Article Summary

Article Summary

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Article Summary

Title: Article Summary

Phaka et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3 (2019) 15:17 RESEARCH Open Access Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa Fortunate M. Phaka1* , Edward C. Netherlands1,2, Donnavan J. D. Kruger3 and Louis H. Du Preez1,4 Abstract Background: We use taxonomy to organize the world into recognizable units. Folk taxonomy deals with the naming and classification of organisms through culture. Unlike its scientific counterpart, folk taxonomy is mostly undocumented, the Zoological Code of Nomenclature does not regulate it, and the resulting names are specific to each culture. A growing body of literature is steadily shedding light on the principles underlying this pre-scientific taxonomy. Vernacular names can be an instrument to increase participation of non-scientists in biodiversity matters. In South Africa, great strides have been made in standardizing and increasing relatability of vernacular amphibian names in English and Afrikaans. However, there is a need to achieve the same with the country’s autochthonous languages which are used by a majority of the population. Methods: This study investigates amphibian-related folk taxonomy using a semi-structured interview process in KwaZulu-Natal’s Zululand region and pilots methods of applying folk taxonomy principles to compile a comprehensive list of standardized indigenous frog names. Results: Folk taxonomy in Zululand is systematic, developed, and bears similarities to other indigenous taxonomies around the world. Similarities also exist between folk and scientific taxonomy. Six uninomial indigenous names were found to be used for the 58 amphibian species occurring in the study area. The 58 species were assigned individual indigenous names using folk taxonomy guidelines supplemented with guidelines for modern taxonomies. Conclusions: There is a gap in the documentation and investigation of amphibian folk taxonomy in South Africa. Standardization of indigenous frog names is required to increase their universality. Similarities between folk and modern taxonomies allow for supplementation of indigenous guidelines when compiling a comprehensive indigenous species list. Through this study, social inclusion in wildlife matters is increased, indigenous knowledge systems are promoted, and a contribution is made to the development of an indigenous South African language. Keywords: Anura, Ethnotaxonomy, Indigenous knowledge, Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany, Taxonomy Background Taxonomy is the manifestation of a human need to organize the world into recognizable units [14, 22]. Humans recognize biodiversity and classify related living organisms in similar ways [9]. Nomenclature is motivated by communication, and to share knowledge about organisms we need to be able to identify them in ways that give meaning to a conversation. For this reason, it is essential that unique names are assigned to each * Correspondence: [email protected] 1 African Amphibian Conservation Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa Full list of author information is available at the end of the article organism. Unique species names are also vital to biodiversity conservation [27]. Naming ambiguities could lead to costly conservation interventions being wasted on non-threatened species that share names with species facing extinction. Individual species names can be assigned using scientific taxonomy, and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN Code) seeks to ensure the standardization and universality of resulting names [20]. Folk taxonomy is a pre-scientific type of naming and classification system rooted in culture [7]. Ethnotaxonomy is a field of study dedicated to understanding the principles underlying folk taxonomy [13]. Folk © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Phaka et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2019) 15:17 taxonomic names have localized use due to culture’s specificity. One folk name is often used in reference to several species [5, 17, 38]. Furthermore, folk nomenclature is based on onomatopoeia, description, imagery [10, 24], and phonaesthesia; the non-arbitrary sound-meaning associations of movement, size, and shape [10]. Some studies have explored whether folk taxonomy uses a utilitarianist (motivated by utilitarian value) or an intellectualist (cognitively motivated) approach to classification and nomenclature [8]. Despite being pre-scientific, folk taxonomy is systematic and developed [7, 32]. Researchers have demonstrated that folk names are not just abstract notions, but condensed forms of knowledge with multiple applications [19]. Folk taxonomies contain a richness of information on the biology, ecology, and ethology of several faunal and floral taxa [26]. Ulicsni et al. [38] reported that scientific names for some Hungarian invertebrate species originate from folk names. Folk taxonomy’s fundamental organizing principles provided Linnaeus with a basis for formalizing the hierarchical structure of scientific taxonomy [32]. Unlike Linnaean taxonomy, folk taxonomy is mostly undocumented and at risk of being lost unless it is preserved. The urbanization of traditional societies is leading to a decrease in folk taxonomy usage [18]. The diminishing vocabulary of many languages makes it necessary to preserve and update vernacular species names for future use [25]. Collecting these names requires recording the speaker’s home language and the spoken dialect, as well as the location from where information was obtained [41]. Early collection and investigation of vernacular names for South African amphibians revealed several issues affecting the use of English common names. These include multiple authors using multiple names for one species, one author using multiple names for the same species in different publications, and names that are inappropriate for the named species [39]. These naming issues create confusion, especially for non-scientists, and thus, standardization of vernacular names for frogs is required [21, 40]. Jacobsen [21] and Van Dijk [40] suggested the following guidelines for increasing universality of English and Afrikaans names for frogs. (1) The vernacular name should preferably relate to its scientific counterpart. (2) References to calls, habitats, and localities should be avoided unless species are restricted to localities or have distinctive traits. (3) A person’s name should only be used when necessary. Based on the findings from an investigation of the vernacular naming problems for South African frogs, Passmore and Caruthers [28, 29] published the most appropriate English names and began a process of standardizing common names for frogs. Those published names were based on the following guidelines (see [28]). (1) Give priority to previously Page 2 of 8 published names and only replace them if they are inappropriate. (2) Select the most appropriate if more than one name has been published. (3) Calls, habitats, localities, and essential aspects of morphology should preferably be used whenever there is a need to coin new names. (4) No common names should be allocated to subspecies. English names from Passmore and Caruthers [28, 29] were revised and published by Minter et al. [23] along with their Afrikaans equivalents and six indigenous names (one xiTsonga, three sePedi, and two seSotho names). Du Preez and Carruthers [15, 16] updated the Afrikaans and English species list from Minter et al. [23] with names of several newly described species. Tarrant [36] increased the number of published indigenous names by publishing isiXhosa and isiZulu names for 55 South African frog species. The strides made in standardizing English and Afrikaans frog names created a gap to achieve the same for the other South African languages spoken by a majority of the country’s population. This study aimed to investigate amphibian folk taxonomy and supplement its guidelines with their modern knowledge counterparts to compile a comprehensive list of isiZulu names for Zululand’s frogs. The process enables previously undocumented names to be published, thus initiating their preservation and standardization. The need to bridge this vernacular name gap is further prompted by South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) which states that biodiversity provides South Africans with a rich heritage of nature-based cultural traditions and further reiterates the significance of wildlife to the country’s cultures [34]. Having this culturally significant biodiversity mostly documented and investigated in only two of the country’s 11 official languages excludes a significant portion of the population from participation in biodiversity matters. The standardization of indigenous names fosters inclusion of previously marginalized languages in amphibian conservation and increases usefulness and stability of the names as has been done with scientific, English, and Afrikaans