hipo. berlin

8/3/2019 Hipo. Berlin

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hipo-berlin 1/30

General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology

Author(s): Brent Berlin, Dennis E. Breedlove, Peter H. RavenSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Feb., 1973), pp. 214-242Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/672350 .

Accessed: 25/10/2011 08:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthro

http://www.jstor.org/stable/672350?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/672350?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthro

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black



GeneralPrinciplesof Classification and Nomenclaturein Folk Biology

BRENTBERLIN

University of California, Berkeley

DENNISE. BREEDLOVE

California Academy of Sciences

PETERH. RAVENMissouri Botanical Garden

Since about 1954, modern field research has been carried out by a number of

ethnographers and biologists in an effort to understand more fully the nature offolk biological classification. Much of this work has been devoted to studies dealingwith the naming and classification of plants and animals in non-Western societies. Ithas now become apparent that several important and far reaching generalizationscan be formulated which promise to throw considerable light on prescientific man's

understanding of his biological universe.

THESTUDYof man's onceptualizationof his natural and social environmentshas

always been a major concern for eth-

nography. Surely, one of ethnography'smajorcontributionsto social science theoryhas been the systematicrevelation of man,the classifyinganimal.However, he richnessand diversityof man's variantclassificationsof experience have often led ethnographersto emphasize the differences between cul-turalsystemsof knowledgeat the expenseof

noting what may be equally revealing imi-larities.

In the last several years, a number of

scholars have become involved in the de-tailed study of folk biosystematics, pre-scientific man's classificationof his biologi-cal universe.From this work, it has become

apparent hat, whileindividual ocietiesmaydiffer considerably in their conceptualiza-tion of plants and animals, there are anumber of strikingly regular structural

principles of folk biological classificationwhich are quite general. If the patternswhich have been observed continue to be

confirmed by further research,their studypromises to reveal important aspects of

man'sconceptualorganizationof the naturalworld.

Here, we present evidence in supportofseveral hypotheses which deal with various

aspects of folk biologicalclassificationandnomenclature. The number of societieswhich have been studied in sufficient detailso as to allow one to make comparativeinferences s small. Nonetheless,we feel thatthe data that have been collected to this

point are sufficientlyclear as to merit their

presentationat this time.These principles can be summarized as

follows:

(1) In all languages it is possible toisolate linguisticallyrecognizedgroupingsof

organisms of varying degrees of inclusive-ness. These classes are referredto here astaxa and can be illustratedby the groupingsof organismsindicated by the namesoak,vine, plant, red-headed woodpecker, etc., in

English.(2) Taxaare furthergrouped nto a small

numberof classesknown as taxonomic eth-

nobiological categories.These ethnobiologi-

cal categories,definable n terms of linguisticand taxonomiccriteria,probablynumberno

214



Berlin et al. ] FOLK BIOLOGY: CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE 215

more than five. They may be named asfollows: unique beginner, ife form, generic,specific, and varietal. A sixth category,called intermediate, may be required as

further research is carried out on ethno-biologicalclassification.

(3) The five universal ethnobiologicalcategories are arranged hierarchicallyandtaxa assigned to each rank are mutuallyexclusive,except for the unique beginnerofwhich thereis only one member.

(4) Taxa of the same ethnobiologicalcategory characteristically,though not in-

variably,occur at the same taxonomic levelwithin any particular axonomic structure.'

The taxon which is a member of the cate-gory unique beginner occurs at level zero.Life form taxa occur only at level one.Generictaxa characteristically ccur at level

two, but if not, always occur at level one.

Specific taxa characteristically ccurat level

three, but if not, always occur at level twoand are immediately included in a generictaxon which occurs at level one. Varietal

taxa, if present, characteristicallyoccur atlevel

four,but if

not, atlevel

three andin

this case can be shown ultimately to beincluded n a genericthat occurs at levelone.

The relationshipof these proposedethno-

biological taxonomic categories and their

relative taxonomic levels in any particulartaxonomic structure can be seen in theidealizedschematicdiagramn Figure1.

Taxaassignedto each of the fundamental

ethnobiological categories characteristicallyexhibit linguisticand/or taxonomic featureswhich allow for their recognition.In addi-tion to what has already been said, the

following general tendencies should benoted:

(5) In folk taxonomies it is quite com-mon that the taxon found as a memberofthe category unique beginner s not labelled

linguisticallyby a singlehabitualexpression.That is, the most inclusivetaxon, e.g.,plant

oranimal, s rarelynamed.(6) Taxa which are membersof the eth-

nobiological category "life form" are in-

variablyfew in number,ranging rom five to

ten, andamongthem include the majorityof

all named taxa of lesser rank.All life formtaxa are polytypic. Life form taxa are la-belled by linguistic expressions which are

lexically analyzed as primary lexemes and

may be illustratedby the classes namedby

suchwords

as tree, vine, bird, grass,mam-

mal,etc.

(7) In typical folk taxonomies, taxawhich are members of the ethnobiologicalcategory"generic"are muchmorenumerous

Level 0 UB

Level 1 If If2. . Ifn g2 . . . g

i...

Level 2 g3 g4 9596.. gm gn Sl S2 S3 S4. ..Si

S

A AUB = UniqueeginnerLevel 3 S2 3 s4--... Sm Sn If = life form

e = generic

A , As = specificLevel 4 v1 v2 vm vn v = varietal

Figure1. Schematicrelationshipof the five universal thnobiological axonomiccategoriesand their relativehierarchicevelsin an idealizedfolk taxonomy.



216 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [75,1973

than life form taxa but are nonetheless

finite, rangingin the neighborhoodof 500

classes.Most generic taxa are immediately in-

cluded in one of the few life formtaxa.It isnot uncommon to find, however,a numberof classesof genericrankwhich are aberrant

(in termsof the definingfeaturesof the life

form taxa) and, as such, are conceptuallyseen as unaffiliated(i.e., are not included n

one of the life forms). Aberrancy may bedue to a numberof factorsbut morphologi-cal conspicuousnessand/oreconomicimpor-tance appear to be the primary reasons

involved.

Folk generic taxa may be recognizedinterms of several criteria, one of the most

important of which is nomenclatural.In

general, generic names are labelled by

primary lexemes. Examples of typical

(versusaberrant)generictaxa are the classes

named by the words oak, pine, catfish,

perch, robin, etc. Examplesof generictaxa

that often are consideredunique are those

indicated by the names cactus, bamboo,

pineapple, cassowary, pangolin, platypus,etc.

Finally, as will be shown below, generictaxa are the basic buildingblocks of all folk

taxonomies. They representthe most com-

monly referredto groupingsof organismsn

the naturalenvironment,arethe most salient

psychologicallyand are likely to be amongthe first taxa learnedby the child (see Stross1969 and n.d.).

(8) Taxa which are membersof the eth-

nobiological categories "specific" and"varietal"are, in general, ess numerous han

taxa found as membersof the genericcate-

gory. Specific and varietaltaxa characteris-

tically occur in contrast sets2 of few mem-

bers, the most frequent being a set of two

classes. Contrast sets of more than two

memberstend to referto organismsof majorcultural mportanceandlarger ets of twentyor more taxa invariablydo. Varietal taxa

(i.e.,further divisions of specific taxa) are

rare in most folk biological taxonomies.

Finally,specificandvarietal axaarenormal-

ly distinguished n terms of featureson few,

if not a single, semantic dimension, e.g.,red rose versus white rose.

Both specific and varietal taxa are lin-

guistically recognizedin that they are most

commonly labelled by secondary (versusprimary, for life forms and generics)lexemes. Examplesof specific taxa are theclassesnamedby the secondary exemes blue

spruce, white fir, post oak. Examples ofvarietal taxa are the classes labelled by thenames baby lima bean and butter lima bean.

(9) Intermediate taxa are those classeswhich can be assigned o the ethnobiologicalcategory"intermediate."Taxonomically,anintermediate taxon is one which is im-

mediately included in one of the majorlifeform taxa and which immediatelyincludestaxa of generic rank. We have found suchtaxa to be invariablyrare in natural folk

taxonomies, and, when evidence has been

presented which unambiguously demon-strates their existence (see Berlin,Breedlove,and Raven1968) the classesare not linguis-tically labelled. As a consequence,we havereferredto such classes as covertcategories.

Therarity

of intermediate taxa in folk

taxonomies, but more importantly,the factthat they are not named,leads us to doubtwhetherone is empirically ustifiedin estab-

lishingan absoluteethnobiologicalcategoryfor taxa of this rank. The questioncanonlybe resolvedby furtherresearch.

NAMESFOR PLANTSAND ANIMALS

In this section we will discuss the rela-

tionshipof the formallinguisticstructureofplant and animal names and the cognitivestatus of the taxa to which such names

apply. While no isomorphiccorrespondenceis claimed to exist between nomenclature

(i.e., names given to classes of plants and

animals)andclassification i.e., the cognitiverelationshipsthat hold between classes of

plantsand animals),the overwhelmingbodyof evidence now in hand suggests thatnomenclature s often a nearperfect guideto

folk taxonomic structure. Furthermore,when nomenclature ails to mirroraccurate-

ly the taxonomic status of a particularbiol-



Berlinet al.] FOLKBIOLOGY:CLASSIFICATIONND NOMENCLATURE 217

ogical class, it can usuallybe shown that the

class in question is undergoing semantic

change.In all ethnobiologicallexicons, one may

distinguish wo types of namesfor classesofplants and animals. One class comprisesforms which are, for the most part, unique,"single word" expressions which can beshown to be semantically unitary and lin-

guistically distinct. Examples of such

semanticallyunitary names in Englishfolk

biology might be oak, pine, maple, rabbit,quail, and bass. A second group of expres-sions comprisesmembersof the first classin

variously modified form, e.g., post oak,

ponderosa pine, sugar maple, cottontailrabbit, blue quail, and large-mouthbass.

Psychologically, examples from the first

class of terms seem to be more basic or

salient than those of the secondin muchthe

same sense that the color termsred,yellow,and green are more basic than pale red,

yellowish, and bluishgreen.It will be useful

to refer to members of the first set as

primary exemes and to those of the second

assecondary

exemes.

Typesof PrimaryLexemes

Primary exemes can be furtheranalyzedsemantically.Some areclearly simple expres-sions which are unanalyzable inguistically,such asoak andpine. Otherprimary exemesare linguistically analyzable and can beillustrated by such expressions as beggar-

tick, jack-in-the-pulpit,planetree, tuliptree,pipevine,Rocky Mountainbeeplant, catfish,bluebird, wordfish,andmanyothers.

Analyzable primary lexemes can bedivided easily into two obvious classes.One

group, comprisingforms such as planetree,tuliptree,pipevine, etc., are distinguishablein that one of the constituents of each

expression indicates a category super-ordinate to that of the form in question,

e.g.,tuliptreeis a kind of

tree,planetreeis a

kind of tree,pipevine is a kind of vine, and

so on. These expressions are productiveprimaryexemes.

A secondgroup, comprising ormssuchas

beggar-tick, jack-in-the-pulpit, hens-and

chickens, is distinguishable n that no con-

stituent marks a category superordinate o

the forms in question. Thus, beggar-tick snot a kind of tick, jack-in-the-pulpithaslittle to do with either jack or pulpits,hens-and-chickens oes not refer to poultry.These expressionsare unproductiveprimarylexemes.

