What is in a name? 177 The wild camel has long been known to be distinct
from the Bactrian camel in Mongolia, with the domestic Bactrian camel being named тэмээ (temee) and the wild camel being named хавтгай (khavtgai). This distinction was not recognized in the West until genetic data (Silbermayr et al., 2009; Jirimutu et al., 2012) confirmed this view. There have been calls for Indigenous names to be reinstated in taxonomy where possible, in part because they reflect cultural and historical knowledge of species ecology but also because, as is the case here, Indigenous naming is often constant whereas English common naming may change with taxonomic change (Gillman & Wright, 2020). Given that somany cultural values are linked to spe- cies, care should be taken when considering naming or re- naming. Something as simple, and serious, as a name can have long-lasting ramifications for both local people and species conservation. For example, in biodiversity reporting in New Zealand, usingMāori species names has been shown to ‘support the cultural aspirations ofMāori, helps to retain theMāori language and implicitly acknowledges Indigenous relationships with the environment’ (Wehi et al., 2019,p. 1). Although our focus here is on correcting an inaccuracy in English common naming for wild camels, we also encourage the use of Indigenous names alongside English common names wherever possible. Critically, common names can affect human perceptions
PLATE 1 Morphological differences between the Bactrian camel Camelus bactrianus, in part (a) and individuals to the left in (c), and wild camel Camelus ferus, in part (b) and individual to the right in (c). Camelus ferus has smaller, pyramid-shaped humps, a smaller body, slimmer legs and a flatter skull. Top photos: Anna M. Jemmett. Bottom photo: Pauline Charruau.
Confusion of common names, and implications
Scientific naming is determined by taxonomy, which itself ought to be underpinned by evolutionary, genetic,morpho- logical and ecological evidence of species distinction. It facilitates the accurate identification and classification of a species (Suren, 2018), which is important for determining conservation status. Scientific names are vital for scientists and practitioners who work in species conservation as they facilitate global understanding and provide consist- ency irrespective of the language spoken. However, they are not widely used beyond the conservation and scientific community. This is where a common name is important. A common name allows scientists to communicate with a wider non-specialist audience (Sarasa et al., 2012). Therefore, common names also play a crucial role as descriptors that facilitate the distinction between one species and another whilst also providing a more emotional con- nector between people and other species. Common names mean that everyone can appreciate diversity (Ehmke et al., 2018).
of a species’ value, invoking emotional responses that can have both positive and negative consequences for the con- servation of that species. This phenomenon is widespread. In Europe, for example, local renaming of ibex to wild goat lowered people’s perceptions of the animal’s conserva- tion importance (Sarasa et al., 2012). In New Zealand, the public saw lethal control as more acceptable for ‘feral’ cats than ‘stray’ cats (Farnworth et al., 2011). In Australia, there is a distinction between the use of ‘wild dog’ in livestock pro- duction literature, where messaging is often focused on spe- cies control, and the use of ‘dingo’ in conservation literature (Kreplins et al., 2018). Also in Australia, there was a call to create a stable list of standardized common names for sub- species of threatened birds, as depending on the name used, common names can either reduce or increase conservation appeal (Ehmke et al., 2018). As with the wild camel, there is a lack of consistent, accurate nomenclature for Lycaon pictus (a mix of African wild dog, painted hunting dog or painted hunting wolf), which confuses audiences and may alter public perceptions of the species (Blades, 2020).
Conservation status of the wild camel
Although the wild camel is categorized as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List (Hare, 2008) and is a large, charismatic mammal (Macdonald et al., 2015), its risk of extinction may not be obvious because of the inac- curate information available to the public (EDGE, 2021).
Oryx, 2023, 57(2), 175–179 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605322000114
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
