Comments on: A Tiny Snake: Ethnoknown and Nationalism

By: Munnin

Munnin — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:45:05 +0000

Tempest in a teapot. Probably no one - in Barbados or elsewhere - is going to stop referring to this snake as the “thread snake,” and start calling it “Leptotyphlops carlae” in a casual way. I’ve never heard anyone in my part of the world point to a venemous serpent crossing the road on a hot Summer day and say “look out for that big ol’ Crotalus Atrox over there,” or refer to a large, seasonal thrush and say “listen.. Spring must be here. I hear the song of the Turdus migratorius!” Sheesh.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:49:18 +0000

I also can see both sides of the issue. Richard888 hit it on the head perfectly. This is not the U.S.’s fault. Blame science instead. And nobody is going to remember the scientific name. Just call it “The thread snake.”

Good thread.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:26:29 +0000

Well, let’s see. A scientist came in and brought a new animal to the attention of the world, and after he did all of the work to profile it and make sure that it is known to zoology (perhaps to save it in the future, mind you) he exercised scientific tradition to name it. I don’t really think this is a huge blow to “common decency, common sense, and common respect”, or some kind of an affront against human social rules. Come on now, the locals are still going to keep calling it what they’ve always called it no matter what the official scientific name of the animal is. Should we go back and dig up every ethnoknown animal that’s ever been discovered and re name them to everybody’s liking? And who gets to decide the name in that case? At what point is common decency satisfied? The guy named a tiny little snake. Since he has made it known to the world and zoology at large, he will likely be the reason for its conservation.

Social rules? Seriously, there are worse injustices against humankind and common decency going on out there than a person scientifically naming a newly catalogued animal.

By: Spinach Village

Spinach Village — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:06:37 +0000

its easy to see why they are upset… and i can see more than a few points…

sure there are certain “rules”, but there are other human social rules that are not all the time anunnciated which came before these newer rules…common decency, common sense, common respect ‘type stuff

I take the natives of Barbados side in this one

By: Lightning Orb

Lightning Orb — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:08:42 +0000

I don’t see why it’s so harmful that different countries have different names for an animal

By: Andrew Minnesota

Andrew Minnesota — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:22:40 +0000

Nothing says love like naming a snake after your wife.

By: Rogutaan

Rogutaan — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:00:13 +0000

Personally I don’t understand why there’s an argument. No matter the scientific name, it’ll still colloquially be called the Thread Snake.

In all seriousness, how many average Joe’s actually know the scientific names of animals anyway?

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:13:14 +0000

This is really interesting. Considering that many newly catalogued animals are in fact ethnoknown long before they are brought to the attention of science, this is a curious look at the friction that can come about when naming a new animal. Unfortunately, the person who describes it to science is typically the one who gets credit, so Blair Hedges is perfectly within his rights to name it as he pleases. I do think he could have perhaps been more mindful when doing so of the feelings of the local people, but traditionally he can name it whatever he pleases. It does not matter whether it was known by the locals or not. This is the way it typically has always been whether you like it or not.

As to the “why didn’t the locals describe it to science?” question. The locals probably did not realize that this was a new species to science, especially if it is commonly seen. Most who are not experts wouldn’t. I often wonder how many animals are casually seen and assumed to be commonly known species that are in fact new. There is no way non-experts can be expected to recognize that an animal they have known about since childhood is an uncatalogued species. Still, this is not the scientist’s fault, we can’t blame him for “making the locals seem ignorant” just because he happened to have the expertise to notice that this snake was something extraordinary.

I’ll admit it is an interesting thing to debate about, whether the locals who knew about the animal before should be allowed more of a hand in naming it. Maybe they could take a vote or something on proposed names by the scientist himself.

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:02:33 +0000

O.K. Mr. “Evolutionary Biologist”, if “snakes are apolitical”, then why don’t you back away from the ego table you’re (over) feeding at, and re-name it “The Thread Snake” out of respect to the people who’ve known all about it forever? NO, you name it after your wife! I’m sure she worked really hard to help you “discover” it.
typical…And yes someone of Mr. Hedges’ ilk will undoubtably try to put his name on the Sasquatch if and when one goes under the knife at some (tax payer payed for) snobby “Evolutionary Biology” University lab. When American indians have been telling us about them forever. As I’ve stated before; The only White Man that should even get a sniff at having his name put on the “scientific” name of the Sasquatch is Roger Patterson.

By: CamperGuy

CamperGuy — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:09:28 +0000

Silly