SecondaryLexemes

Secondary lexemes, like productive

primary orms,are identifiable n that one of

the constituents of such expressions in-dicatesa categorysuperordinateo the formin question, e.g., jack oak (a kind of oak),Orientalplanetree (a kind ofplanetree), blue

spruce (a kind of spruce). On the other

hand,secondary exemesdiffer fromproduc-tive primaryexpressionsin that the former

occur only in contrast sets, all of whose

members are labelledby secondarylexemeswhich share the same superordinatecon-

stituent. Thus, jack oak is unambiguouslyasecondary lexeme in that (a) one of its

constituents, oak, labelsa taxon whichis its

immediatesuperordinate OAK), and (b) it

occurs in a contrast set of whose members

are also labelledby secondary exemes whichinclude a constituent that labels the taxonoak (i.e., post oak, scrub oak, blue oak,

etc.).Productive primary lexemes such as

planetree, tuliptree, and leadtree, however,

occur as membersof contrast sets of whichsome members are labelled by expressionssuchasmaple,walnut,elm, etc.3

The relationship between these various

types of lexemes may be seen as follows4(see Figure2).

Ethnobiological Nomenclature and Folk

Taxonomy

In work done thus far onethnosys-tematics, it seems likely that the vast

majorityof primarylexemes, as defined in

the discussion above, refer to biologically




(unanalyzable)oak

pinetree

maple

primary

productive

planetree

pipevineleadtree

crabgrasslexeme (analyzable)

type unproductive

begger-tickcat-tail

poison oak

jack-in-the-pulpit

secondary

jack oak

Orientalplanetree

swamp beggar-tickwhite pineblue spruce

Figure2. Analysisof lexemesby lexemic type.

naturalgroupingsof organismsthat can be

referredto as folk genera. Amuch smaller

number of primarylexemes referto group-

ings larger than folk generaand appeartolabel such higher order taxa as tree, bush,vine, grass, fish, bird, snake, "land mam-

mal," and the like. Such groupingscan bereferredto as life forms. In some naturallyoccurring biotaxonomies, the complete setof organisms being classified may be rec-

ognized conceptually and referredto by a

primary exeme, e.g., plant oranimal.An all

inclusivenamedcategoryof thissort, thoughrarein most systems we know of, would beknownas the unique beginner.

In contrast to the kinds of taxa marked

by primary lexemes, secondary lexemes

generallylabel classesof organismsof lesserinclusivenessthan either folk generaor lifeforms. Such groupingscould be called folk

species and, more rarely, folk varieties,depending on the degree of specificationindicated inguistically.

The relationship between these concep-tual categoriesand the namesby whichthey

are referred can be stated as a set of four

generalnomenclatural

principleswhich are

subject to verificationand modification byfurther research.In any folk taxonomy of

plantsand animals:

(1) Some taxa marked by primarylexemes are terminals or immediately in-clude taxa designatedby secondary exemes.

Taxa satisfyingthese conditions aregeneric;their labels aregenericnames.

(2) Some taxa6 markedby primary ex-

emes are not terminal and immediatelyin-

clude taxa designatedby primary exemes.Taxasatisfyingthese conditions refer to lifeform categories; their labels are life formnames.

(3) Some taxa marked by secondarylexemes are terminal and are immediatelyincluded in taxa designatedby primary ex-emes. Taxa satisfying these conditions are

specific;theirlabelsarespecificnames.

(4) Some taxa marked by secondarylexemes are terminal and are immediatelyincludedin taxa which aredesignatedaswellby secondarylexemes. Taxasatisfyingthese




conditions are varietal;their labels, varietalnames.

In the followingsections we will show the

applicability of these nomenclaturalprin-

ciplesto the

descriptionof the

plantnames

of the Tzeltal, a swiddenagriculturalMayanpeople with whom we have been workingintensivelyfor severalyears,andfor which a

monographictreatment will appear shortly(Berlin,Breedlove,and Ravenn.d.). Furtheron we will presentanalogous inguisticmate-rials from other languageswhich lend sup-port to the claim that these principleshave

widespread pplication.

TZELTALPLANTTAXONOMYAND NOMENCLATURAL ULES

With the exception of all fungi, lichens,algae, and the like, the boundaries of thedomainof plantsasconceivedby the Tzeltal

correspondsalmost perfectly with the stan-dard plant division of Westernsystematicbotany.

The domain as a conceptual class, how-

ever, is not markedby a habituallinguisticexpression comparableto the Englishterm

plant. Nonetheless, there are numerous ex-

pressionswhich may be utilized to contrast

any one member of the plant world with amember of some otherdomain,for example,animals. Characteristically, plants "don't

move" ma knihik,while animalsdo; plants"don't walk" ma sbenik, while animalsdo;plants are "planted in the earth" Pay

c'unulik ta lum or "possess roots" 9ay yisi-mik, clearly features not characteristicofanimals.

On more formallinguistic grounds,plantnames uniquely occur with the numeralclassifiertehk. Numeralclassifiersareobliga-tory expressionswhich must be used when

counting certain objects in Tzeltal (seeBerlin 1968). Thus, "three trees" would bestated as 9os-tehk te ~'three members of the

plant class tree'. Animalnames,on the other

hand,occur with the numeralclassifierkoht(e.g., 'oq-koht c'iP 'three members of the

animal class dog'), and names for human

beings occur with the classifier tul (e.g.,can-tul winik 'four membersof the human

classmen').

On both botanicalandlinguisticgrounds,then, the plant domain for the Tzeltal,thoughnot namedassuch, is unambiguouslyboundedanddistinctlydefined.

Life Form Taxa and Life Form Names

In the Tzeltal conception of the plantworld, four major life form categoriesare

unique in that, between them, they includeat least seventy-five percent of all other

plant taxa. Each of these four categories slabelled by a simple primary exeme. These

major plant class names refer to the mostobvious andwidespreadife forms that plantscan assume, namely 'trees' te , 'vines' 9ak',

'grasses'ak, and 'broad-leafedherbaceousshrubs' wamal.

Generic Taxa and Generic Names

At this time, a total of 471 mutuallyexclusive generictaxa have been establishedas legitimateTzeltalplant groupings.Of thetotal 471 genericclasses,356 areimmediate-

ly included in one of the fourlife formcate-

gories, te2, ?ak', ?ak, or wamal. Some ninety-seven generic forms, about twenty percent,are not includedin any of the four life formtaxa and are thought of by the Tzeltal asunaffiliatedgenerics.Plants conceivedas un-

affiliated are almost without exception cul-tivated and/or morphologically peculiar insome fashion. Examples are 9iim 'corn',Eenek' bean',halal 'bamboo',andEi agave'.Finally, a residue of some eighteen generictaxa, approximately ive percentareambigu-ous in that they exhibit characteristicsoftwo (or, rarely,three) life form classes, i.e.,they fall on the boundariesof the majorclasses.

The distributionof the inventoryof 471

generictaxa over these six categoriescan beseen below.




Number of

Category Generic Taxa

te9 'trees' 178

wamal 'herbs' 119

2ak 'grasses' 35

2ak' vines' 24

unaffiliated taxa 97

ambiguous taxa 18

Total 471

Some ninety-one of the 471 generic taxa

are labelled by expressions that can be

shown to be of recent origin, i.e., are loan

words or loan expressions primarily from

Spanish. All of the remaining 380 taxa are

labelled by native Tzeltal expressions which

can be analyzed linguistically as primary

lexemes. 101 taxa are labelled by simpleprimary lexemes, 125 by unproductive

primary lexemes, and 154 by productive

primary expressions. Examples of genericnames exhibiting these various lexical typescan be seen in Table I.

Most generic plant taxa in Tzeltal ethno-

systematics are monotypic, i.e., are terminal

taxa marked by primary lexemes which in-

clude no other named categories. Our data

now indicate that of the total inventory of

471 named generic taxa (including those

TABLE I. EXAMPLES OF TZELTAL GENERIC NAMESILLUSTRATING THE THREE LEXICAL TYPES OF PRIMARY LEXEMES

Simple Primary

eon, avocado (Persea americana, P. donnell-smithii)

PiM,hili pepper (Capsicum pubescens, C. annuum)

siban, dogwood (Cornus excelsa)

tok'oy, willow (Salix bonplandiana)

tah, pine (Pinus spp., Abies sp.)

Unproductive Primarycis 6auk, meadow rue (Thalictrum guatemalense) < cis 'fart', + 6auk, thunder lit.,

"thunder fart"

c'inte-, manioc (Manihot esculenta) < c'in unanalyzable constituent + te-, tree, lit.,"c'in tree" [but not a kind of tree].

balam k'in, wild sunflower (Polymnia maculata) < balam, jaguar; k'in, day, lit.,"jaguar day"

cic -ak [no common name] (Tagetes spp.) < cic, kind of avocado + ?ak, grass, lit.,avocado grass [but not a kind of grass].

yilim -ahaw,wax calla

(Anthurium spp.)<

y-iilim,its corn +

-ahaw,kind of

snake,lit., "snake's corn"

Productive Primarymes tee, coyote bush (Baccharis vaccinioides) < mes, broom + te-, tree, lit., "broom

tree"

kul ?ak' greenbriar (Smilax spp.) < kul unanalyzable constituent + zak', vine, lit.,"kul vine"

6itam -ak, kind of grass (Muhlenbergia macroura) < itam, pig + zak, grass, lit.,"pig grass"

k'an 6u0 wamal, spurge (Euphorbia graminea) < k'an, to want it, to resemble it +

6u0, woman's breast + wamal, herb, lit., "resembles-woman's-breast herb"

[due, perhaps, to white sappy milk exuded from broken stems of plant].Eihil tee, elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) < Mihilunanalyzable constituent + tee,

tree, lit., 'Wihil-tree'




TABLE II. EXAMPLES OF TZELTAL SPECIFIC NAMESANALYZABLE AS SECONDARY LEXEMES

generic names specific names

sakil ahatez white white sapote

Casimiroa edulis

zahatez k 'anal zahatez yellow white sapotewhite sapote Casimiroa edulis

celum -ahatez elongatedwhite sapoteCasimiroa edulis

sakil sc'ul white amaranth

Amaranthus hybridus

sc'ul cahal sc'ul red amaranth

amaranth Amaranthus cruentus

c'is sc'ul spiny amaranth

Amaranthus spinosus

sakil pehtak white prickly pear

pehtak Opuntia sp.

prickly pear cahalpehtak red prickly pear

Opuntia sp.

labelled by loan words), 398, or eighty-fivepercent are monotypic. The remainingseventy-three eneric axa,or fifteen percent,are polytypic includingfrom two to seven-teen namedspecificclasses.

Furthermore,our researchindicates that

generic taxa form the basic core of Tzeltal

plant taxonomy. The namesfor suchfunda-mental categories are those most readilyelicited from Tzeltal informants and most

easily recalledby them, suggesting hat theyare highly salient psychologically.There isevidence from the investigationsof Stross

(1968 and n.d.) that generic names arelearned quite early in the acquisition ofbotanicalterminologyby the Tzeltalchild,a

finding which can be taken as an indepen-dent measure of psychological importance.

