as being non-inclusive and fostering bigotry and racism (example Wallace’s owlet, named after the supposed miscreant Alfred Russel Wallace). See all my posts on this fracas here).
The problem with dinosaur names is that the common name and the scientific name are often similar, like Stegosaurus, a genus containing three recognized extinct species of dinosaurs. That one isn’t named after a person (the Latin name, based on its dorsal plates, means “roof lizard”), so it’s not problematic. But if it were, I suppose the woke could cancel the common name and call it something other than Stegosaurus.
In fact, dinosaur names can be problematic for reasons other than the person after whom they’re named (eponyms). And, sure enough, the Perpetually Offended are trawling through dinosaur names to find the bad ones. Nature carries the article, even though this effort hasn’t been published in the scientific literature. Below (indented) are some excerpts of this risible endeavor. Note the common error, due to ignorance, that I’ve put in bold. Of course you know that it’s “free rein”, referring to letting go of a horse’s reins. It has nothing to do with kings and the like.
It’s been 200 years since scientists named the first dinosaur: Megalosaurus. In the centuries since, hundreds of other dinosaur species have been discovered and catalogued — their names inspired by everything from their physical characteristics to the scientists who first described them. Now, some researchers are calling for the introduction of a more robust system, which they say would ensure species names are more inclusive and representative of where and how fossils are discovered.
Unlike in other scientific disciplines — such as chemistry, in which strict rules govern a molecule’s name — zoologists have a relatively free reign over the naming of new species. Usually, the scientist or group that first publishes work about an organism gets to pick its name, with few restrictions. There is a set of guidelines for species naming overseen by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). These include the requirements that the name is unique, that it is announced in a publication and that, for dinosaurs, it is linked to a single specimen.
Screenshot proof before the journal wises up:
But I digress, simply because this kind of stuff irks me. Examples of “problematic names” are few, and in fact they don’t give a single one. The Pecksniffs simply decry the lack of dinosaurs named after indigenous people or the places where the bones were found. Further, if there were gendered names, most were male—as one expects when the field was dominated almost exclusively, as was the case a while back, by men.
To explore how dinosaur naming has changed over the past 200 years, Emma Dunne, a palaeobiologist at Friedrich-Alexander University in Erlangen–Nuremberg, Germany, and her colleagues analysed the names of all of the dinosaur fossils from the Mesozoic Era (251.9 million to 66 million years ago) that have been described, around 1,500 in total.
The authors wanted to know how much effort it would take to address what they saw as problematic names, which they describe as those “emanating racism, sexism, named under (neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figures”. They found several such names, equating to less than 3% of the dinosaurs they looked at.
Some of the names the team identified derive from the colonial names for lands where species have been discovered. Indigenous-language names of places or researchers are often not used or are mistranslated, the authors say.
For example, many of the dinosaurs discovered during a series of expeditions between 1908 and 1920 by German explorers in Tendaguru in Tanzania, which was then part of German East Africa, were named after German people rather than local expedition members, and the samples remain in Germany.
Now the ICZN says it’s not changing any of these names, though, disturbingly, its president says it could be open to “introducing different naming systems.” But the article implies that this isn’t impending. And there aren’t that many dinosaurs that haven’t been found.
The main issue, of course, is whether changing 45 dinosaur names (3% of 1500) will make a substantial—or even a detectable—difference in the inclusivity of paleontology. Will people of color and women, previously repelled by the bigotry and patriarchy of dinosaur names, now come pouring into paleontology after 45 common names are changed? If you believe that, I have some land in Florida to sell you. Regardless, the Pecksniffs think they’re doing a lot of good:
“The problem in terms of numbers is really insignificant. But it is significant in terms of importance,” says Evangelos Vlachos, a palaeontologist at the Museum of Paleontology Egidio Feruglio in Trelew, Chubut, Argentina, who also worked on the study. He wants future naming systems to be more rigorous. “We don’t say that tomorrow we need to change everything. But we need to critically revise what we have done, see what we have done well and what we have not done well, and try to correct it in the future.”
Besides the redundancy of “it is significant in terms of importance,” the fact is that changing 45 dinosaur names won’t accomplish anything except enable the re-namers to feel good about themselves. And this is the problem of all the biological renaming initiatives. They apply only to common names, which aren’t the same from country to country, and it’s ludicrous to expect that changing some of the “problematic” ones will actually make a field of science more inclusive.