names. Researching amphibian indigenous taxonomy in itself increases participation of local community members in amphibian diversity matters and results of this research will help decrease future naming ambiguities when involving locals in amphibian diversity matters. Materials and methods The current study of amphibian-related folk taxonomy was carried out in South Africa’s Zululand region. This region in the North-eastern part of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province falls within the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany biodiversity hotspot. Data was collected using a semi-structured questionnaire (Additional file 1) Phaka et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2019) 15:17 simultaneously administered to a group of participants aged 18 to 55 during an amphibian diversity workshop. An opportunity sample was obtained by asking members of the Zululand community with interest in wildlife matters to volunteer their participation in the workshop and study. The first group of 10 community members participated on 28 November, and the second group of 3 participated on 1 December 2016. This amphibian diversity workshop, held at Tembe Elephant Park, constituted the social component for an amphibian diversity study. Ethical clearance for this amphibian diversity study was obtained from the North-West University Institutional Research Ethics Regulatory Committee (ethics number NWU-00348-16-A5). The sample of 13 participants (3 female and 10 male) are native isiZulu speakers of the same dialect who reside in 5 Zululand regions with similar environmental conditions. Their socioeconomic status varied; five were permanently employed and three were temporarily employed by nature reserves around the Zululand area, three were unemployed, and the remaining two were students. Additional data was obtained from a multilingual amphibian handbook by Tarrant [36]. Participants were shown reference photographs of all frog species that occur in the study area and collectively asked once whether isiZulu names for those species were available. With each name obtained, the group of participants was again asked once to provide the reasoning or meaning behind the name so as to better understand the taxonomic principles used. This second question prompted discussions among the group. When the participants did not agree on a particular name, they would deliberate on the nomenclature until they arrived at a conclusion everyone approved. In addition to enabling collection of data on the taxonomic principles in use, these discussions presented an opportunity to collect data on the local knowledge of amphibians beyond their taxonomy. Following the investigation of the Zululand community’s amphibian folk taxonomy, and in the absence of published indigenous naming guidelines, findings from this study were supplemented with English and Afrikaans species’ name guidelines. Using a combination of the studied folk taxonomy guidelines and the supplementary guidelines from Vesey-FitzGerald [41], Jacobsen [21], Passmore and Carruthers [28], and Van Dijk [40] all 58 species within the study area were assigned individual isiZulu names. Formulation of individual names involved expansion of indigenous names obtained from the Zululand community and modification of names published by Tarrant [36] to increase their appropriateness. This assignment of individual species names was carried out after the amphibian diversity workshop with the assistance of Mr. Bongani Mkhize, a Ndumo Game Reserve field guide who was among the 13 participants Page 3 of 8 surveyed for this study. The rigor of the ICZN Code [20] was applied to the collected frog names and formulated individual species names to determine overlaps in folk and scientific taxonomy. At the end of the above process, the indigenous names were published next to their scientific and English counterparts in a popular publication (see [30]), thus adding to the tally of published isiZulu names and modifying existing names to increase their appropriateness. Results This anuran folk taxonomy investigation in Zululand found the following guidelines to be in use. (1) Classification and nomenclature are based on habit, habitat, or appearance. (2) Classification is limited to genus or higher taxa, and no individual species names are assigned. (3) Advertisement calls are unreliable for naming purposes as frogs are mostly heard and seldom seen calling. When the above indigenous taxonomy guidelines are supplemented with their modern