Specific Taxa and Specific Names

As already noted, seventy-threeTzeltalgeneric classes are partitioned into two ormore smallertaxa which we will refer to as

specific taxa. There are 239 suchtaxa in our

inventoryat present.With the exception of several rare in-

stances,the namesfor such specifictaxaareall linguisticallyanalyzed as secondarylex-

emes. The general nomenclatural rule in

Tzeltalspecific name formation s to modifythe generic name involved with a singleattributivizing expression. The resultingform is logicallycomparable o the Linnaean

binomial.Examples of specific names exhibiting

this binomial structurecan be seen in TableII.

At the present time, we have found onlyfour specific taxa which are further sub-divided into varietals. Three classesrefer to

highly important cultigens.The first two are

types of beans(cenek');the third is a type ofbanana(lo bal). A fourth is limited to oneof the classes of tree legumes.As might be

expected, varietal names are formed by themodification of the specific name throughthe addition of an attributive.An example



222 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST [75,1973

can be seen in the division of the genericcenek' 'bean'. Beans are dividedinto seven-teen specific taxa, one of which is flumilcenek' 'common bean' (Phaseolusvulgaris).

This specific taxon is further partitionedinto the two color variants cahal ilumilcenek' 'red common bean' and Pihkal lumil

cenek' black common bean'.No plant names in Tzeltal ethnobotany

have been elicited which refer to groupingsof greater specificity than that of the var-ietal. However, if such names were found,we can be assured that they would be

formed in an analogous fashion to thatmentioned above and that they would al-

waysbe labelledby secondary exemes.Varietal taxa are not usuallyreferredto,

in actual speech, by their full names.Thereis a tendency for such formsto be "abbrevi-

ated," to use Conklin's terminology

(1962:122). In such instances,a portion of

the name will be usedto referto the class as

a whole. In general,abbreviationwill leadto

the deletion of the genericconstituentof the

name (i.e., the head of the expression)and

thespecific portion

of the namewill become

the head. In English, the varietal forms

butter lima(s) bean and baby lima(s) beans

may be abbreviatedto butter lima(s) and

baby lima(s). In Tzeltal, one can abbreviatethe varietal expression cahal 'lumil 'enek'

'red ground bean' (Phaseolus vulgaris) to

cahal slumil, literally, 'red ground [ones]9'.

NOMENCLATURE ND CLASSIFICATION:SOMEPOSSIBLEQUALIFICATIONS

We have shown that in Tzeltal ethno-botanical systematics, life form and genericnames are labelled by primary exemes andthat specific and varietal namesare labelled

by secondary exemes. As such, Tzeltalplantname terminology conforms to the nomen-claturalprinciplesoutlined in the section on

general principles. Our data reveal a smallnumberof exceptions to these generalrules,however, which merit discussion.Thereare

at least three genericnamesin Tzeltalwhich

appearto be labelled by secondary exemes.

Likewise, there may be some evidencethat

at least one specific taxon is labelled by a

primary lexeme. We feel that the circum-

stancesunderlying heseapparentexceptionsare sufficient to indicate that they are, in

fact, exceptions which prove the generalrule.

InstancesWhereGenericTaxa

AreLabelledby SecondaryLexemes

It will be recalled that a secondarylex-

eme is a complex expressionwhich(a) com-

prises a constituent which labels a taxon

immediately superordinateto the form in

question and (b) occurs in a contrast set

whose members also are labelled by secon-dary lexemes which share the same super-ordinate constituent. Three taxa which we

would treat as generic classes appearto be

labelled in Tzeltal by secondary lexemes.

The taxa involvedare all introduced to the

highlandChiapasareaand refer to sorghum,

wheat, andstrawberry.Wewill discussthem

in turn.

Sorghumand wheat andstrawberry:The

nativetermfor corn in Tzeltal is 9iim. It is a

polytypic generic taxon including at least

five widely recognizedspecific taxa,namely,sakil 9iim 'white corn', cahal 9iim 'red

corn', k'anal 9iim 'yellow corn', 2ihk'al

2isim 'black corn' andpintu 9iim 'spottedcorn'.7

At the time of the HispanicConquest,the

highlandMayangroupswere introducedtotwo similar and yet quite distinct edible

grains,wheat andsorghum.Thesegrainbear-

ing field crops were consideredto be similarby the Tzeltal populationto their own poly-

typic class of corn. Logically enough, the

two introduced classes were linguisticallydesignatedas kaslan Pjjim8 Castiliancorn',i.e., 'wheat' and m6ro 2ilim Moorscorn',i.e., 'sorghum'.The conceptualaffiliationofthese two taxa with corn is verifiedin thatboth names occur as responsesto the querybitik sbil huhuten 2isim, "What are the

namesof each kind of corn?"Furtherques-tioning, however, clearly demonstratesthatthese two introducedplantsare not kinds of

genuinecorn, i.e., Zea mays, a fact whichis




k'anal 2iWim

(bac'il) iim. sakil Nilim

corn cahal iim Zeamays

Nihk'al%ilim

pintu 2i&im

PiSimI kailan 2ilim Triticum aestivum

grains•wheat

m6ro jijim Sorghum vulgare

sorghum

Figure3. Inferred taxonomic structureshowingrelationshipof corn,wheatandsorghumin Tzeltal folk botany.

linguisticallynoted by the expressionbac'il

3isim 'true corn'. Taxonomically, the rela-tionship among corn, sorghum,and wheat isseen in Figure3.

A comparablesituation to the classifica-

tion of "grains" s seen in the treatmentof

the polytypic generic class makum 'black-

berry' in Tzeltal. In this case, the Spanishintroduced the European strawberryFragaria esca.The strawberrywasobviouslysimilar to the known specific varieties of

blackberries but not similarenough

to

simply be included as a kind of makum.

Thus, as with 9iim, the class makum was

elevated to become a higher order taxon

including now the native blackberrybac'ilmakum and the introduced strawberrykailanmakum, it. 'Castilianblackberry'.The

taxonomic structureof this groupof plantscanbe seen in Figure4.

Each of the above examples describe

specialsituationsbroughton by culturecon-

tact and indicate that under certain condi-

tions a nativepolytypic genericname will beelevated to mark an intermediate super-ordinatecategoryof a higherorderthan thatof the folk genus. Taxa immediately in-cluded in this new category may include

generic names which are linguisticallyanalyzable as secondarylexemes. However,such a situation can developonly when (a) alabelled native polytypic generic alreadyis

presentin the taxonomy and when (b) con-

ceptuallysimilar

(atthe

generic level,not

the specific)plantsare introduced.

Finally, it should be reiteratedthat the

native generic must be polytypic. If the

native form is unsegmentedand an intro-

ducedvarietyis seen to be similarenoughtobe a "kind of" the nativeplant, the generictaxon is simplysegmentedinto two specifictaxa. In almost all cases, the nativespecifictakes the attributive bac'il 'genuine', theintroducedvarietykaslan foreign'.

1

(bac'il)makum 2

blackberries 3 Rubus spp.

makum

compositeberries

kailan makum Fragariavesca

strawberry

Figure 4. Inferredtaxonomic structure indicatingrelationshipof blackberryand straw-berry in Tzeltal folk botany.




Instances WhereSpecific Taxa

Are Labelled by Primary Lexemes

Just as there are some exampleswhere a

generic taxon may be labelled by a secon-dary lexeme, a situation contrary to our

generalprinciplesof nomenclature,one alsofinds instancesof specific taxa takinglabelsthat must be analyzed as primarylexemes.As with generic taxa, we suggest that the

atypicality of such examples can be ex-

plained and that they in fact provide con-firmationof the generalrule.

There appear to be two types of situa-tions involved where specific taxa may be

indicatedby primary exemes.Thefirst,andmost widespread,occurs when one of the

specific classesincludedin a generictaxon is

consideredto be the type specificof the set.

Often, the label of this type specific classwill be polysemous with that of the super-ordinate generic name, or as Wymanand

Harrishave said in referring o this kind of

nomenclaturen Navaho,"Thesituationis asif in our binomial system the genericname

were used alone for the best known speciesof a genus, while binomialtermswere usedfor all other membersof the genus"(Wymanand Harris1941:120).

A second situation where specific taxa

may be labelled by primary exemes occurs

when, for reasons not clearly understood,a

specific taxon appearsto be in the processof assuminga genericstatus. In so doing, itceases to be marked by the standardbi-nomial expression characteristicof specific

taxa. Eachof these variousexceptionsto thebinomiality of folk specific nomenclaturewill now be discussed n detail.

Type specific nomenclature n Tzeltal:In

most, if not all, Tzeltalspecificcontrastsets,one of the membersof the set is considered

as the focal or most dominant member.

Generally,the type specific taxon refers tomembersof the genericclasswhich havethe

widestgeographical istribution,arelarger n

size, or are the best known.In many naturalcontexts, it is often the

case that one can refer to the type specific

by the generic name alone (i.e., by the

polysemous use of the generic name) with

total confidence of being understood. An

example can be seen in the classificationofkinds of custardapple(Anonaspp.). For the

Tzeltal there are three specific taxa in thisset as seen in Figure5.

In many situations, k'ewes can be usedalone to refer to the most prominent type

specific class, A. cherimola.However,when

greater precision of designation is desired,informantsreadilyprovidebinomialdesigna-tion by the addition of the attributivebac'il

'genuine', leading to the form bac'ilk'ewe'

'genuinecustardapple'.In fact, the linguistic

contrast required between type specificmembers and all other members of the

specific contrast set is invariably ndicated

by the additionof the attributivebac'ilin all

other cases found in Tzeltalwhere the type

specific is polysemous with the genericname. (For a detailed discussion of this

process which can be understood as a typeof linguisticmarking, ee Berlin1972.)

Aberrant pecifictaxa markedby primarylexemes: Some specific taxamay be labelled

by primarylexemes if the taxa in questionappear to be achieving generic status. Wehave data for one case in Tzeltal,but aswill

k'ewey Anona cherimola

(type) custard apple

k'ewel 6'is3'is k'ewey A. muricata

custard apple spiny custard apple

k'ewev mav A. reticulata

monkey's custard apple

Figure 5. Type specific nomenclature as exemplified in names for custardapples inTzeltal folk botany.



Berlin et al. ] FOLK BIOLOGY: CLASSIFICA TION AND NOMENCLA TURE 225

be pointed out, the processappears o be a

generalone.For most Tzeltal informants,the generic

hih teP 'oak' includes four specific taxa:

ca pat hih te2 'excrement barkedoak', sakyok hih te? 'white footed oak', k'ewe' hihte2 'custardapple oak' and Eikinibhih te9,'armadilloearedoak'. This latter form may,for most informants,be cited in abbreviated

form, i.e., simply Eikinib. For some in-

formants, his is the preferredusage.Some other Tzeltal speakers, however,

recognize only the first three classesof oaksas "genuineoaks" and treat Eikinibas beinga closely related but distinct taxon co-

ordinate with hih te2 'oak'. One TzeltalIndian for whom the above classificationofoaksholds, producedthe taxonomicdiagramindicated n Figure6.