This kind of effort would be much better spent tutoring or giving lectures to underprivileged kids. But that’s too much work.
h/t: Alex
‘free rein’ is correct, referring to the rider allowing the horse to go where it wants
I’m not so sure. “Free reign” has been misused so much recently that it may now be descriptive, a la biweekly and bimonthly.
But what would “free reign” even mean? That’s the trace of a malapropism: the user thinks it is the right expression but doesn’t stop to consider that it is nonsensical. The few that do make some sense, like “tow the line” The Economist affectionately calls “eggcorns.”
Shouldn’t it be “Toe the line” ? meaning keep it straight? Common use “ do as you are told”
It is “toe the line.” The eggcorn is “tow the line” because it sort of sounds right even though it is used in senses where what is meant is “toe the line”, as you note. Ah, English and her homonyms.
If to “reign” means to “rule,” then “free rein” sounds like someone can rule or control whatever they want. They’re not restricted to a particular area or set of rules: name the dinosaur according to thy royal will. I don’t really think that the phrase is incoherent, though incorrect.
Presumably it would mean “free rein”.
My point was that once used widely enough, malapropisms become standard usage, just as alternate spellings and meanings do.
Looking for accepted examples, i haven’t found much:
“Some likely candidates are “spitting image”, probably from “spit and image” or “spitten image”, and “Jerusalem artichoke”, probably from “girasole articiocco” (meaning “sunflower artichoke”), and “tickety-boo”, which may be a corruption of ठीक है, बाबू (“ṭhīk hai, bābū”, meaning “all right sir”). ”
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/ljqehm/what_were_some_common_malapropisms_in_premodern/
“Free reign” may be more common from the ignorant, but it literally has no meaning. “Free rein,” on the other hand, does.
My Interpretation of “free reign”: white male scientists are like royalty, kings with power like Adam himself to name all of creation. They exercise this freedom due to their patriarchal colonialist power over everyone else.
Offered in hopes no one thinks I believe any of that. But I have been following this type of world view enough that I think I can speak the language.
You dare question the divine right of old white males?
Agreed. This sort of effort is a pretence of doing something, it achieves nothing, but is done to signal an ideology.
PS Typo in 3rd-from-last sentence: “More” not “less”.
I’m just delighted to learn there are 1500 distinct species of dinosaurs described. Is that a labour of love, or what? They can call them whatever they like.
What a waste of time to scour the literature for troublesome (common) dinosaur names. Get a life!
Fortunately, the ICZN is holding firm on the principle of *not* changing formal Latin names, which would render the biological literature incomprehensible.
BTW. When I see the word “problematic,” I know that I need to raise my skeptic antennae to full staff. To me, “problematic” is a trigger warning.
+1
I hate the word “problematic” as it is vacuous. How so problematic? He asks. What is the specific problem or issue?
“Unlike in other scientific disciplines — such as chemistry, in which strict rules govern a molecule’s name”
Chemists often use common names for compounds: Buckminsterfullerene for (C60-Ih)[5,6]fullerene
———–
Systematic or IUPAC Name
The systematic name also called the IUPAC name is the preferred way to name a chemical because each systematic name identifies exactly one chemical. The systematic name is determined by guidelines set forth by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
Common Name
a name that unambiguously defines a chemical, yet does not follow the current systematic naming convention. An example of a common name is acetone, which has the systematic name 2-propanone.
Vernacular Name
A vernacular name is a name used in a lab, trade or industry that does not unambiguously describe a single chemical. For example, copper sulfate is a vernacular name which may refer to copper(I) sulfate or copper(II) sulfate.
Archaic Name
An archaic name is an older name for a chemical that predates the modern naming conventions. An example of this is muriatic acid, which is the archaic name for hydrochloric acid.
