Misidentification of Animal and Plant Species in Indian News Media and Vernacular Press: Causes, Patterns, and Consequences

SAIKAT K BASU

Misidentification of Animal and Plant Species in Indian News Media and Vernacular Press: Causes, Patterns, and Consequences

Accurate identification of biological species is fundamental to biodiversity conservation, ecological awareness, and scientific communication. However, Indian news media—including mainstream newspapers, digital portals, and vernacular press—frequently misidentify animal and plant species. These inaccuracies arise from limited taxonomic knowledge, reliance on stock images, linguistic ambiguities, and the pressure of rapid news cycles. This paper examines the patterns, causes, and implications of such misidentifications, drawing from documented cases, media analyses, and conservation reports. This study highlights how misinformation distorts public understanding, undermines conservation efforts, and sometimes leads to ecological and policy misdirection. Recommendations are proposed for improving science communication and fostering collaboration between journalists and taxonomic experts.

India is one of the world’s megadiverse countries, hosting a vast array of flora and fauna across varied ecosystems. Media plays a crucial role in disseminating biodiversity-related information to the public. However, inaccuracies in species identification are increasingly observed in news reports, especially in regional and vernacular media.

Misidentification may involve incorrect naming of species, use of unrelated images, confusion between similar species, and misrepresentation of ecological roles. Such errors are not trivial; but, they shape public perception and influence conservation priorities. Closely related species are often misidentified due to morphological similarities. A report by India’s Central Zoo Authority highlighted confusion between Alpine musk deer and Himalayan musk deer, affecting conservation breeding programs. There are numerous reports about mixing up of Indian one-horned rhinoceros with African two-horned rhinoceros, Asiatic elephants with African elephants, Asiatic lions with African lions, intermixing of various species of deer and antelope , between different sub species of tigers, elephants, rhinoceros, giraffes and zebras, pigeons and doves, toads and frogs, tortoises and turtles, fresh water and marine turtles, freshwater and marine fishes, between lower and higher vascular plants, between ferns and horsetails, lycopds and selaginella, cycads and palms, eusporangiate and leptosprangiate ferns, cycads and tree ferns, between algae, fungi, lichens, mosses, hornwarts and liverwarts, marchantiales and mosses. Such confusions are common in Indian reporting where scientific names are rarely used.

Media frequently uses stock images that do not correspond to the reported species. Studies show that news reports on invasive species often feature entirely different organisms, misleading readers. Example: articles warning about dangerous ants used images of harmless native ants, creating false alarm. Regional languages often use a single name for multiple species. For instance, terms like “cobra,” “python,” or “wild cat” are loosely applied.  This leads to conflation of ecologically distinct species in vernacular newspapers. Media exaggeration for attention leads to incorrect identification. Viral “animal sightings” during lockdowns were often misattributed to unusual species presence Many species reported as “rare” or “new” were actually common urban fauna.

(Himalayan Musk Deer and Alpine Musk Deer)

Causes of misidentification are mostly due to the fact that most reporters lack training in taxonomy or ecology. Scientific names are rarely verified, leading to reliance on local hearsay, visual assumptions and use of easily accessible internet images. The urgency to publish quickly leads to minimal fact-checking, copy-paste journalism, and use of readily available -but incorrect visuals. Furthermore, overdependence on unreliable secondary sources that journalists often depend on include dubious social media posts, non-expert eyewitness accounts, and more worrisome being relying on unverified WhatsApp forwards. Scientific experts are seldom consulted before publication, especially in vernacular press. Folk taxonomy differs from scientific taxonomy. Cultural beliefs (e.g., sacred or feared animals) influence identification.

Misidentification in conservation programs in India have been repirted due to confusion between musk deer species leading to flawed conservation planning. Reports of unusual and scientifically non-verified animal sightings often facilitate to misidentify species and/or locations. Media portrayal influences societal attitudes toward animals and plants, often inaccurately depicting their behavior and ecological role.

Scientific literature highlights how ecosystems and species are often “mislabeled and misunderstood,” affecting conservation narratives. Incorrect identification and misconceptions often lead unnecessary fear among public (e.g., harmless snakes labeled venomous). It also promotes myths and superstitions. Misidentification can misdirect conservation resources. Threatened species may be accidentally overlooked.

Policymakers are increasingly relying on media narratives, as well as inaccurate reporting can influence flawed decisions. Repeated inaccuracies erode trust in science communication. Native species may be wrongly targeted as invasive or dangerous. Misguided eradication efforts may occur. The vernacular press has wider reach in rural India; but faces unique challenges such as limited access to scientific databases, strong reliance on local terminologies and higher susceptibility to folklore-based faulty identifications. 

Workshops for journalists on biodiversity and taxonomy are important steps to train them to become better reporters, particularly collaboration with universities and research institutes can help significantly. Encouraging the mandatory inclusion of binomial nomenclature (scientific names) for plants and animals alongside common names can qualitatively improve the reports in the media. The mandatory consultation with taxonomists or ecologists for wildlife reports,  applying standard protocols for reporting species-related news and using verified image repositories can significantly improve wildlife, biodiversity, ecology and environment related highly specialized and technical reporting. Use of platforms like biodiversity apps for verification and engagement with naturalist communities can help generating education and awareness among budding journalists. Dedicated environmental fact-checking units in media houses are also a need of the hour.

Misidentification of species in Indian media is not merely a technical error; but a systemic issue rooted in structural, educational, and cultural factors. In a country with immense biodiversity, the gap between scientific knowledge and public communication is particularly pronounced. Bridging this gap requires interdisciplinary collaboration between journalists, academics, scientists, educators, and policymakers.

The incorrect identification of animal and plant species in Indian news media and vernacular press represents a significant barrier to effective biodiversity conservation and environmental awareness. Addressing this issue requires improving scientific literacy among journalists, strengthening verification processes, and fostering collaboration between media and scientific communities. Accurate representation of biodiversity is essential not only for conservation but also for building an informed and environmentally responsible society.