A recent comment in the journal Communications Biology (Gillman & Wright, 2020) advocates re‐examination of the principle of priority in species epithets to extend this to indigenous names for plants that pre‐date the first valid publication in the scientific literature. While at first sight this might seem hugely disruptive and an idea to be dismissed out of hand, we think that a wider discussion of indigenous knowledge and contributions to the science of naming of algae, fungi and plants is important. As museums and herbaria re‐examine themselves in the light of colonial history and the origins of their collections, biodiversity scientists who are involved in the classification and naming of species must also join the conversation.

Any kind of name is a mechanism by which knowledge is transmitted, and the use of algae, fungi and plants by people far pre‐dates the Linnaean naming system we use today. Gillman & Wright (2020) cite several examples of species epithets derived from names in indigenous languages, and others where an epithet incorporating a long‐standing indigenous name for a species has been relegated to synonymy in light of priority (e.g., the endemic Aotearoa/New Zealand Podocarpaceae tree Matai, Prumnopitys taxifolia (D.Don) de Laub. and its synonym Dacrydium mai A.Cunn.). The authors suggest changes both to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (governing naming in zoology), but here we confine ourselves to discussing their ideas for changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

They suggest that indigenous names would replace the oldest names currently in use on the “basis of their chronological precedence, both in discovery and usage, as opposed to the priority afforded under existing nomenclatural rules”. Thus, a species with a long‐standing indigenous name like the threatened timber tree Agathis australis (D.Don) Loudon, whose Māori name is Kauri, could be renamed “Agathis kauri” after appropriate submission of evidence. An important element of their proposals is that they imply active involvement of indigenous groups and appropriate investigation and careful thought before changes would be proposed – a consensus involving both scientists and indigenous peoples is posited.

Two principal additions to the ideas they present are the need for types – another pillar of modern nomenclature – and the already existing system for conservation and rejection of names. First, conservation and rejection. There already exist mechanisms for the conservation or rejection of names to preserve nomenclatural stability. Proposals are made to the appropriate Committee under procedures laid out in Art. 14 and 56 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland & al., 2018). We see no reason why recognition of indigenous knowledge and contribution could not be included in the criteria for conserving or rejecting a name, and in fact, it could be a positive step to consider the replacement of species epithets where an overwhelming desire for such an action was to come from an indigenous people. The wide discussion and consensus across the indigenous community “covering the geographic area that included the whole distribution of the species under consideration” [italics ours] could mean that the idea would not cause as much disruption as it appears at first glance. It is no coincidence that the authors are from Aotearoa/New Zealand, where there are many endemics and where the use of indigenous names and languages in taxonomy has been previously highlighted and discussed in detail (Veale & al., 2019). The proposed mechanism could be orders of magnitude more difficult for species with wide distributions where many different peoples speaking different languages live. Gillman & Wright's (2020) suggestion that Diospyros virginiana L. could become “Diospyros pessamin” neglects to mention that the Powhatan name Pessamin is only one of the names in that language for that species, or that the persimmon has a much wider distribution than coastal Virginia extending west through Texas and through the lands of many peoples. In regions such as central Africa, New Guinea or the Amazon basin, where many different languages are spoken by indigenous communities, a single indigenous vernacular name may be difficult to find, except for very narrow endemics. This does not mean that considering such name changes should never be contemplated.

The importance of a type specimen cannot be overestimated. To establish an indigenous name on the basis of temporal precedence would also necessitate the establishment of a type specimen in order that comparative study – the foundation of taxonomic science – could be undertaken by subsequent generations of biologists. Were an entirely new name to be proposed, it should, as with any such name, be validly published and accompanied by a type specimen as defined in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. All names for algae, fungi and plants must and should be underpinned by type specimens, physical pieces of evidence that can be critically examined by others.

Names can also be seen as symbolic ownership; think of the many honorific epithets that take the form “of someone”. Often these honour a collector, but just as often not. This can lead to a whole flora being seen by local botanists as “belonging” to, as Gillman & Wright (2020) put it, “collectors, sponsors, colleagues or employers who were often distanced from the country in question”. This is often done out of habit as an easy option and is an emergent cumulative effect of an ingrained tradition. Such practices can be alienating for in‐country scientists. Recommendations in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants are suggestions as to best practice in nomenclature and often steer a community to change practices. A new Recommendation to discourage the practice of what, for want of a better term, might be called “honorific naming” would go some way to opening up discussion of the future use of such epithets.