knowledge counterparts (see [21, 28, 40, 41]), the resulting guidelines are as follows: (1) avoid coining completely new names and give priority to existing appropriate names. (2) Formulating individual species names should rather involve modification or extension of existing indigenous names to improve their meaning. (3) Habit, habitat, or appearance should preferably be used whenever there is a need to coin a new name. (4) Use of call descriptions in names should be limited to frogs that are commonly observed calling. (5) Wherever possible, the coined indigenous names should bear a similar meaning to scientific names or other vernacular names published in a different language. (6) Dialects of the language in use should be considered and species’ names made understandable across different dialects of the same language. Indigenous uninomial frog names The survey of 13 participants revealed that 6 isiZulu uninomial names are used for amphibian species in the study area (Fig. 1). The uninomial umgqagqa is generally used for reed frogs and leaf-folding frogs (e.g., Hyperoliidae). Isinana refers to fossorial frogs (e.g., Breviceptidae), while idwi is used as the uninomial name for aquatic frogs (Pipidae). Grass frogs (Ptychadenidae) are referred to as uvete. Frogs with granular or warty skin (e.g., Bufonidae) are generally called ixoxo. Iselesele, which is sometimes shortened to isele, generally refers to the smoother-skinned species (e.g., Microhylidae) and all species not included in the other five uninomial names. Ixoxo and iselesele are used interchangeably as general terms for all anurans, similar to the English term “frogs”. No names were assigned to individual frog species in Zululand. Phaka et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2019) 15:17 Page 4 of 8 usomagwebu are obtained from isiZulu species names published by Tarrant [36]. Ukassina is borrowed from the generic and common name Kassina and was modified with the assistance of Mr. Bongani Mkhize. The word umanswininiza translates to squeaker and is an onomatopoeic reference to the genus’ advertisement calls, while usomagwebu means the maker or producer of foam. Uninomial names: overlaps between folk and scientific taxonomy Folk and scientific taxonomy in Zululand have a similar intellectualist approach, as classification and nomenclature of frog species in the study area are not based on utilitarian value. Application of the ICZN Code [20] to the nine isiZulu uninomial names reveals further overlaps between folk and scientific taxonomy. Similar results are obtained even when the three additional uninomial names are excluded from analysis. The indigenous names at the least represent folk-generic taxa; single words that group frog species according to their habits, habitats, or appearance. This is in line with the ICZN Code’s Article 4, which provides that scientific names of taxon ranked higher than the species group should be uninomial. The six collected uninomial names and the three additional names are indigenous equivalents of scientific taxonomy’s genus or family levels (Fig. 1). Idwi corresponds perfectly with the taxa Xenopus and Pipidae. Uvete is the folk taxonomic match of the Ptychadena genus. When the additional uninomial names are taken into consideration, then three of the nine folk taxa correspond perfectly with scientific taxonomic ranks (Fig. 1). The remainder of the folk taxa corresponds with multiple scientific genera and/or families. Assigning isiZulu names to individual frog species Fig. 1 Correspondence of amphibian scientific taxa (24 genera, 12 families) with their folk taxonomy equivalents. Six folk names were obtained through a survey of 13 Zululand community members, 3 folk names were obtained from Tarrant [36], and 1 folk name was borrowed from an existing frog name. Superscript letter “a” denotes the name modified from Tarrant [36] with the assistance of Mr. Bongani Mkhize. Superscript letter “b” denotes name borrowed from existing English generic and common name. Poyntonophrynus sp. photograph was used with permission from LS Minter An additional three uninomial names, umanswininiza which refers to squeakers (Arthroleptis spp.), usomagwebu used in reference to foam-nest frogs (Chiromantis sp.), and ukassina which refers to frogs of the genera Kassina and Phlyctimantis, were included in the tally of isiZulu frog uninomial names. Umanswininiza and All 58 species of amphibians occurring in the Zululand region have been assigned individual isiZulu names (Table 1) which