That such a situation could arise is par-tially explained in that E•ikinibs by far themost divergent class of oaks with manycharactersreadily distinguishingt from theotherthreeclasses.

Concludingcommentson Tzeltalnomen-clature and

categorystatus: We have

pre-sented severalexamples from Tzeltalwherethe nomenclaturalpropertiesof a particularplant name were at variance with those

expected given its ethnobiologicalcategory

membership.On the one hand, we pointedout examples where generic taxa were la-belled by secondary lexemes and, on the

other, showed at least one examplewherea

specific taxon was labelled by a primarylexeme. In the first case, it appearsthat allsuch names result from a change in thetaxonomic structuredue to the introductionof new organisms.In the latter case, tax-onomic change appears to be taking placewhich suggeststhat a once specific taxon is

achieving generic status due to its quitedissimilar characteristics when comparedwith contrasting pecific forms.

Whileall of these cases are exceptions to

the nomenclatural principles we outlinedearlier, he processeswhichallowsuch devia-tions to ariseappearto be describable.Con-

sidering that the Tzeltal have not beenknown to hold botanicalnomenclatural on-

gresses,it is of some interest that the num-ber of exceptions are as few as those noted.

INTERMEDIATE AXA

Thusfar,

our discussion ofTzeltal planttaxonomy and nomenclaturehas centered

on an overviewof the ethnobotanicalcate-

gorieswhose membersare life form, genericand specific taxa. We have mentioned the

Quercuspeduncularis

ca~pathihte Q0.ugosaexcrement barked oak 0. segoviensis

Q.crassifolia

Q. dysophylla

(bac'il) hihte sakyok hihte Q0. andicans

true oaks white footed oak Q. crassifolia

k'ewes hihte; ( 0. polymorphacustard apple oak 0. rugosa

[hihte?]

6ikinib Q. mexicana

armadillo eared oak 0. sapotifolia

Q. conspersa

Figure 6. Inferredtaxonomic structure indicatingrelationshipof largeleafed and smallleafed oaks in Tzeltal folk botany.




occurrence of varietal taxa but their pre-sence is of minor importance numerically(though, no doubt, of major importanceculturally). One further comment on the

taxonomicstructureof the Tzeltal world ofplants needs to be made at this point andthis concerns the presence of categoriesof

greater nclusiveness han that of the Tzeltal

genus but of lesser inclusiveness than the

Tzeltal life form taxa (cf. examples of

"grains"and "berries" n Figures2 and 3).Wehave elsewhere(Berlin,Breedlove,and

Raven 1968) suggested that one mayrecognize empirically,a number of so-called

"covertcategories"which for the most part

representgroupingsof genericnames whichare includedin mid-leveltaxa that have notbeenlabelledby Tzeltalplantlexemes.Thus,for Tzeltalinformants, he genericnameskul

Pak','iom hol, Pihk'uye 'iV, and Bohioh

E'is, all vine namesreferring o membersofthe genus Smilax, compose a well definedtaxonomic contrast set includedin a super-ordinate taxon which is not marked by a

simple inguisticexpression.The samecanbesaid of

many conceptuallysimilar

groupingsof generic taxa. To this point we haveestablished approximately seventy-fourcovert taxa of greater inclusiveness than

Tzeltalgenerics.The recognition of unlabelled mid-level

taxa can be of considerableimportancein

understanding fundamental principles ofnative classification and should not be

ignoredby placingtoo much stresssolely on

named categories. However, the fact that

categories such as these have not been la-belled suggeststhat the need to distinguishsuch classes is as yet relativelyunimportantin most cultural contexts where the Tzeltaldiscussthe plantworld.

SUMMARYOFTZELTALPLANTTAXONOMYAND NOMENCLATURE

The Tzeltal world of plantsas seen fromthis broad overviewcan now be summarized

as follows. The domain as a whole cor-responds very closely with the standard

botanicallydefinedplantdivisionof Western

science. It is not designated by a singlehabitual linguistic expression, althoughcertain circumlocutionsmay be utilized tocontrast the domain with other natural

groupingsof organisms uch as animals.Theoccurrenceof all plant nameswith the nu-meralclassifer, ehk, permits the domain tobe defined unambiguouslyon a strictly lin-

guisticbasis.

Linguistic and taxonomic considerationsallow for the recognitionof fourconceptualclasses of plant taxa which receivehabitualnames: life form taxa, generic taxa, specifictaxa,andvarietal axa.

There are four life form names, te2,

wamal, 9ak and 'ak' which correspondtothe life forms "tree," "herbs,""grass,"and

"vines,"respectively.Thereare 471 genericnames. Genericnames mark taxa which arethe basic buildingblocks of the taxonomyand are of majorimportancepsychological-ly. Most generic names, 398, aremonotypic,while a minority, seventy-three, are poly-typic. These atterpolytypic generics nclude

among them 239 specific names in contrastsets

rangingromtwo to seventeenmembers.

Intermediatemid-level axa do exist, but thefact that they are unlabelledsuggeststhattheirculturalsignificance s as yet relativelysmall.In overview,the Tzeltal taxonomy of

plants is seen as a simple taxonomy consis-

ting essentiallyof two, and, less commonly,three named evels.

There appearsto be a strongcorrelationbetween the linguisticform of a plantnameand taxonomic category which it labels.

With a few exceptions, most of which areexplainable, primarylexemes are restrictedto generic and life form taxa while secon-

darylexemes almost invariablyabel taxaoflesser inclusiveness han the folk genus, i.e.,specific or varietal taxa. As such, Tzeltalethnobotanical terminology is highly sys-tematicand can be understood n termsof asmall number of regular nomenclatural

principles.In the remainderof the article, we pre-

sent data which suggestthat these principleshave applicability in a number of other

ethnobiological ystemsof classificationand,




by implication, may be thought to have

widespreadgenerality.

GENERALITYOF FOLKBIOLOGICAL

PRINCIPLESOFCLASSIFICATIONANDNOMENCLATURE

While data on some aspects of ethno-

botany and ethnozoology, especially theusesof plantsandanimals,are available roma wide varietyof sources,good materialsonthe classificatoryprinciples underlyingfolk

biological taxonomy and nomenclature innon-Western societies are sadly lacking.Much of the earlier work on ethnobiology

focused on problems relevant to the timebut made little attempt to discover the

conceptual foundations of ethnoscience as

practiced by preliterate peoples. Our sup-porting data are thus considerablyless ad-

equate than we would like. However,those

systems which have been studied from anethnoscientific point of view and are moreor less complete in detailingthe classifica-

tory structureof a particular thnobiologicaldomain lend

supportto our

hypothesescon-

cerning the universal similarity of ethno-

biological classification and nomenclature.We now sketch the majoroutlinesof several

systems which have been studied with afocus on the cognitive organizationof theworld of plantsand animals.

Hanun6o Ethnobotany

One of the most completeandinfluential

descriptionsof the ethnobotany of a non-Westernpeople is Harold C. Conklin'sun-

publishedPh.D. dissertation,"The Relationof the Hanun6oto the Plant World."This

work, completedin 1954, lends considerable

independentsupportto the generalityof the

propositionsof universalethnobiologicalca-

tegories as well as to the nomenclatural

principles which appear to be operativeinthe labelingof taxawhichoccuras membersof these categories.

In Hanun6o, almost all plants are in-cluded in one of three majorgroupsdistin-

guished by the criterion of habit of stem

growth. They are kaiyu 'tree', 7ilamnun'herbs' and wiikat 'vines'. These taxa aremuch like the major life form taxa ofTzeltal. Thereare,as well, severalambiguous

taxa that cannot be so classified,some threepercent of a total of 1625 terminalplanttaxa. These ambiguousforms,such as bam-

boo, seem to be morphologically berrantn

some form or other and are logically com-

parable to the ambiguous taxa found in

Tzeltalfolk botany.Immediatelyincluded in the three major

life form taxa are some 822 planttaxa whichare labelled by what Conklin refers to as"basic plant names." These forms are de-

limited by straight-forwardinguisticcriteriain that they are unique to ethnobotanical

vocabulary,being full wordswhichare"free

morphemes or unanalyzable stems"

(1954:114-115). Conklin'sbasicplantnames

appear o be "generic" n oursense.

Exactly 571 basicplant namesaremono-

typic. Theremainder,251, arepolytypic andinclude taxa of greaterspecificity than thatof the basicplantname.Linguistically,hese

sub-genericaxa are labelledin the

expectedbinomial fashion. "The most common form

[of the sub-genericname] is a binomial

combination"(Ibid.:17). Of the 1054 plantnames labelled by secondary lexemes, 961are of the binomial type, or about ninety-one percent of the total polynomialdesigna-tions. Only for the cultivatedplants lada?

'chili pepper' and mais 'corn' are expres-sionsof threeor fourattributivesutilized.

As in Tzeltal,namedmid-levelgroupings

between life form taxa and generic classesareconspicuouslyabsent.In Conklin'swords

"mid groupings of plants are made, of

course, but not accordingto a structured

terminologically identifiable system"(1954:97).

Type specific-folkgenericpolyemy is alsonoted in Hanunbo folk botany. Thus, "asharedterm [i.e., a polytypic generic plantname] when not followed by an attribute,may be read as that term plus Purfirjan

'real'." The resultingname is the preferredsynonym required where the designatedplant name is distinguished rom others in




palyas (PuriJyan)real Job's tears

palyas Coix lacryma-jobiiJob'stear

palyas bintakay

small Job's tears

Figure 7. Hanun6o terms for kinds of Job's tears exhibiting optionally markedtype-specific.

the same set (Conklin 1954:259). An ex-

ample is seen in the labellingof the poly-typic taxon Job's tears(in Figure7).

There is little doubt, then, that the

Hanunbopicture conforms well to the pre-sent exposition. Hanunbomajorclasses,in-clusive of ninety-sevenpercent of all planttaxa, constitute a handfulof life form taxa.Conklin's basic plant names are clearly

generic forms markedby primarylexemes.

Furthermore, most are monotypic (some571 of the 822). The majorityof all remain-

ing terminal classesare specific taxamarked

by secondary lexemes, the linguisticstruc-

ture of which is predominantlybinomial,i.e., a genericname modified by an attribu-tive.

Karam Ethnozoology

Ralph Bulmer'swork on Karam ethno-

zoology, a primitive people of New Guinea,is no doubt the most comprehensivemodem

ethnoscientific descriptionof this biologicaldomainyet available.Whileno monographic

work has been published so far, severallengthy articles have appearedwhich allowfor the major outlines of Karam animalclassification to be known (Bulmer 1967,1968, 1970; BulmerandTyler 1968).

The majorthrustof Bulmer'sresearchhasbeen to show that primitiveman's linguis-tic recognition of the naturally occurringgroupings of related organisms found innature are logically comparable to the

species of Western biological science.

