Heroes, Geckos and Ethics 

Identification of new species of plants and animals in the wild is an outcome of hard work with dedication. Adding new species, particularly the endemics, eventually elevate the standard of the country as a biodiversity hotspot and draws attention from the world on the necessity of conserving our wilderness areas.

Naming the new species, thus, identified is carried out by following the guidelines of the international organizations concerned with scientific naming. Carl Linnaeus (1707 – 1778) proposed the binomial naming system that also called two-term naming system which is being followed as scientific names of organisms.

The two terms comprise of name of the genera (ex; Cinnamomum) and species epithet (zeylanicum) in the Latinized forms. Our country was identified as Sinhalaya which was Latinized to zeylanicum by Linnaeus.   

As is shown above, species epithet is usually given to explain the locality, characteristic and usage of the organism. The name Homo erectus indicates the upright posture of antient man while Ficus religiosa L. indicates the religious importance of the bo-tree.

Capital letter at the end of species epithet, for instance L. in here, indicates the person who coined this name is Linnaeus.  It is a common practice to use the species epithet after names of people as an honor to them. This could be acceptable as far as the person whose name is used in name of the organism has no objection and name is not creating a negative impression on that person.

It gives rise to a controversy when the names of entities with historical and national significance are used in the names of animals contrary to the social and national value system. For instance, a pig species named after a religious leader of Islam would lead to a serious objection from world around.

A group of zoologists has recently named six species of Geckos (Hoona) following the custom of Linnaeus and they used names of our heroes in the species epithet and, thereby intended to register the names of those heroes in the registry of Zoological names. These Hoonas’ have been named after six of our heroic characters (past warriors); Nandimithra, Gotaimbara, Kohukumbure Walauwe Rate Rala, Meegahapitiye Walauwe Hitihami Mudiyanse Rate Rala, Butewe Rate Rala and Kivulegedara Mohottala.

Their names are added in the Latinized form to the Hoona as per the guidelines of International Commission of Zoological Naming (ICZN). The common names of these animals are now indicated as if they belong to the particular hero. For instance, the hoona; Cnemaspis nandimithrai is now called Nandimithrage diva-serihoona (Sinhala). Prior to this, another group in 2007 had used the name of the Great King Dutugamunu to name a hoona as Cnemaspis gemunu which is now called Gamunuge diva-seri hoona (Sinhala).

This use of the names of heroes in the species epithet of the newly identified Hoona species was a hot topic since it appeared in the headlines in a national newspaper in Sinhala. Subsequently, this news was also reported in the parliament. When looked at the controversy associated with this naming, a clear conflict between the social value system and scientific naming practiced can be discerned. This scenario can be used positively to develop measures to prevent such confrontations in future.  

The ICZN has clearly advised to those who intend to use personal names on the animals to ‘check with the person after whom the new species is being named that they are happy for their name to be used’. Further, in the code of ethics (of appendix A of ICZN) it is stated that ‘no author should propose a name that, to his or her knowledge or reasonable belief, would be likely to give offence on any grounds’. Presence of these guidelines in ICZN per se indicates that there is a possibility of using names of the persons in an offensive manner in the scientific names of animals.  

Despite these guidelines and code of ethics, seven species of Hoona have been named after heroic personalities of the nation. There is no evidence to prove that any who used those names of heroes followed the guidelines of the ICZN to check the consent of the person and assured that naming would not be offensive on any grounds. In this case there is no way of knowing the will of our heroes for using their names for naming animals.

The most prudent step, hence, would be to refrain from using such names in the names of animals. Precedence of using some names without such consent does not grant any liberty to use someone else’s names without consent.  The name is a legal proprietary of a person and others cannot use them as per their prejudices. Using the names contrary to these guidelines can be considered as a violation of the code of ethics of ICZN.  

Our society not only respect but also bestow merits to the heroes of the nation for their bravery and sacrifices in safeguarding our nation. Great king Dutugamunu is revered as a gradian of the nation. Sri Lankan society of which the value system is mostly molded by the Buddhist philosophy considers that name of the person is foremost and persistent.  All type of bravery sacrifices and dealings of those heroes are attached to their name.