Gillman & Wright (2020) also discuss species epithets that derive from pejorative names applied to groups of people, such as the epithet “caffra”, derived from a word for black Africans that has been considered extremely offensive since the mid‐20th century and is now illegal to use in South Africa. A quick search of the International Plant Names Index (https://www.ipni.org/) reveals more than 120 species names with this epithet, Index Fungorum (http://www.indexfungorum.org/) lists 31, and Index Nominum Algarum (https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/INA.html) lists 9. Rejecting such names that are in common use would be a useful step in the de‐colonisation of taxonomy more broadly. It could be achieved by the established processes, and perhaps encouraged with a new Recommendation about epithets with pejorative meaning in the next edition of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

It is important not to forget local people and local scientists who may or may not identify as indigenous. Local scientists are critical contributors to the understanding of biodiversity and how it is named; amplification of their voices and the voices of local communities they come from is another important way in which to acknowledge contribution and broaden the dialogue about the naming of biodiversity. It is no accident that one of the objectives of the International Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is “enhanced recognition of and work with indigenous and local knowledge systems” (https://ipbes.net/indigenous-local-knowledge).

We feel that Gillman & Wright (2020) open an important topic for discussion in the nomenclatural community and more widely in the study of algae, fungi and plants. Affirmation and acknowledgement of indigenous and local peoples' contribution to nomenclature and to the knowledge of biodiversity will be an important step in the de‐colonisation of science. Even though the changes they propose to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants need further thought and refinement, there is no time like the present to begin the conversation. As a community, we mustn't forget that 20 years ago, the thought of electronic publication of new names for algae, fungi and plants was thought totally unworkable. Look at us now.

最近在《通讯生物学》杂志上发表评论（Gillman＆Wright，2020年）提倡重新审查物种命名中的优先权原则，以将其扩展至在科学文献中首次有效发表之前的植物的土著名称。乍看之下，这似乎具有极大的破坏性，并且是一个不可思议的想法，但我们认为，广泛讨论土著知识以及对藻类，真菌和植物命名科学的贡献很重要。随着博物馆和草场根据殖民地历史和其收藏的起源重新审视自己，参与物种分类和命名的生物多样性科学家也必须加入对话。

任何一种名称都是一种知识传播的机制，人们对藻类，真菌和植物的使用远远早于我们今天使用的Linnaean命名系统。Gillman＆Wright（2020）列举了几个例子，这些例子取自土著语言的地名，而另一些因长期优先考虑而将具有长期土著名称的物种改名为同义词（例如，特有的Aotearoa /新西兰罗汉松科树木Matai，Prumnopitys taxifolia（D.Don）de Laub。及其同义词Dacrydium mai A.Cunn。）。作者建议对藻类，真菌和植物的国际命名法以及对国际动物命名法（在动物学中的命名），但是在这里，我们仅限于讨论他们关于改变藻类，真菌和植物的国际命名法的想法。

他们建议，土著名称将取代“在发现和使用上均按时间顺序优先的基础，而不是现有命名规则所赋予的优先权”取代当前使用的最早的名称。因此，具有适当土著证据的具有悠久土著名称的树种，如毛木名叫贝壳杉的濒危木本树Agathis australis（D.Don）Loudon ，可在适当提交证据后重新命名为“ Agathis kauri ”。他们建议的一个重要内容是，它们暗示着土著群体的积极参与以及在提出变更之前进行适当的调查和仔细的思考-提出了科学家和土著人民都达成的共识。