were published next to their scientific and English counterparts in Phaka et al. [30]. These indigenous species names bear a similar meaning to scientific names and/or vernacular (English or Afrikaans) names in recently published works (see [15, 16, 23]). Isizulu names for 30 Zululand frog species were formulated by extending the documented uninomial names. Names for the remaining 28 species were modified from species names published in Tarrant [36]. Individual species names: overlaps between folk and scientific taxonomy Some of the isiZulu species names formulated in this study would not qualify as scientific names since they violate the principles of binomial nomenclature outlined Phaka et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2019) 15:17 Table 1 IsiZulu names assigned to 58 Zululand amphibian species published in Phaka et al. [30] Isizulu name (scientific name) Page 5 of 8 Table 1 IsiZulu names assigned to 58 Zululand amphibian species published in Phaka et al. [30] (Continued) 37. Uvete olujwayelekile (Ptychadena anchietae (Bocage, 1868)) 1. Umanswininiza onyawo zingamafosholo (Arthroleptis stenodactylus Pfeffer, 1893) 38. Uvete olunomugqa obanzi (Ptychadena mossambica (Peters, 1854)) 2. Umanswininiza wasehlathinia (Arthroleptis wahlbergii Smith, 1849) 39. Uvete lwaseNileb (Ptychadena nilotica (Seetzen, 1855)) a 3. Isele lasezihlahleni elinsundu (Leptopelis mossambicus Poynton, 1985) 40. Uvete olunempumulo ecijilea (Ptychadena oxyrhynchus (Smith, 1849)) 4. Isele lasezihlahleni laseNatali (Leptopelis natalensis (Smith, 1849)) 41. Uvete olunemigqaa (Ptychadena porosissima (Steindachner, 1867)) a 5. Isinana sasehlathini (Breviceps adspersus Peters, 1882) a 42. Uvete olufishane (Ptychadena taenioscelis Laurent, 1954) 6. Isinana sikaBilbo (Breviceps bagginsi Minter, 2003) 43. Idwi elijwayelekilea (Xenopus laevis (Daudin, 1802)) 7. Isinana sakwaPhinda (Breviceps carruthersi Du Preez, Netherlands, and Minter, 2017) 44. Idwi lika-Müller (Xenopus muelleri (Peters, 1844)) 8. Isinana saseMozambique (Breviceps mossambicus Peters, 1854) 45. Isele elithambile elijwayelekile (Cacosternum boettgeri (Boulenger, 1882)) 9. Isinana sakwaNdumo (Breviceps passmorei Minter, Netherlands, and Du Preez, 2017) 46. Isele elithambile laKwaZulu (Cacosternum nanogularum Channing et al. 2013) 10. Isinana sekhwela/somtshingo (Breviceps sopranus Minter, 2003) 47. Isele elithambile elisathusia (Cacosternum nanum Boulenger, 1887) 11. Ixoxo elifishane (Poyntonophrynus fenoulheti (Hewitt and Methuen, 1912)) 12. Ixoxo elibomvua (Schismaderma carens (Smith, 1848)) 48. Isele elithambile elinemigqa (Cacosternum striatum FitzSimons, 1947) 49. Isele lase-Kloof (Natalobatrachus bonebergi Hewitt and Methuen, 1912) 13. Ixoxo eliklabalasayoa (Sclerophrys capensis Tschudi, 1838) 50. Isele lasemfuleni elijwayelekilea (Amietia delalandii (Duméril and Bibron, 1841)) 14. Ixoxo eliluhlaza okotshani (Sclerophrys garmani (Meek, 1897)) 51. Inkunzi yexoxo (Pyxicephalus edulis Peters, 1854) 15. Ixoxo lembodlomanea (Sclerophrys gutturalis (Power, 1927)) 52. Isele lasemfuleni elinemidwaa (Strongylopus fasciatus (Smith, 1849)) 16. Ixoxo lomhlane oyisicaba (Sclerophrys pusilla (Mertens, 1937)) 53. Isele lasemfuleni eligqafazayoa (Strongylopus grayii (Smith, 1849)) 17. Isele lasempophomeni (Hadromophryne natalensis (Hewitt, 1913)) 54. Isele lasesihlabathini elinemigqa (Tomopterna cryptotis (Boulenger, 1907)) a 18. Isinana esimabhadubhadu (Hemisus guttatus (Rapp, 1842)) 19. Isinana esipendiwe (Hemisus marmoratus (Peters, 1854)) 55. Isele lasesihlabathini elingqongqozayoa (Tomopterna krugerensis Passmore and Carruthers, 1975) 20. Umgqagqa oyigolide (Afrixalus aureus Pickersgill, 1984) 56. Isele lasesihlabathini laseNatalia (Tomopterna natalensis (Smith, 1849)) 21. Umgqagqa othambile (Afrixalus delicatus Pickersgill, 1984) 22. Umgqagqa omkhulua (Afrixalus fornasini (Bianconi, 1849)) 57. Isele lasesihlabathini likaTandy (Tomopterna tandyi Channing and Bogart, 1996) 23. Umgqagqa i-Argusa (Hyperolius argus Peters, 1854) 58. Usomagwebu waseningizimua (Chiromantis xerampelina Peters, 1854) 24. Umgqagqa opendiwea (Hyperolius marmoratus Rapp, 1842) 25. Umgqagqa ka-Pickersgill (Hyperolius pickersgilli Raw, 1982) 26. Umgqagqa omude (Hyperolius poweri Loveridge, 1938) 27. Umgqagqa weminduzea (Hyperolius pusillus (Cope, 1862)) 28. Umgqagqa wemigqa ephuzi (Hyperolius semidiscus Hewitt, 1927) 29. Umgqagqa oluhlaza okotshania (Hyperolius tuberilinguis Smith, 1849) A total of 30 new isiZulu species names were newly formulated, 