[the above edited from https://www.thoughtco.com/overview-of-chemical-names-608605%5D
And from Wikipedia, just some compounds named after people starting with C
Calderon catalyst (WCl6/EtAlCl2/EtOH)
Caro’s acid (H2SO5)
Chevreul’s salt (Cu3(SO3)2 • 2 H2O)
Chugaev’s red salt ([Pt(C(NHMe)2N2H2](CNMe)2]Cl2)
Chugaev’s salt ([Pt(NH3)5Cl]Cl3)
Cleve’s triammine ([Pt(NH3)3Cl]Cl)
Collman’s reagent (Na2Fe(CO)4)
Collins reagent (CrO3 / py / CH2Cl2)
Condy’s crystals (KMnO4)
Corey–Chaykovsky reagent (O=S(CH2)Me2)
Cornforth reagent ([pyH]2[Cr2O7])
Crabtree’s catalyst (Ir(COD)(py)(PCy3)+)
Creutz–Taube complex ([(NH3)10Ru2(pyrazine)]5+)
Naming minerals after people is standard in mineralogy. Witness this list on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minerals_named_after_people. Imagine how much time someone might be able to waste trying to weed out all the “problematic” mineral names.
It would be laughable if it weren’t so surreal.
Striking that this quintessentially North American obsession has reached Germany.
Evidently the renaming craze, like blue jeans and the word “OK”, represents the peculiarly infectious character of North American fashions. My favorite example remains the export of BIPOC to the British Isles (see https://bwc.nhs.uk/bipoc-resources/ ), where the “I” part could refer only to Cheddar Man.
Not many specimens (specipersons?) of Cheddar Person are currently living. So one might have to fall back on the Welsh and Cornish. I’m all in favour of giving Welsh and Cornish scientists their due.
The termites continue to dine.
Here is a link of new fossil Archosaurs (the taxon that includes dinosaurs) described in 2023: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_in_archosaur_paleontology
There should be no problem with encouraging the practice of naming new species under this dictate. That is all.
Quite a few dinosaurs recently discovered in China have been named after the places where they were found.
Other distinguished fossil species with non-Western names: the pterosaur Quetzalcoatlus, the sarcopterygian Tiktaalik, the hominin Ardipithecus ramidus.
The perpetually offended, instead of seeking new reasons to feel offended, better go and dig out some new fossil species and name it anything they want.
My favorite dinosaur name is Irritator, so named (as I was told by one of the namers, Arthur Cruickshank) because the fragmentary material was so irritating to work with
Irritator is one of the most perfect dino names ever, moreso since Irritator is a Spinosaurid. Spinosaurus Aegypticus has likely contributed to more human deaths via stres & cardiac conditions over arguments about its anatomy during the last decade than the JP III Spinosaurus did by straight up eating people! 😁
Should we start saying “Tyrannosaurus Regina” for female members of the species? (Or should that be “members assigned as female?”)
Believe it or not, it is possible to tell sex in dinosaurs (although not, of course, gender). That’s why the most famous T. rex (the one there was all the hoo haa about being in the hands of private collectors and then put up for auction) is called Sue.
Sue the T. Rex’s sex has never been verified. It was named after Sue Hendrickson, the paleontologist who discovered the fossil in 1990.
Wasn’t there a C&W number “A theropod named Sue”, or am I thinking of something else?
The T. Rex sub-species claims don’t really seem to be holding up.
🙂
” The Pecksniffs simply decry the lack of dinosaurs named after indigenous people or the places where the bones were found”.
Yet if sports teams are named after indigenous tribes, they are compelled to change their names by these very same people.
My yiddish-speaking cousin once told his young children when they were looking at huge, sharp-toothed dinosaur fossils at a natural history museum that that particular dinosaur was called a plentiasaurus because if you ever ran into it, thats what you would have: plenty of tsoris.
He wasn’t kidding! 🙂 A close encounter would bring a world of hurt.
I love ethnically based humour that is funny, travels well, and doesn’t denigrate anyone.
Tempting to name a new one with some unflattering Genus and name the Species after this fool out of spite!
As a first step I recommend changing the orthography of all dinosaur names to International Phonetic Alphabet. That way the names will at least *seem* to be a nod to indigenous people and the cultural connections between for example tɪɹænəˈsɔɹəs ˈɹɛks and the ˈbɫækˌfʊt First Nation that had absolutely no idea what those fossils were all about.
According to this logic Lucy should be renamed. Don’t want to offend our African proto-ancestors, after all…
How can you know that not many dinosaurs haven’t been found?
Not disagreeing, I’m just wondering about the epistemic basis for the statement.
Indigenous language names of places are irrelevant. The last non avian dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago, which is a little before the indigenous people arrived. In fact, it is likely that the location was somewhere completely different on account of plate tectonics.
These people should really find something more constructive to do.