Te reo Māori and botanical nomenclature as complementary naming systems for New Zealand’s flora

ABSTRACT

It is argued that the greater use of te reo Māori and ta re Moriori languages for naming new taxa in the flora of Aotearoa / New Zealand supports the aspirations of Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. However, using these indigenous languages in botanical nomenclature is more complex than a simplistic ‘more is better’, and we identify a number of issues requiring consideration. We appraise Waitangi Tribunal claim Wai 262 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, collaboration at the interface of mātauranga Māori and research science, debate whether iwi are active collaborators or informants, and, crucially, defend the credibility and utility of te reo Māori / ta re Moriori and botanical nomenclatural systems. We conclude that (1) formal botanical nomenclature and (2) te reo and ta re vernacular plant names are independent, complementary, and mutually supportive classifications, each with different purposes and denoting two functional knowledge systems. Our recommendation when naming new taxa is to derive names from botanical Latin terminology. To provide clarity for the application of indigenous languages in naming Aotearoa / New Zealand vascular plants and bryophytes, an assessment of the rules and recommendations in the International Code of Nomenclature (ICN) is presented, including the use of geographical, personal and plant vernacular names as epithets, diacritical signs, hyphens, combinations of different languages, and epithet authorship. For those considering using te reo or ta re names for a new taxon, we present guidelines that address dialogue between scientists and iwi, key aspects of the ICN to consider, and suggestions for maintaining the scientific credibility of nomenclatural practices. A knowledge gap is identified for ethnobotanical folk taxonomy research into vernacular te reo and ta re names, and to document and promote this mātauranga we recommend Māori-led research into etymology, hierarchical structure, cultural relationships, whakapapa, and relationships to botanical names.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethnobotany
• folk taxonomy
• indigenous knowledge
• interface
• Latin
• mātauranga Māori
• Moriori
• nomenclature
• ta re
• Wai 262

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Wendy Nelson (NIWA) for discussion and for providing information on her seaweed systematics project with Ngāti Kuri; Dr Shaun Pennycook (Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research) for discussion on Latin nomenclature and te reo; Dr John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh) for advice on nomenclatural matters relating to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants; Paula Greer and Sue Gibb (Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research) for assistance with checking and editing information on te reo and ta re names in the Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research Plant Names Database; Figure 6A courtesy of and copyright to Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, MU000168; Ted Doonerwind (Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research) for sourcing literature; and Peter Bellingham, Ilse Breitwieser, Peter Buchanan, Jerry Cooper, Paula Greer, Shaun Pennycook, Ray Prebble, Geoff Ridley and Rob Smissen for their critique of the draft manuscript. Peter Bostock, Phil Garnock-Jones and an anonymous reviewer are thanked for their constructive reviews and positive comments as referees. This research was supported by Strategic Science Investment Funding (SSIF) for Crown Research Institutes from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Science and Innovation Group.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).