(Bulmer s quick to point out, however,thatno perfect mapping of folk and biologicalcategoriescan be expected at all times.) He

would refer to these naturalunits as "speci-emes," a neologism based on the term

"species" and the affix "-eme."Speciemes,as applied to animal taxa but with little

modificationapplicableto plantsas well, aredefined as "groupsof creaturesmarkedofffrom all other animals known.., .by mul-

tiple distinctionsof appearance,habitatandbehaviorand not including recognizedsub-

groupingsmarkedoff from each other in asimilarway" (my italics) (Bulmerand Tyler1968:344). One is told that most speciemesare givennames,and most are analyzableas

linguisticallysimple. As such, speciemesare

formally generictaxa in our current ormul-tion.On the other hand, BulmerandTylerare

hesitant to depend too strongly on the lin-

guistic form of the names of taxa as indica-tive of the taxonomic status of a particularclass. Thus, the namesappliedto speciemescannot be "given a fixed syntactic defini-tion" (1968:350).

One of the difficultiesin Bulmer'sother-wise excellent treatment of Karamanimal

taxonomy is his assignment of the tax-onomic rank of a taxon solely on the basisof its taxonomic level with little considera-tion of its cognitive status vis-a-vis othertaxonomic categories. Bulmer recognizesfour kinds of taxonomicallydefined group-ings(see Bulmer1970:1073-1074).

(1) primary taxa: "Those taxa notsubsumable into any largertaxon otherthan tap 'thing' ";

(2) secondarytaxa: "immediatesub-

divisionsof primary axa";(3) tertiary taxa: "immediate sub-

divisionsof secondarytaxa";



Berlin et al.] FOLK BIOLOGY: CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE 229

(4) quaternarytaxa: "subdivisionsof

tertiarytaxa."Karam taxa may also be classified as

terminal "regardless of their hierarchical

status, if they are units with no standardlynamedsubdivisions" Idem).Bulmer reports that there are ninety-

four primarytaxa but that exactly sixty-sixof these are monotypic, i.e., are alsoterminal(Bulmer1968:7). Examplesof such

groupswould be "wowiy, appliedto a small

gecko...; aypot, applied to an agamidlizard... ; ssk, applied to certain black

scarabbeetles"(Bulmer1970:1074).The remaining wenty-eightprimarytaxa

are polytypic and include additional taxa.Since Bulmer does not utilize the com-

parableconcept of life form, it is difficulttodeterminefrom the publishedmaterialshow

many of theseremaining lassesarelife form

taxa and how many are generic.However, f

the numberof taxa included n eachof these

twenty-eightpolytypic primarytaxa is anyclue, which we believe it is, we maysurmisethat the numberof distinct majorlife form

classess

relatively ew.Thus, twenty-three primary polytypicclasses are said to include small numbersof

taxa, from two to six members,all of whichare themselves terminal.The remaining ive

primary taxa look suspiciously like lifeforms as may be seen by noting theirsemantic ranges and number of included

categories.

yakt 'flyingbirdsandbats'181 terminal axa

as 'frogs,smallmarsupials ndrodents'35 terminal axa

kmn 'largermarsupials ndrodents'30 terminal axa

jot) 'grasshoppersnd crickets'20 terminal axa

yn 'skinks'11 terminal axa

It is clear that the taxonomic level of a

particular axon in the Karamclassification

of animals is not necessarilycrucial n deter-

miningits ethnobiologicalcategorical tatus.

Monotypictaxa such aswowiy 'smallgecko'

are logicallycomparable o such unaffiliatedtaxa as bamboo and cactus in Tzeltal. It is

unlikely that the primarytaxon wowiy hasthe same status in Karamthought as does

the large polytypic primary taxon yakt'bird', a class including 181 taxa. Bulmer

recognizes this by analyzing wowiy as

marking a class of specieme status while

yakt is a taxon of a "higher order" (cf.Bulmerand Tyler 1968:350). The point is,of course, that the "higherorder" referredto is one of conceptual rank. Thus, while

wowiy and yakt may be "primary axa" as

taxonomicallydefined, they aremembersof

different ethnobiologicalcategories, generic

andlife formrespectively.It can be assumed, hen, that the majority

of Karamanimal taxa are of genericstatuswhile a small number of names appearto

designate ife formcategories.This conformswell with whatone wouldexpect in termsofthe structures of other folk biologicaltaxonomies.

An analysisof those Karam enericnameswhich are polytypic providessome informa-tion on the

applicabilityof our

principlesconcerning folk specific nomenclature.

Specific taxa, in our terms,are quite rare n

Karam.Oneof the majorpolytypic life form

taxa, as, frogsandsmallterrestrialmammals,includestwenty-fivegenerictaxa. Onlythreeare polytypic and are labelledby the namesindicated n Figure8.

The final polytypic generic ejeg, includesfour specific taxa. Each is binomial in lin-

guistic structure. One of the taxa, (jejeg)

pkay, is of interestin that it may be abbrevi-ated, the attributiveconstituent coming tostand for the classas a whole. This is quitecommon in much specificnomenclatureandcan be seen in Englishwith the alternativeformslima and lima bean.

The taxa lk and gwnm are similarinthat each includes a type specific taxonwhich is polysemously labelled with the

generic name. The non-typical specific(gynm) sbmganpygak shows abbreviation as

in the case of (jejeg)pkay. The only real

exception to binomialnomenclaturen thesedata is the apparentlyunanalyzableprimary




[Other monotypic frogs and

small terrestrialmammals]

jejeg pkay

as jejeg

• "jejeg

km

frogs and small jejeg mlepterrestrial mammals jejeg mosb

kbophm<Cophixalus spp.

bophm

gwnm

gwmngwnm sbmganpgakCophixalusiparius

(gwnm) sbmganpygak

Figure8. Taxonomic

summaryof Karam taxon

as, frogs, indicatingthe

only three poly-typic generic taxa of this set.

lexeme bopnm which occurs as the name for

one of the specific taxa of lk. Bulmer and

Tyler's report lead one to believe that

bopnm may be ambiguous as a specific

taxon, comparable to the name Eikinib in

Tzeltal. If so, the fact that it is labelled byan apparent primary lexeme would indicate

that itmay

beassuming generic

status in

Karam taxonomy.Bulmer's frog data, as well as our own

from Tzeltal, points up another difficult

problem in interpreting folk biological mate-

rials. This concerns what might be referred

to as the internal biological diversity of folk

generics. Bulmer writes:

the named subdivisions of jejeg can onlybe regarded in conceptual terms as vari-ants or varietals, contrasting only in a

single dimension, colour. Lk on the otherhand includes two taxa of lower orderwhich probably cannot be consideredsimply as variants, as they contrast bothin size and ecology. Gwnm are more

complicated still, the secondary taxonspanning at least five zoological generaand species. Sbmganpygak is normallyapplied to two subterranean dwelling'zoological' genera, which Karam do not

distinguish, and the unmarked terminaltaxon gwnm spans the residue which in-cludes at least two morphologically and

ecologically highly distinctive formswhich Karam recognise but do not have

agreed names for.

Thus if one regardsjejeg, lk and gwnm aspolytypic genera, one is faced with theawkward situation that the subdivisionsof one are conceptually varietals, of an-other are conceptually specifics and ofthe third include one specific and onewhich is itself at least covertly generic[Bulmer, personal communication].

Comparable data from Tzeltal in the areaof folk botany can be seen in comparing the

two generics nahk 'alder' and hih te 'oak'.

nahk, for some speakers, is divided into two

specific taxa, cahal nahk 'red beech' (Alnus

ferruginea) and sakil nahk 'white beech'

(Alnus arguta), both of which refer to color

variants of the genus Alnus.

The included specific taxa of hih te ,

however, as seen in Figure 6, are distin-

guished by several criteria, namely, leaf char-

acters (size, shape, color, texture, thickness,margin), bark characters (color, thickness,

texture), acorn size, trunk strength, and

trunk grain.A possible interpretation of both the

Karam and Tzeltal materials is that the

greater the number of dimensions utilized to

distinguish specifics, the greater the biologi-cal diversity of the folk generic. A more

objective index, perhaps, might be the rela-

tive numbers of biological species referred to

the respective folk generics. In the case of

nahk, two biological species are involved. In



Berlin et al.] FOLK BIOLOGY: CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE 231

the case of hih te9, at least ten species of

Quercus are represented n the folk genus.One could go further andsuggestthat a folk

generic which referred to severalspecies of

distinctgenerawasmorebiologicallydiverse,objectively, than a folk generic which re-ferred to severalspecies of the same genus,e.g., tah in Tzeltal which refers to several

species of Pinus and Abies.

On the other hand, demonstratingthattwo folk genericsare different in terms ofabsolutebiologicaldiversityis not sufficientevidence to suggest that the two taxa are

conceptually of differingranks. Thus, bothhih te? and nahk are taxonomically im-

mediately ncluded n the life form te 'tree',both names are freely recalled in elicitinglists of tree names, neither appears, fromtentative evidence, to be more difficult tolearn than the other, and so on. While hereis no doubt a continuum in the absolute

biological diversity of folk generic taxa,some being relativelycompact, others morewide ranging,we see no reason at this timeto suggest that this continuum is con-

ceptuallyrelevant in

prescientificbio-

systematics.

Cantonese Ethnoichthyology

A recent detailed analysis by EugeneAnderson indicates the generality of ourfindings for the domain of ethnoichthyol-ogy. In his recent study of the Cantonesespeaking boat people of Castle Peak Bay,HongKong,Andersondescribesa taxonomic

systemfor sea-lifewhichconformsclosely towhat we have suggestedis typical for folk

biological taxonomiesgenerally.Firstly, thenamedtaxonomy is quiteshallow,consistingonly of three levels.Thereis no "singletermcovering all the items discussed.. . exceptsuch descriptive labels as hoi6 ie7 'seathings'"(Anderson1967:16).9

Of the three namedlevels one findscate-goriesas follows: "verygeneral u6 'fish';hal'decapod crustacean');fairly specific, cor-

responding roughly to Western species(tshiing4 paan2 'green grouper'; hung5

paan2 'red grouper')" (Anderson1967:16).It would appear that the ethnobiological

categories noted by these three successivelevelscan be easilyunderstoodascorrespon-

ding to life form, generic,and specific cate-gories.

At level one of the taxonomy, Andersondescribessix majorclasseswhich includethe

majorityof all named organisms.These areu6 'fish', hal 'decapod crustaceans' prawn,

lobster), hai7 'crab', 1o6 'snail', hou5

'oyster', hin6 'clam, bivalve' (Idem). Thesetaxa are small in numberand broad n scopeandclearlymark ife forms.

While the number of terms at level one

are few, "The situation is quite differentatthe second level. Here one finds some 200 ormore terms.Withinthe enormousset of u6,

[fish], the numberof terms is particularly

high, and all of them contrast" (Anderson

1967:18). Thus, like other folk taxonomies,the numberof generic terms appearsto be

relatively arge.Some taxa, e.g., u6 'fish',are

comparable o Tzeltal te 'tree' in that theyinclude large numbers of generic names.

And, again,comparable o the Tzeltalmate-rials, Anderson found intermediate cate-

goriesto be lacking,or if present,not to belabelledby any name.

Anderson writes that certain of the

generic taxa at level two are further parti-tioned and these would correspondto ournotion of specificcategories.Thisappears obe the full depth of the taxonomy for all"third level taxa are... terminal ones; nofourthlevelexists" (Ibid.:19).

