Why does zoology suffer terminologically from orange-blindness?

@tonyrebelo @jeremygilmore @ludwig_muller @ptexis @simontonge

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2KGnqn-x60.

Extremely few mammal species are called 'orange', in vernacular or scientific English.

This may, at first, seem understandable. For example,

• 'orange' may be an unusual word for a colour, in that it is both an adjective and a noun in describing the eponymous citrus fruit, and
• the word ‘orange’ - and the associated citrus fruit - may have reached England only relatively recently from southern Asia.

Thus arises the possibility that 'orange' may not have been fully assimilated into scientific English.

Furthermore, many naturalists may see other terms as more accurate and precise than ‘orange’. The brightest-hued of brownish animals have been described not as orange, but instead as

• 'chestnut' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_(color).),
• ‘rufous’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufous),
• 'rusty' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(color)),
• ‘golden’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_(color)), and
• ‘ochraceous’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochre),

In the case of the domestic cat (Felis catus), the term 'ginger' tends to be used (https://thevillagevets.com/blog/5-facts-about-ginger-cats/).

However, on closer scrutiny, the failure to describe mammals as 'orange' seems unscientific and lacking in objectivity.

Please consider the following five lines of reasoning.

Firstly, the use of ‘red’ and ‘reddish’ in both vernacular names and formal descriptions of mammals and birds is – despite its long-standing tradition in biology – incorrect where the hue referred to is demonstrably more similar to orange.

Examples include

• the red fox (Vulpes vulpes, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/42069-Vulpes-vulpes),
• the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/46001-Sciurus-vulgaris),
• the red deer (Cervus elaphus, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/204113-Cervus-elaphus), and
• the red-flanked duiker (Cephalophus rufilatus, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1430997-Cephalophorus-rufilatus).

The same error has been made even within the human species: the hair colour of ‘red-headed’ individuals of Celtic ancestry is actually orange - although not respectably labelled as such (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/are-human-redheads-ever-called-zY33fb1kRWyMc2xzj5FTKg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair).

Secondly, the alternative terms listed above, even if used consistently, are

• no more scientific than ‘orange’, and
• used remarkably inconsistently in the biological literature.

Thirdly, the historical excuses are invalid, both rationally and factually.

The logical link between colour and citrus fruits is weak. This is because

• the colour orange did not correspond historically with the eponymous fruit, and
• other examples of orange, such as autumn foliage, have always connected Britain, through Europe and western Asia, to southeast Asia.

Orange citrus reached Britain as long ago as 1066, when Old English was unrecognisably different from present-day English. By contrast, the first record of the word 'orange' is from 1512, around the time when Modern English first arose.

(Please note that, to this day, the orange citrus fruit is known as Chinese apple (translated) in parts of Europe near to Britain, such as the Netherlands. This is particularly significant because The Netherlands is unusual in Europe in having orange as its national colour.)

The term 'orange' has Sanskrit origins. Other scientifically relevant examples of English terms derived from Sanskrit include

• the colours crimson and lilac, and
• the various nouns cow, opal, rice, saccharine, sapphire, shampoo, sulphur, sugar, musk, lacquer, jungle, jackal, cheetah, and atoll.

Fourthly, English has never lacked a term for the hue in question in this Post.

This is because the Old English 'yellowred' (https://www.yourdictionary.com/yellowred) was originally available to describe animals called red inaccurately.

The word 'yellowred', originally spelt ‘geoluread’ or ‘geoluhreadd’, correctly reflects the electromagnetic nature of the colour orange as a combination of yellow and red or an intermediate between yellow and red.

Fifthly, Modern English – including the word ‘orange’ – has been written for half a millennium, ample time for this colour to be applied to organisms. This is especially considering the tendency for new vernacular names to proliferate locally.

The word ‘orange’ was used in Elizabethan times. Indeed, it was written by Shakespeare, e.g. in the play Much Ado About Nothing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing).

I conclude that the real reasons for an anglophone bias against orange are psychological rather than scientific. The syndrome is cultural and subconsciously emotional.

Northern Europeans retain a cultural tendency to take orange non-seriously (https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/68099-why-does-anglophone-zoology-suffer-from-orange-blindness#activity_comment_19e0bbab-04ae-46e9-8c91-a97f1eb7917e). A noteworthy exception is The Netherlands, where orange has noble connotations (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/sports/world-cup-2022/why-does-the-netherlands-wear-orange/3047486/#:~:text=The%20orange%20color%20that%27s%20present,at%20the%20age%20of%2011.).

I suggest that the anglophone tendency to disregard orange, which persists to this day in zoology, has been at the expense of scientific rigour, and should therefore be corrected.

Anglophone scientists have not been accurate, precise, objective or consistent in describing and naming orangeish-brown or brownish-orange species of animals. In reality, orange unambiguously refers to a narrow range of electromagnetic wavelengths, and has always been suitable for zoological description.

All of the mammals referred to would be aptly described by the Ancient Greek word kirrhos/cirrhos, meaning orangeish-brown. It is remarkable that this word-root has not been applied to them, in the scientific process (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/ancient-greek-kirrhos-cirrhos-gCODGSYmSq.1xnp18N63QQ).

A terminologically sound renaming for mammals such as the red fox might be 'cirrhous' instead of 'red'.

However, in reality, the term 'cirrhous' - in contrast to other Greek-derived terms such as erythrus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythrus#:~:text=Erythrus%20is%20a%20genus%20of,Scientific%20classification), leucistic (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leucism), melanic (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/melanic), cyaneous (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyaneous), glaucous (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glaucous), etc. - has hardly entered the zoological lexicon. It may be too late to remedy this lapse.

A similar rationale applies to the Latin word for orange (aurantiacus, https://www.perplexity.ai/search/which-english-words-are-derive-5fTHH8ppRF.3TGDuqC3hoQ).

And so, given the choices available, would it not be more apt to call mammals such as the red fox 'orange' than to call them 'red'?

Posted on 11 de julho de 2022, 06:01 AM by milewski