他们提出的想法的两个主要补充是对类型的需求（现代命名法的另一支柱）以及已经存在的名称保护和拒绝系统。一是养护与拒绝。已经存在用于保留或拒绝名称以保持命名稳定性的机制。提案是根据第7条规定的程序向相应的委员会提出的。《海藻，真菌和植物国际命名法典》第14和56条（Turland等人，2018年）。我们认为没有理由不能将对土著知识和贡献的承认纳入保护或拒绝名称的标准，实际上，考虑到对此类行为的强烈渴望，考虑取代物种名称可能是一个积极步骤。来自土著人民。整个土著社区的广泛讨论和共识“覆盖了包括该物种整个分布的地理区域正在考虑中”（斜体，我们的意思）可能意味着该想法不会像乍看起来那样引起太多破坏。作者来自新西兰的奥特罗阿（Aotearoa / New Zealand）并非偶然，那里有许多地方性流行病，以前在分类法中使用土著名称和语言已被强调和详细讨论过（Veale＆al。，2019）。对于分布广泛的物种而言，所提议的机制可能更加困难，因为该物种分布着许多使用不同语言的不同民族。吉尔曼和赖特（Gillman＆Wright）（2020）提出弗吉尼亚薯Di（Diospyros virginiana L.）可能会成为“薯Di（Diospyros pessamin） ”的建议，却忽略了普瓦哈坦（ Powhatan）的名字Pessamin只是该物种在该语言中使用的名字之一，或者说柿子的分布范围比向西延伸到得克萨斯州和许多人的土地的弗吉尼亚沿海地区大得多。在非洲中部，新几内亚或亚马逊河流域等地区，土著社区使用多种不同的语言，可能很难找到一个单一的土著白话名字，除了非常狭窄的地方性流行病。这并不意味着绝不考虑考虑这种名称更改。

不能高估类型样本的重要性。根据时间优先顺序建立本地名称也必须建立类型样本，以便后代生物学家可以进行比较研究（分类学的基础）。如果要提出一个全新的名称，则应与任何此类名称一样有效发布，并附有《国际藻类，真菌和植物命名法》中定义的类型标本。藻类，真菌和植物的所有名称都必须并且应该以类型标本为基础，这些标本是可以被他人严格检查的物理证据。

名称也可以视为象征所有权；想起许多以“某人”的形式出现的敬语词。这些通常会向收藏家致敬，但通常不会。正如吉尔曼和赖特（Gillman＆Wright，2020）所说，这可能导致当地植物学家认为整个植物群“属于”经常与有关国家保持距离的收集者，赞助者，同事或雇主”。这通常是出于习惯而做的，这是一种简单的选择，并且是根深蒂固的传统的新兴累积效应。这种做法可能会使国内科学家疏远。《国际命名法》关于藻类，真菌和植物的建议是有关术语最佳实践的建议，通常可以引导社区改变实践。一项新的建议书旨在阻止人们习惯称呼“更好的称呼”的做法，这将在某种程度上为讨论这类词的未来使用开辟道路。

吉尔曼和赖特（Gillman＆Wright，2020）还讨论了物种别名，这些别名源自应用于人类的贬义词，例如“ caffra”。”来自非洲黑人一词，自20世纪中叶以来一直被认为具有极强的冒犯性，现在在南非非法使用。快速搜索国际植物名称索引（https://www.ipni.org/）会发现有120种以上的物种称谓，Index Fungorum（http://www.indexfungorum.org/）列出了31种，索引Nominum Algarum（https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/INA.html）列出了9.拒绝广泛使用的此类名称将是更广泛地将分类学非殖民化的有用步骤。它可以通过既定的过程来实现，也可以通过在下一版《国际藻类，真菌和植物命名法》中关于具有贬义性的义齿的新建议书中得到鼓励。

重要的是不要忘记可能会或可能不会认定为土著人的当地人和当地科学家。当地科学家是对生物多样性及其命名方式的重要贡献。扩大他们的声音以及他们来自当地社区的声音是承认贡献并扩大关于生物多样性命名的对话的另一重要途径。国际生物多样性和生态系统服务小组（IPBES）的目标之一是“增强对土著和地方知识系统的认识并与之合作”（https://ipbes.net/indigenous-local-knowledge） 。

我们认为Gillman＆Wright（2020）为命名学界以及在藻类，真菌和植物的研究中广泛讨论开辟了重要的话题。确认和承认土著和地方人民对命名法和生物多样性知识的贡献将是科学非殖民化的重要一步。尽管他们提议对藻类，真菌和植物的国际命名法进行的更改需要进一步考虑和完善，但没有比现在更早的时间开始对话了。作为一个社区，我们不要忘记20年前，以电子方式发布藻类，真菌和植物新名称的想法被认为是完全行不通的。现在看看我们。