The 20th International Botanical Congress voted to rename more than 200 plants whose names are considered offensive or even racist.
Published
Update
Reading time: 3 min
:quality(50)/2024/07/24/ibpremiumtwo898125-66a0d8289afd7111747667.jpg)
More than 550 botanists from around the world are meeting from July 21 to July 27 for the 20th International Botanical Congress, which is taking place in Madrid, Spain. A few days before, on July 18, scientists voted, during a session dedicated to plant taxonomy, to rename more than 200 plants, starting in 2026, that have offensive, racist or sexist names.
This information has sparked many reactions, particularly on social networks. In order to better understand, franceinfo has looked into these plants which, despite themselves, are causing controversy.
1 Sometimes “insulting” names
What was decided in this vote was, firstly, “that in the future there would be an evaluation of all new names to possibly reject those that could be sexist, racist or insulting,” explain Marc-André Selosse, biologist and former president of the Botanical Society of France.
The botanists gathered agreed above all to rename more than 200 already existing plants, algae and fungi. And in particular, all the species bearing the name or suffix “Caffra”. A name “offensive” And “rather racist”, “in English”, recognizes the scientist, who was given “by the Arabs to the inhabitants of southern Africa.” A word related to that of “cockroach”which has the same etymology, specifies Marc-André Selosse, who specifies the word evolved from “different ways” : “In French, it also means ‘who comes from South Africa'”. There is also a Plaine des Cafres in Réunion, underlines Marc-André Selosse.
At the congress it was decided to rename all plants with this name, with the term “Affra”, which means “originally from Africa”. There was also discussion of plant names that refer to botanists with a slave-owning past, such asHibbertia, which refers to George Hibbert, a member of the pro-slavery lobby in Great Britain.
2 From description, from admiration to naming plants
When it comes to naming plants, botanists have free rein, Marc-André Selosse also points out. This starts with description: “When I discover a plant, I have to give it a name, which is made up of two partshe explains. The genus, which is the group to which it belongs, then a species name, which differentiates it within that genus.” Marc-André Selosse takes the example of the daisy, Bellis perenniswhich could be translated as “beautiful” And “which lasts over time”.
A scientist can also very well give his plant “the name of someone he likes, a boyfriend, a great biologist or a great scientist.” For example, there is a rose named after Line Renaud, or a water lily named in homage to Queen Victoria, the Victoria Amazonica.
But it can also be for fun, underlines Marc-André Selosse, who takes an example, not from botany, but from zoology. The scientific name of the common toad, Bufo bufogiven by the Swedish naturalist Carl von Linné, refers to the name of Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon, “a biologist he didn’t like.”
3 A need for “stability”
Change the names of plants that have a problematic history, “That seems like a good idea,” recognizes Marc-André Selosse. But he warns of the consequences that this could have: “Every time we change the names, it becomes more complicated to work on an idea”assures the biologist. The interest of having Latin names, according to Marc-André Selosse, “that all the botanists in the world can go and find the texts from all eras that speak about it.” Must therefore “of stability”in the naming of plants.
The name of a plant is a “pure label”assures the biologist: “What is important is that these names are unique, and remain the same, so that all scientists can refer to them all the time.”
For the specialist, it is necessary to avoid, in the future, giving racist or sexist names to plants from now on, but for him, it is necessary “accept that history is history.” He takes as an example zoologists, who decided not to change the names of animals, “These names represent our history, and if there are hideous things in our history, it is better that we still have traces of them so that we can show them,” the scientist believes. And to conclude: “It is not by rewriting history that we are able to preserve the evidence of what it is made of and possibly of the things that should be avoided.”