You might be familiar with the recent decision by the American Ornithological Society (AOS) to do away with eponyms ( naming birds after people). What's the likelihood the same will happen to plants? How would you feel about it? What would you change names to?
It might be difficult to do (it sure has been for birders), but try to keep the derision and insults to a minimum.
I'm asking because it seems that this action may come whether it makes sense or not and thinking about it ahead of any official decision might make things a little easier.

Let the discussion begin.

Are you talking about something similar to the publicity this year about Poinsettias?
Trying to adopt new common names will be a challenge.
I do think it would be preferred to name a plant species for its location versus for a person though, for example.

I missed the Poinsettia discussion until I looked it up just now, but yes that's what I'm talking about.
That shot across the bow has been taken. Just wait and see where it goes from here. At least there isn't a single organization dedicated to regulating names like there is for birds. The only thing is that the U.S. government identifies organisms that need protecting or regulating and they will choose the names for those in official documents.

Well, there is some effort at one universal accepted plant name, i am guessing for US it is GRIN, but I don't know which if any org is considered the ultimate authority , is it EOL?

I advocate for the sound of the name. A name could be nonsensical, if only the sound pleases the ear. Or a name could please the ear even if a human's name. Why does it matter? The huff is about politics - can't disrespect that plant now (or the bird, or the whatever). Right?

Don't you just love saying Vinca? or Lobelia? or, my favorite; Linnaea borealis?

What matters is the beauty of the name and whether we all understand what the Other is talking about.

As long as everyone knows what you're talking about there shouldn't be a problem.
I think it's more of a problem for birders because there's an official governing body and there's a competitive aspect to it. Most gardeners don't keep life lists or anything.

I have an anecdote that I won't bore you all with, but it's essence is, some people, when 'in charge' of something, will just HAVE to find something to change, in order to show they are important. This could take effect in botany.

As I understand, some Latin names describe attributes and when you understand those, that helps you remember and 'know' the plant Paulownia tomentosa, I always check for furry stems. But should we scrap that for an Asian name from its point of origin? Can we (and birders) just ADD an origin name to the system?
With recent changes, I've already started using whatever Latin name I know PLUS the common name I know, out of uncertainty that what name I am using now is well known, or the correct current accepted name.

Ok, let's honor cultures by adding plant names from the language/culture where the plant is first scientifically described. But, the name from an ancient language, or a modern name? and that name will probably need to be made accessible in the standard 'english language' keyboard, right? Is that a dishonor?

I just read through this thread, and have at least one comment. Who's in charge of this stupidity? In the case of the birds, the American Ornithological Society' the (AOS), or the (AOS), the American Orchid Society. I can see this immediately turning into a turf battle of "registering authorities". In my case, I will just sit back and watch another bunch of "important" people making themselves look like gumps, by acting like gumps. Read Sallyg above. Anybody want to print a bunch of signs, and purchase a bunch of bull-horns?... Perhaps we can get the birds and orchids to protest.
Bill

Self-appointed "authorities" can always be ignored. And if you observe how most people actually talk about plants, they largely are. The whole binomial nomenclature system introduced by Linnaeus has been a disaster, as it thoroughly confounds the referential and the classificatory functions of a name. There's no reason in the world that a described population can not be given a name/label that will be fixed for all time, regardless of how that "species" gets slotted into the latest fashionable taxonomical scheme.

The changing of common names for birds to remove the human references has potential to improve the information content of those names (after all, the features of the bird and its geography are more practical knowledge) at the cost of confusing everyone who only knows the old (eponymic) common name. So there's your cost-benefit right there. But I think it is generally a mistake to underestimate people's ability to change and adapt to circumstances.

Common names are so elastic and regional and user-dependent that it is a little silly to expect them to be written in stone somewhere. For the most part I hate common names for plants, at least for the succulents that I almost exclusively grow. The common names for species that include people's names are usually just a poor attempt to salvage something from an eponymous Latin species name, and in that case you will generally be clearer and better understood (at least among collectors and people who appreciate fine differences) with the Latin species name. So I would never think to use those common names in the first place. I guess some people hate Latin (fair enough) and they will do whatever they can to avoid it. Latin is so close to Spanish (the language people speak here) that the overlap makes it relevant and useful (and easy to pronounce).

But honestly I feel like the common name can be whatever the person using it wants the common name to be, as long as someone else understands it. The fine granular species to species differences in common names are irrelevant to my needs and my experience so I have almost no interest in what other people do with them.

I'm firmly against the changing of names of plants, animals, object, for any reason other than to consolidate two that are realized to be the same plant, &/or to follow the system of using the first published name. I believe it's much easier to gather, track, find, and use info about a thing if the name of the thing does NOT change.

Otherwise, I think it's just a game of Simon Sez and Euphemism-ization and I refuse to participate. In order for this kind of change to take effect, people have to decide to go along and actively use a new name instead of the existing one.

I also object to the arrogance of thinking DNA is the most important piece of info, of such importance that it is worthy of confusing billions of people, wasting their time, and rendering printed materials to the status of outdated. The next major discovery might make that info look insignificant.

This is the problem with 'political correctness.' It starts with renaming Gypsy Moths because Travellers (Gypsies), might get offended. Then it goes off the deep end with all sorts of overreaction.

You have given me a thought, though, I might just start a Life List for plants, just like the birders. Now let's see, what was my first plant?...

I read some more posts about the decision on a birding forum and it turns out it IS about reverse discrimination toward Whites. Apparently everything that Whites do is racist, oppressive and demeaning to people of color, gender alternative and lower income. Political correctness gone amok. Where WILL it end? Am I the real problem? I don't feel oppressive, but what do I know?

Sometimes ' problems' are made where many people don't realize /feel there is a problem. Agendas. Divisiveness.

I try to remember to do a little thing every day, simply step outside and say "whatever I want" to the wide open air. Not profound observations, the literal words, "whatever I want." First, to remind myself to appreciate being able to do it, and because it feels like there might soon come a time when that will be some kind of crime.

Defending that freedom for myself, as vigorously as that which is the right of the person saying the most nasty, vile stuff that I don't want to hear, from any threat to it is definitely important to me, and a priority for me.

There are too many people around lately who think people should not be able to say whatever they want. One would be too many and there are a lot more than that.

What I really don't understand is people who give everyone else the power to "offend" them. Ask yourself, if I didn't know what was said, would it affect me in any way? If the answer is no, why bother to care? Being concerned in that case is a conscious decision actively made to be upset. I don't understand making that choice, vs. not caring and going on with myself, unaffected.

We can't control what other people do, only how we choose to react or internalize. Trying to get other people to change themselves so you can feel better seems like a pointless thing to do to me, and so unlikely to manifest. I say, find something to do and you won't even have time to care about what other people are thinking or doing.