Nomenclaturally, the system is highlyregularand predictable.Termsat the second

level, the generic terms, are linguisticallyanalyzed as primary exemes. Specific taxaare labelled by lexemes which are binomialand can be treated as secondary lexemes.They are formed, as expected, by the namesfor specific kinds of mackereland sardines,as seen in Figure9.

The polysemous labellingof the genericand the most common or type folk specificis also attested in the Cantonesematerials.Dragon decapods (i.e., spiny lobsters) and




fal kaau4 Rastrelliger kanagurta

spotted mackerel

pin6 kaau4 Scomberomorus koreanum

compressed mackerel

kaau4mackere taai3 ik3 kaau4 S. commersoni

big wing (=fin) mackerel

tshing4 kaau4 S. sinensis

green mackerel

kaml ku6

golden sardine

ku6 tshing4 ku6 Scatophagus argussardine green sardine

uong5 ku6

yellow sardine

Figure 9. Chinese of Hong Cong Harbor mackerel and sardine terminology.

spring decapods (i.e., mantis shrimps) are

labelled as seen in Figure 10. Anderson notes

that "the common kind has no specific name

(the same name contrasts at two levels)" or

that "the ordinary name contrasts at bothlevels 2 and 3" (Ibid.:71).

Anderson's conclusions are of consider-

able interest for our typological argumentand are given here in full:

Some of the features of the Cantoneseclassification of marine life are inter-

estingly similar to features of other sys-tems. The author has experience with

English and Tahitian fish taxonomies aswell as with Cantonese. All of these folktaxonomies have three basic levels: verygeneral ('fish', 'i'a' 'fish' in Tahitian, and

'u6');more

specific ('ma'o''shark' in

Tahitian, 'sa4 u6' in Cantonese); and

very specific ('thrasher shark', 'hammer-head shark'... 'ma'o'a'ahi' 'thrasher

shark', 'ma'o afeta' 'hammerhead shark'in Tahitian and 'nagau5 lim3 sa4"thrash-er shark' and the various words for ham-merheads in Cantonese). The choice of

examples points to another fact-thatterms in these three totally unrelated

languages are often nearly perfect transla-

lung3 hal

ordinary greenish-redspiny lobster

lung3 hal Palinurus spp.

spinylobster

tshatltshio6lung3halseven colored spiny lobster

thaan5 hal

common mantis shrimp

thaan5 hal Squilla spp.mantis shrimp(

tsing4soi2

thaan5 halgreen water mantis shrimp

Figure 10. Chinese of Hong Cong Harbor lobster and mantis shrimp terminology.




tions of each other, at least in referenceto fish" [Anderson1967:35].

Finally the author notes that the struc-

tural characteristicsof English, Cantonese,

Tahitian,and Latinnomenclature"are moresimilar than coincidence alone [can] ex-

plain" (Ibid.:36). As our broadercompara-tive evidence reveals,these similaritiesmust

certainly reflect identical ethnobiologicalnomenclaturalprinciplesemployedby many

prescientificpeoples in their linguistictreat-

mentof the biologicaluniverse.

NavajoEthnobiology

Extensive studies have been carriedout

on Navajo ethnobiology by Leland C.

Wymanandhis collaborators.Two studiesin

particular Wymanand Harris1941; Wymanand Bailey 1964) areof particularnterestin

our comparativecontext in that both are

fairly complete descriptions.In Wymanand

Harris 1941), one is presentedwith a surveyof Navajo ethnobotany. This is the first

work, to our knowledge,wherethe logicallycomparablenotions of scientific generaand

folk generaare presented in a more or less

explicit fashion. In this work, nativegroup-

ingsof plantswhich appearto represent he

most significantdiscontinuitiesof the plantworld are called Navajo genera.Such group-

ingsare labelled by what WymanandHarris

call a "basic stem name." Classes smaller

than the Navajo genusare called"varietals."

Nomenclaturally, varietal names are com-

prised of a basic stem name plus some kindof attributiveexpression.

In this early publication, Wyman and

Harris are hesitant to treat stem names as

generics (though this position is to change n

Wymanand Bailey 1964) as can be seen inthisparenthetical ootnote:

It would be confusing to call the stemnamesgenericnames,since they do referto definite botanical species. The situa-tion is as if in our binomial system the

genericname were used alonefor the bestknown species of a genus, while thebinomial terms were used for all othermembersof the genus[1941:12 ].

As we have seen, the situationdescribed

by Wymanand Harriscan easily be under-

stood as one where one of the specific taxais seen to be a type specific and its label is

polysemous with the superordinategenericname in common, every-dayusage.That theauthors should be confusedhereis due to aninordinate concern with the one-to-one

mapping of scientific categoriesand nativetaxa.

In Wymanand Bailey's ater treatmentof

Navajoclassificationon insects, one finds a

ready acceptance of the notion of folk

generaand folk species. Here we note that"It is more realistic.., .to employ the term

Navajogeneric for the nativeappellationofthe basic group [of organisms]andNavajospecies for the generic names qualified byadjectival erms"(1964:17).

Navajo ethnoentomology shows manycharacteristics n common with other sys-tems of ethnobiologicalclassification.Of the

102 Navajo genera discovered, forty-twowere furtherpartitioned nto specificclasses.

Only nine of these polytypic forms included

more than ten specifics. And, as we haveseen, specific designation is as expected:linguistically t is binomial in all caseswiththe qualificationnoted above of type spec-

ific-generic polysemy.Bulmer 1965), in a reviewof Wymanand

Bailey'swork, is correctlycriticalof certain

aspects of it. He points out that no formaldefinition of generic category or genericname is offered, nor is an attempt made intheir istingto indicatewhen a form is meant

to designate genericor specific taxa. Like-wise,Navajogenericsarenot distinguishedn

a convincingway from the few more inclu-sive Navajo class names (called phyla). It

seems that Bulmer'smajorobjection is thatthe authors utilize the scientific model ofnomenclature too literally. He concludes:"The trouble with this procedure s that one

simply cannot assume that nomenclature san adequate guide to taxonomy"

(1965:1565).On the other hand, this ob-

servation should not lead one to the oppo-site extreme which is to imply that the

relationshipbetween folk nomenclatureand



234 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST [75,1973

folk taxonomy is spuriousor fortuitous. As

we haveseen, a strongerhypothesis, andwe

think one supportedby considerabledata,is

to assume that nomenclatureis a reliable

guide to taxonomy and to treat contraryevidence not as random exceptions but as

explainable deviations from highly regular

principles.

ForeEthnozoology

A brief, but lucid, account of the generaloutlines of another preliterate people'sclassificationof animals s seen in Diamond's

discussion of the Fore of Highland NewGuinea (Diamond 1966). While focusingprimarilyon a discussionof the folk classi-fication of birds, Diamond provides some

interestinginformationthat corresponds, n

most respects, to. what we have said about

other ethnobiological systems of classifica-tion.

In the first place, the Fore taxonomy of

animals is relatively simple as far as the

numberof named taxonomic levels are con-

cerned. Thus, "The Fore classificatorysys-tem was found to involve two levels ...There were no intermediate categories"

(Diamond 1966:1102-1103). From the

author'sdescription,it does not appear hat

the domainof animals as a whole receives a

linguistic designationand is unlabelled,an-

other feature in common with many folk

systems.At level one of the taxonomy, one finds

that "All animalsareassigned o one of ninehigher categories, designated by so-called

tabe ake or "big names'" (Idem). Theclasses marked by these "big names" are

kcibara 'birds' (includes 110 taxa); uimu'small flightless mammals' (includes 15

taxa); [ga 'large flightless mammals' (20taxa); tcro 'frogs' (16 taxa); kwiydgine'lizards and snakes'(17 taxa); and kabdgina'insects, spiders, worms' (number of in-cluded taxa not determined).There are two

monotypic taxa which Diamondsays occuras contrasting members with the above

forms; amanani 'cassowary'and uba 'fish'.

Finally, there is one polytypic taxon that

includes but two terminaltaxa, isimi 'bats'.

From the list of taxa found at levelone it

appearscertainthat the majorityof themare

large polytypic classes which we wouldanalyze as membersof the ethnobiologicaltaxonomiccategorylife form.The namesfor

the taxa "cassowary"and "fish"we would

want to treat as monotypicaberrantgenericswhich are not conceptuallyincludedin anyof the known major life forms, a typicalfeature of folk taxonomies.The analysisof

the taxon for 'bat' isimi must be ambiguous

giventhe informationavailablen Diamond's

report. On structural grounds, one would

want to treat this taxon as an aberrantgeneric name which includes two specifictaxa. Whetheror not the taxa included in

[simiarelabelledby secondary exemes,thus

providingevidence that they are specific, is

not known.As concernsthe linguisticstructureof the

perhapsmore than 200 taxa at level two of

the taxonomy, all appearto be labelledby

primary exemes and many of these may be

simpleprimary exemes. Diamondnotesthat

some expressions were analyzablebut that

"the greatmajorityof nameshadno obvious

etymologiesand were saidby the Fore to be

simply words without meaning [other than

their zoological referents, of course]"

(Ibid.:1103-1104).

GuaraniEthnobiology

Guarani provides additional evidence insupportof many of the principlessuggestedhere, though the data are, admittedly, in-

complete. Wehave found information relat-

ing to the classificationof some groupsofanimals and plants which is of relevancehere.

Dennler (1939) presentsa report on theclassificationof mammalsn Guarani.Wearenot told whether or not mammals, as a

taxon, constitutes a native category in this

language.Nonetheless,it appearsthat mam-mals are divided into twenty-nine groups,fourteen of which comprise single forms.




Arirai Pteronura brasiliensis

river wolf

Eiri Tayrabarbara

huron

Wareru" Guerlinguetus ingrami

squirrel

Figure11. Examplesof monotypicmammalnamesin Guarant.

"All the remaininggroups contain two ormore forms; the names of these forms arebinomials" Dennler1939:233). From thesedata it would appear that Dennler hasisolated twenty-nine generic taxa, fourteen

of which are monotypic, the remaining if-teen taxabeing polytypic.

Examples of unpartitionedfolk genericsare seen in Figure 11 (cf. Dennler

1939:225-233).Thereare, as well, genericswhich include

folk specific taxa and these may be illus-trated by the following examples in Figure12.

Some examples are suggestive of typespecific-folk generic polysemy as seen in

other systems, and are illustratedin Figure13.

Dennler,a physicianandnatural cientist,was rightly impressed with the Guarani

system and closed his article as follows:

Guaraninames "representa well conceived

system which bears a certain similarityto

our Linnaean ystemof nomenclature.TheseIndiansdid not leavethe selectionof a nameto chance but came together from time totime in order to decide which terms best

corresponded o the characteristics f a spec-ies, and, in large part, classifiedthem into

groups and sub-groups n a logical and ad-

equatefashion"(1939:244).Leaving aside Dennler's questionable

accuracy in reporting an ethno-zoologicalcongress on native nomenclature(certainlythe first of its kind, if true), it is clear thatthe Guarani system correspondsclosely to

Karadyghu Alouatta caraya

Karady

large monkey

Karadyapihta A. ursina

Kaafmbirikind Aotus miriquouina (A. azara)

Kaaf1 Ateleus variegatusKaaf KaafhL A. ater

mon key - Kaafki Cebus libidinosusKaafqwas6 C. paraguayanusKaafmbirf Saimiri sciureus

Mbopfquas6 Chrotopterus aurilus

Mbop/

bats

Mbopf qusu Demodus rotundus

TayasOtafteti Pecari tajaca

Taasa-tTayasu cariwild pigs (peca

. Tayas6 tanyihka-tf Tayasu pecari

Figure12. Examplesof polytypic mammalnamesin Guaranf.