Although, some of those heroes were considered traitors by the documents of colonial governments, this had no influence on the due respect paid by the nation to them. The respect to heroes seems to be shattered as a result of using their names on the animal with socially unacceptable attributes.  

There is substantial evidence that this naming of Hoona is considered to give offense on social grounds.  Hoona is considered by the society as an animal with weak, timid and ignoble personality which is in contrast to the qualities of a hero. Hoona is also considered as an animal linked with misfortune.

There is documentary evidence in the written Sinhala literature for considering Hoona as a weak and coward character. It is a common and well-established practice of defamation in most of cultures to assign the name to a personality with contrasting qualities and so is it in the Sri Lankan society. Moreover, there are no reasonable explanations to validate the direct relationship between the Hoona and these heroes. As such, the Sri Lankan society, at large, look at naming Hoona with the names of heroes as a case of defamation.   

Although it is said that these names were used for the wild Hoona, the society does not distinguish whether it was wild hoona or domestic hoona. It has become a general practice to call common Hoona with the names of the heroes after publicizing these names in the national newspaper, news on TV and by a legislator. Moreover, the society does not use the name, for instance, as Gotaimbera’s hoona as was suggested for the common name by authors of above publication, and instead, they use it as Gotaimbara hoona or they call Hoona as Gotaimbera. The consequences of this naming have led to fabricate many jokes that humiliate our heroes, such as “Gotaimbara is in the toilet looking at me… etc”. These jokes were nonexistent in the society before naming these Hoonas with names of the heroes. This misusing of names of heroes on animals has not only created a point to humiliate heroes but also casted unpleasant impression on them.  

The psychological blow of this naming Hoona after heroes is that there is a negative perception attached with the name of the hero. The impact of this would be more pronounced in the future generations, which is deprived of learning the history and characters of these heroes (For example: Dutugamunu Maharaja and Nandimithra Yodhaya), due to educational reforms in schools.

They are going to be cyber learners and when they Google a name of hero, for instance, Nandimithra, the Hoona will pop up with the details of the hero. Moreover, there would be many more jokes and talks made at the expense of heroes and Hoona in circulation in the cyber space in future.  As a whole, such acts will lead to create a split view on the concept of Sinhala hero (past warriors), which plays a significant role in promoting patriotism, developing personalities and boosting moral of the youth. Destroying the name of a hero in this manner is as powerful as eliminating them from the heart and mind of the nation. 

This issue has unleashed a series of encounters between the general public and some sections of scientific community. This is an outcome of a group of scientists who delve into the social concept of patriotism through science by totally disregarding the values and norms of the society. If this group practiced science as science by naming the animals using their locality or special characteristics which is the common practice, this conflict between society and science would not have arisen. Scientific community in support of this naming is trying to justify this act of using names of heroes solely based on the scientific point of view.

This narrow-minded approach further diverges science and society which may have lasting impact. All those justifications failed to address the issue of casting negative impression on the Heroes. It is totally unfair by the society to point a finger to those who speak against this naming as ignorant or illiterate in science. Society has the right to speak against using the social concept in science in a manner inappropriate to them. 

This social issue was created by the negligence of the values and norms of the society by some group of scientific community. Their use of the names of heroes on the Hoona which is socially attributed with opposite qualities was the core of the problem.

Nevertheless, none of those who raise their voices against this move are challenging the science behind these identifications of Hoonas but they express great disappointment on this misuse of names of the heroes.  When analyzing this scenario, it appears that failure to comply with ethics and the lack of respect for the norms and values of the society have created this issue. This is a good turning point to develop the system to prevent this type of anomalies between knowledge and the societal value system. 

It is high time to establish a monitoring system to stop misusing the names with national and cultural importance on naming entities external to those domains. It would also be necessary to introduce regulations and guidelines to safeguard the esteem and dignity of nationally and historically significant entities.

Further, when publications are accepted for a reputed Journals, there must be a clause to agree that approved guidelines given in relation to a particular nomenclature are adhered to as done for certain other areas such as Plagiarism.

Dr Prasad Senadheera 
Senior Lecturer in Botany 
The Open University of Sri Lanka 
spsen@ou.ac.lk