Mborevf Tapirus terrestris

Mborevi

tapir

Mborevf hovih T. terrestris var. obscura

Mbarakadya Margay tigrina wiediMbarakadya

cats

Mbarakadyahu M. tigrina var. melas

Figure13. Guaranimammal ermsexhibitingpolysemyof genericand type-specific.

the principles that we have suggested are

generally operative in the linguisticdesigna-tion of the biologicalworld in folk biosys-

tematics.Ourdataon Guaraniplantclassifications

equally sketchy but suggestive. In a short

paper on Guarani agriculture, Martinez-Crovetto (1966:634-635) providesa list ofcultivated plants found in common use

amongthis people. All of the genericnameswhich are divided into smaller classes areidentical in that binomial nomenclatureis

applicable or all forms.For corn,

(Zea mays),one finds the fol-

lowingclasses,all of which we would classifyas specific taxa (Figure 14). Finally,binomialnomenclature s also found for the

cultivated beans, manioc, potatoes, melons,peanuts,sugarcane,and cotton.

ClassicalNahuatlEthnobotany

The system of botanical and zoological

nomenclaturereported for classicalNahuatlas spoken by the Aztecs of the CentralMexican Plateaualso correspondsclosely tothe general features of ethnobiologicalterminology seen in other languages.Thebasic structureof Nahuatlplant and animalnamesmay be inferredfrom a cursoryread-

ing of Book 11, EarthlyThings,Dibble andAnderson's important translation of Saha-

gun's FlorentineCodex (Dibbleand Ander-son

1963).The most explicit statement on nomen-claturalprinciples,however, s found in Paso

y Troncoso'searlyand sensitivetreatmentofNahuatl ethnobotany (Paso y Troncoso

1886). This work, perhapsone of the most

Avatf ki

young corn (possibly not a class name

Avatf mirfbut a stage name)

s m a l l c o r n

Avat! tupimorochocorn

Avati Avatf pars Zea mayscorn overo corn

Avati moro t

white corn

Avatfmithchild's corn

A vatiporor6broken corn

Figure14. Guaranicornnamesexhibitingregularbinominalstructure.



Berlin et al. i FOLK BIOLOGY: CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE 237

detailed and objectivereportsof its kindforthe time of writing,indicatesexplicitly thatthe Nahuatl system had life form names,such as tree, vine, grass, in which the major-

ity of plant taxa wereincluded.Genericandspecific taxa are the most numerous and

specificnamesareprimarilybinomialexpres-sions. The structure of Nahuatl specificnames is shown to be logically identicaltowhat we have seen for other languages,whereby the last term in a binomialexpres-sion

represents the generic name, while thepreceding term or terms can be con-

sidered as equivalent to the specificname . . . [Thus], the qualifiers, com-

monly, are attached before the substan-tive, as in English, with the differencethat in this latter languageeach term ofthe binary nomenclature constitutes aseparateword, while in the Mexicanlan-guage, the terms remain joined, almostalways,in a singleword [1886:217 ].

Paso y Troncoso goes on to point out

that most generic names are unanalyzable,

many havingno obvious etymologyand as

such are best treatedin our termsas primarylexemes. On the other hand, the semantic

features marked by the attributivesused to

form specific names are generallyobvious,

referring to such charactersas "the placewhere the plant grows, at other times in-

dicating some particular property of the

plant, referring to its form, coloration,

make-up, orientation, or any other char-

acteristic vegetative properties that might

apply.. ." (Ibid.:218).Aztec botanical nomenclature is also

comparable to Hanun6o, Navajo, Tzeltal,and the other languageswe have observed n

that the most common specific class of a

particular generic taxon is labelled by a

polysemousform of the genericname.Thus,one notes that the Nahuatlclassificationof

sedges, tollin, included a "type-speciesthatcarried simply the name Tollin and that

[also] referredto the sedge family: various

other related species have been groupedto-gether under the same name, each with a

differentdetermination" Idem).

The author then proceeds to cite the

following specific classesof tollin;as seen in

Figure15.

Clearly, tollin may be consideredhere as

a genericname, its variousincludedspecifictaxa being indicated according to the bi-

nomialprincipleswe have outlinedabove.

THEPSYCHOLOGICALSIGNIFICANCEOF TAXONOMIC

ETHNOBIOLOGICALATEGORIES

Our descriptionof the principlesunder-

lying taxonomy and nomenclaturein folk

biological science has placed considerableweight on the fundamental nature of

taxonomic ethnobiological categories. This

position is somewhat at variancewith that

taken by Kay (1971) in his importantpaperon the nature of taxonomy and semantic

contrast. In Kay'sview, the notion of abso-

lute category membership is an irrelevant

consideration in the description of taxon-

omic structure. A brief review of some of

the majorpoints of Kay's paperasrelatedtothe exposition herewill be of value.

Kay defines five types of semantic con-

trast relationswhich are recognizable n anytaxonomic structure. They are named and

defined as follows:

(1) inclusion contrast exists for anytwo taxa if one strictly includes theother (tree and oak are in inclusion

contrast);

(2) direct contrast exists betweenanytwo taxa which areimmediately ncludedin the same taxon (oak and mapleare indirect contrast, in that they are im-

mediately ncluded n tree);(3) indirect contrast exists between

any two taxa which are neitherin direct

contrast nor inclusion contrast via thetwo taxa which include them and whichare themselves in direct contrast (postoak and sugar maple are in indirect con-

trast via oak and maple);

(4) generic contrast occurs between

any two generictaxa;




Itz-tollincutting sedge (itz itztli, obsidian)

Popo-tollinbroom sedge (popo popotl, broom)

Tepe-tollinmountain sedge, brush sedge (tepe tepetl, mountain brush)

Tzon-tollin

hairy sedge (tzon tzontli, hairsome [caballera )

Ix-tollineye-medicine sedge (ix ixtli, medicine for eyes)

tollin Zo-tollin

palm sedge (Zo zoyat/, palm)

Cal-tollinhouse sedge (cal calli, house)

Petla-tollinestera sedge (petla petlatl, estera)

A-tollinwater sedge (aat/, water)

Nacace-tollin

triangularsedge (nacace, corner)

Figure15. ClassicalAztec terminologyforsedges.

(5) terminal contrast occurs between

any two taxa neither of which includeadditionaltaxa.

The first three types of semanticcontrastare defined solely in terms of the kinds offormaltaxonomic positionsheld by any two

particulartaxa as indicated by the logicalrelation of class inclusion. Terminalcontrast

may be said to be a specialcase in that thetaxonomic relation of inclusion isnegativelyapplied, i.e., taxa are said to be in terminal

contrast if they do not include additionaltaxa. Only one of the five types of semanticcontrast discussed by Kay is based on ab-solute categorymembership,namely,genericcontrast,and this is defined as "that specialrelation of contrast which holds between

any two generictaxa"(Kay 1971:878).We are of the opinion that the varying

types of contrast relations are not all of

equal psychological significance. Further-

more, contrastdefined by categorymember-

ship may be as important, if not more so,than formal taxonomic contrast. Finally,there may be justificationfor positingaddi-

tional types of semantic contrast based on

absolutecategorymembership.

Eugene Hunn (n.d.) in a study of theidentification of gulls by American bird

watchers,has recently shown that membersof taxa in genericcontrast areidentifiedin a

psychologically unique fashion, one that is

essentially based on instantaneousrecogni-tion of the organismsin question. On theother hand, tokens of organismswhich are

conceptually classified as members of the

ethnobiological category we have labelled"specific" are identified by a more formal

processingroutine that requiresrathercon-scious psychologicalassessmentsof contrast-

ing semantic features (cf. also Bulmer and

Tyler1968:353).Hunn's research has provided evidence

that the psychological processes used in

making generic identifications differ fromthose used in makingspecificidentifications.With furtherstudy it seems likely that one

will be able to show psychologicalevidencefor the significanceof life form contrastaswell. Terminalcontrast, however, may have




little or no psychological significance in that

the fact that two taxa are terminal is prob-

ably never a contrastive feature of relevance

in any natural situation.

Empirically, it is most often the case infolk taxonomies that taxa of the same con-

trast set, i.e., taxa in direct contrast, are also

members of the same ethnobiological cate-

gory. There are several examples where this

is not the case, however, and when this

occurs, the mere fact of formal contrast set

membership apparently becomes irrelevant.

The most common, and to our knowledgethe only empirically documented examplesof taxa of differing taxonomic categories

occurring as members of the same contrastset is at level one in naturally occurring folk

taxonomies. It will be recalled that level one

comprises taxa which are immediately in-

cluded in the unique beginner. Kay notes

that "level one is unique in that all taxa at

this level do constitute a single contrast set"

(1971:877). Anderson's data on Cantonese

ethnoichthyology provides an example of

this psychologically aberrant situation. In

Cantoneseethnoichthyology,

there are six

major classes of life form taxa which include

the majority of all named marine organisms.

However, there are a number of names for

small groupings of marine animals which are

not included in any of the life form taxa.

These classes, of which horseshoe crab,

starfish, jelly fish, and others are examples,"form independent, single member sets"

(Anderson 1967:18). As such, they are com-

parable to the unaffiliated generic taxa such

as bamboo, cactus, fern, etc., found at levelone in Tzeltal botanical taxonomy.

Anderson says that formally such expres-sions "might be regarded as one the first

level in regard to terminological distinc-

tions" (Idem) contrasting with the life form

terms for fish, decapod crustaceans, etc.

However, he argues that the small, indepen-dent taxa are best treated as second-level

taxa and are labelled, in our terminology, by

generic terms. Not only is there nomen-

clatural evidence in Chinese to suggest thatthey are generic, but like most generic

names, they "refer to small, compact groups

of organisms" (Ibid.: 18). Anderson's solu-

tion, while not formally correct, is of in-

terest as concerns the psychological realityof ethnobiological categories:

For these reasons they [i.e., the aber-rant taxa] seem to contrast with second-level rather than first-level terms. In thesecases it is possible that a series of first-level terms exists such that these itemsare included within them; but no suchterms were elicited. These small, indepen-dent, named taxa form a tiny but in-

teresting minority of those found...They may be roughly compared to thezoologist's taxa incertae sedis-frag-mentary fossil species and genera of un-known allocation within higher-level taxa

[Ibid.: 18 ].

What Anderson has described is preciselythe situation where one finds taxa of differ-ent ethnobiological categories as members ofthe same contrast set. When such is the case,it appears to Anderson (and presumably to

his Hong Kong Boat People) that contrast

set membership is overridden and the rele-

vant psychological contrast becomes that

which is found to hold between members of

an identical ethnobiological category, in thiscase, the generic category.

Another ethnobiological description of a

primitive New Guinea society provides evi-

dence for the same kind of ambiguity that

may arise when contrast set members are not

all of equal conceptual (i.e., categorical)rank. Glick, in a short paper dealing with

Gimi natural science, makes the followingobservations:

There are more than twenty[taxon-omically defined first level] botanical ca-

tegories, ranging in size from da 'tree',with at least two hundred members,through koi 'ginger', with four, and ondown to several problematical sets con-

taining only two or three membersapiece. At the lower end it becomesdifficult to decide whether one is justifiedin calling a pair or trio of closely related

plants a category: does this have the sametaxonomic rank as say, da in Gimithought? My answer is, probably not..."[Glick 1964:274].

While Glick makes no effort to describe

"ethnobotanical taxonomic categories" it




appears clear that da 'tree' would be ana-

lyzed in our terms as a life form taxon and

that koi 'ginger' and other few membered

sets like it are best considered generic taxa.

Some of these generic taxa clearly occur inthe same contrast set with life form taxa,hence the dilemma suggested in Glick's ques-tion: do they "have the same taxonomic

rank as, say, da in Gimi thought"?Our conclusion is that formal, taxon-

omically defined semantic contrast-either

inclusion, direct, or indirect-has no psycho-

logical significance without knowledge as

well of the ethnobiological category mem-

bership of the taxa involved. Taxa of any

category may be in taxonomic contrast--provided the formal conditions are met-but

the psychological processes involved in dis-

tinguishing oak and maple or catfish and

perch are quite distinct from those involved

in distinguishing red rose and white rose or

large mouth bass and small mouth bass. To

reject "the notion of absolute category" (Kay

1971:885) in the analysis of taxonomic

structures is logically convenient but should

be re-evaluated if our descriptions are tohave more than formal interest.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, we have brought togethercertain data bearing on the nature of ethno-

biological classification and nomenclature.

Some of our more general findings may be

stated as follows:

(1) There are at least five, perhaps six,taxonomic ethnobiological categories which

appear to be highly general if not universal

in folk biological science. They may be

named as unique beginner, life form, generic,

specific and varietal. A category called "in-

termediate" is suggested but further data

will be required to establish it firmly. Gen-

erally, the category exhibiting the largestnumber of taxa is the generic. Generic taxa

mark the most salient conceptual groupingsof organisms in any folk taxonomy and

represent the fundamental units in ethno-

biological classification.

(2) The five ethnobiological categoriesare arranged hierarchically and taxa assignedto each rank are mutually exclusive. Taxa of

the same ethnobiological category char-

acteristically, though not invariably, occur atthe same level in any folk taxonomic struc-

ture.

(3) The naming of taxa which occur as

members of the ethnobiological categoriescan be reduced to a small number of nomen-

clatural principles which are essentiallyidentical in all languages. Life form and

generic taxa tend to be labelled by primary

lexemes; specific and varietal taxa tend to be

labelled by secondary lexemes. The unique

beginner is rarely named, but if so, its labelwill be a primary lexeme. While recognizingthat nomenclature and category membershipmust be analyzed separately, there seems to

be strong evidence that the linguistic struc-

ture of a plant or animal name is usually a

good mirror of the taxonomic status of the

category which it represents.' 0

NOTES1For a discussion of the concepts "tax-

onomic structure," "taxonomic level," etc.,the reader is referred to the definitive paperby Paul Kay (1971).

2 A contrast set has been defined by Kay(1971) as any set of taxa all of whosemembers are immediately included in anidentical superordinate taxon. Thus, pintobean, lima bean, string bean, kidney bean,are members of a contrast set in that eachmember of the set is immediately included

in the taxon bean.3

Kay's comments on an earlier draft ofthis paper relating to a concise definition ofproductive primary lexemes and secondarylexemes have been of major importance inthe present formulation.

4The above classification of lexemic

types found in ethnobiological nomenclaturederives in large part from Harold Conklin's

important paper on the nature of folk taxon-omies (Conklin 1962). Conklin suggests the

recognition of two basic lexemic types,unitary and composite. One of the definingfeatures of composite lexemes is that theyinclude constituents which designate "cate-gories superordinate to those designated bythe forms in question" (1962:122). As such,




both tulip-tree and jack oak are compositeexpressions in that both, as we have seen,satisfy this condition. We find it theoretical-ly advantageous and empirically justified to

recognize that tulip-tree and jack oak are

only superficially similar linguistically andthat they may be readily distinguished, as wehave shown, as primary productive and

secondary lexemes respectively.

sA terminal taxon is one which includesno other taxa.

6This condition excludes the taxonwhich occurs as the unique beginner, alsomarked by a primary lexeme (if labelled),and which includes all taxa in the set beingclassified.

The attributive pintu < Spanish pinto

'spotted'.The

specificclass referred

to,how-

ever, is an ancient variety of corn. prntumost likely replaced a Tzeltal attributive forthis class.

8kaslan < sixteenth century Spanish

/kaytilyano/. It is interesting to note that theMayan Chuj name for rice is kaylan sim(Breedlove and Hopkins 1970).

9Numerals refer to Cantonese Chinesetones.

10Some of the notions presented in the

present paper were developed in an earlierdraft titled "Evidence for the Concept of

Genus in Folk Science" and a summary waspresented orally in a paper titled "UniversalNomenclatural Principles of Folk Science"at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American

Anthropological Association in New Orleans,1970. The criticisms and suggestions of nu-merous colleagues have helped bring the

paper to its present form. We wish to thankPaul Kay, Paul Friedrich, William Geo-

ghegan, Harold C. Conklin, Brian Stross, andOswald Werner for especially detailed com-ments on these early drafts. In addition, wehave benefitted from the advice of BarryAlpher, Eugene Anderson, Robert Auster-litz, Donald Bahr, Keith Basso, Katherine

Branstetter, Jan Brukman, Ralph H. Bulmer,Robbins Burling, Wallace Chafe, Lincoln

Constance, Roy G. D'Andrade, ChristopherDay, Robekt M. W. Dixon, Catherine S.Fowler, Charles O. Frake, Terrence Hays,Richard Holm, Nicholas A. Hopkins, EugeneHunn, Dell Hymes, Robert M. Laughlin,Yakov Malkiel, Robert McC. Adams, Duane

Metzger, David Price, Robert Randall, DavidM. Schneider, and Michael Wilson. Financial

support of the research on which the paperbuilds has been generously provided by theNational Science Foundation through grantsGS 383, 1183, 2280 and GB 7949X, theCenter for Advanced Study in the Behavioral

Sciences, and the Language-Behavior Re-search Laboratory, University of California,Berkeley. For a general statement con-cerning the possible implications of the find-

ings presented here for modern western bio-

systematics, see Raven, Berlin, and Breed-love (1971).

REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, Eugene N.1967 The Ethnoichthyology of the

Hong Kong Boat People. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Cali-

fornia, Berkeley.Berlin, Brent

1968 Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers: A

Study in Ethnographic Semantics. TheHague: Mouton.

1972 Speculations on the Growth ofEthnobotanical Nomenclature. Journalof Language and Society 1:63-98.

Berlin, Brent, Dennis E. Breedlove, and PeterH. Raven

1968 Covert Categories and Folk Taxon-omies. American Anthropologist70:290-299.

1973 Principles of Tzeltal PlantClassifica-tion: An Introduction to the Botanical

Ethnography of a Mayan SpeakingCommunity in Highland Chiapas. NewYork: Seminar Press. (In press.)

Breedlove, Dennis E., and Nicholas A. Hop-kins

1970 A Study of Chuj (Mayan) PlantNames with Notes on Uses. WassmanJournal of Biology 28:275-298 (pt. 1).

Bulmer, Ralph1965 Review of Navaho Indian Ethno-

entomology, by Leland C. Wyman andFlora L. Bailey. American Anthro-pologist 67:1564-1566.

1967Why

is theCassowary

Not a Bird?A Problem of Zoological TaxonomyAmong the Karam of the New GuineaHighlands. Man 2(1):5-25.

1968 Worms That Croak and OtherMysteries of Karam Natural Science.Mankind 6:621-639.

1970 Which Came First, the Chicken orthe Egghead? In Echanges et Com-munications, Melanges offerts

'Claude

Levi-Strauss d l'occasion de son 604meanniversaire. Jean Pouillon and PierreMaranda, Eds. The Hague: Mouton.pp. 1069-1091.

Bulmer, Ralph, and Michael Tyler1968 Karam Classification of Frogs.

Journal of the Polynesian Society77:333-385.




Conklin, Harold C.1954 The Relation of Hanun6o Culture

to the Plant World. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Yale.1962 Lexicographical Treatment of

Folk Taxonomies. In Indiana Univer-sity Research Center in Anthropology,Folklore, and Linguistics Publication21: Problems in Lexicography. F. W.Householder and Sol Saporta, Eds.

Bloomington: University of Indiana.

pp. 119-141.

Dennler, J. G.1939 Los nombres indfgenas en guaranf

de los mamiTeros de la Argentina ypaises limitrofes y su importancia parala systemdtica. Physis 16:225-244.

Diamond, J. M.

1966 Zoological Classification Systemof a Primitive People. Science151:1102-1104.

Dibble, Charles E., and Arthur O. Anderson,Translators

1963 Florentine Codex: General Historyof the Things of New Spain. Book

11-Earthly Things. Fray Bernardino de

Sahagfin. Santa Fe: School of Ameri-can Research and the University ofUtah.

Durkheim, Emile, and Marcel Mauss1963 Primitive Classification. Translated

and edited with an introduction byRodney Needham. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Glick, Leonard B.1964 Categories and Relations in Gimi

Natural Science. American Anthro-

pologist 66(4, pt. 2):273-280.Hunn, Eugene

n.d. The Identification of Gulls by

American Bird Watchers. Unpublishedmanuscript, Language-Behavior Re-search Laboratory, University of Cali-

fornia, Berkeley.Kay, Paul

1971 On Taxonomy and Semantic Con-trast. Language 47:866-887.

Martfnez-Crovetto, Raul1966 Notas sobre la agricultura de los

indios Guaranies de Misiones. Inter-national Congress of AmericanistsActas y Memorias 2:603-639.

Paso y Troncoso, F. del1886 La botanica entre los Nahuas.

Anales del Museo Nacional de MexicoIII.

Raven, Peter, H., Brent Berlin, and Dennis E.Breedlove

1971 The Origins of Taxonomy. Science174:1210-1213.

Stross, Brian1969 Language Acquisiton by Tenejapa

Tzeltal Children. Working paper No.20 of the Language-Behavior ResearchLaboratory, University of California,Berkeley.

n.d. How Tzeltal Children Learn Botani-cal Terminology. In Meaning in MayanLanguages. Munro S. Edmonson, Ed.The Hague: Mouton. (In press.)

Wyman, Leland C., and Flora L. Bailey

1964 Navaho Indian Ethnoentomology.Publications in Anthropology, No. 12.

Albuq uerque: University of NewMexico.

Wyman, Leland C., and S. K. Harris1941 Navaho Indian Medical Ethno-

botany. University of New MexicoBulletin 366, Anthropological Series3.5.

hipo. berlin

Documents