28 were modified from published names, and 6 folk generic names were obtained through interviewing 13 Zululand community members a Name modified from Tarrant [36] with the assistance of Mr. Bongani Mkhize b This species appears as uvete lwaseMaskarina in Phaka et al. [30]. In this study, it was changed to uvete lwaseNile to correspond with the scientific name change of this species in South Africa [44] 32. Isele elisanjoloba elinemigqaa (Phrynomantis bifasciatus (Smith, 1847)) in the ICZN Code [20]. Of the 58 isiZulu names, 33 are binomina, and the remaining names are combinations of at least three words. One of the 33 isiZulu binomina does not have its first word as the indigenous equivalent of a generic name. Not having a generic name as the first word in a species binomen violates Article 5 of the ICZN Code [20]. 33. Isele lechibi lasempumalanga Afrika (Phrynobatrachus acridoides (Cope, 1867)) Local knowledge of amphibians beyond taxonomy 30. Ukassina wemilenze ebomvu (Phlyctimantis maculatus (Duméril, 1853)) 31. Ukassina obhadlayoa (Kassina senegalensis (Duméril and Bibron, 1841)) a 34. Isele lechibi elifishane (Phrynobatrachus mababiensis FitzSimons, 1932) 35. Isele lechibi elihonayoa (Phrynobatrachus natalensis (Smith, 1849)) 36. Ixoxo elihlotshisiwea (Hildebrandtia ornata (Peters, 1878)) Amphibians in the study area were found to have no utilitarian value as the participants confirmed that no frog species are used for culinary or cultural purposes. The participants believed that the diverse range of frog advertisement calls produced by the different Zululand Phaka et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2019) 15:17 species belong to insects. Common myths encountered were that grass frogs bring rain while African clawed frogs (Pipidae) are thought to fall from the sky during torrential rain. All the participants reported that the most effective way to eradicate frogs from their homes was by throwing salt on their dorsum to make them “sweat.” Discussion Scientific taxonomy aims to objectively classify all species according to their evolutionary relationships [32]. Folk taxonomy investigated in this, and other studies shows a classification system based on evolutionary groupings in nature [32], with genera being the most recognizable taxonomic level [4, 11, 33]. The folk classification investigated in this study was found to rely on frogs’ habits, habitats, or appearance when grouping species together. Ellen et al. [17] also reported that amphibian folk classification by the Nuaulu tribe of Indonesia is linked to their habits and habitats. Contrary to the current study’s findings, Nuaulu were found to use advertisement calls in their amphibian taxonomy [17]. Folk taxonomy that relies on advertisement calls is also evident in the local bird names of the Punjab province of Pakistan [1]. The finding that indigenous names collected from Zululand locals correspond to taxa higher than species (i.e., genus or family) is in line with results from some of the earliest folk taxonomy investigations which mostly focused on Oceanic and South American languages [9, 11, 12]. Bannikov [6] also obtained similar results when looking into Russian folk taxonomy of frogs. The collected folk name categories in this study were fewer than scientific taxa (see Fig. 1). This finding is similar to results from Berlin [8], which indicated that there was no exact correspondence between the number of folk and scientific taxa. When comparing the taxonomy of two Indonesian tribes, Ellen et al. [17] noted closer correspondence between amphibian folk and scientific taxa in the tribe with greater knowledge of amphibian biology. This work by Ellen et al. [17] gives an indication that the low correspondence between amphibian folk and scientific taxa may be a symptom of limited knowledge of anuran biology in the current study area. Folk taxonomy principles used by different cultures have been found to have similarities [7]. In addition to the parallelism mentioned above, principles used in Zululand are consistent with other folk taxonomies used on various taxa by different cultures in many parts of the world including Tzeltal plant taxonomy in Mexico [11], mammalian taxonomy in the Brazilian state of Paraíba [26] and the Punjab province of Pakistan [1], mushroom taxonomy by the Maasai and Kurya of Tanzania [37], marine species taxonomy in the Ceará Page 6 of 8 State of Brazil [31], and invertebrate taxonomy by ethnic Hungarians from Romania, Slovakia, and Croatia [38]. Inconsistencies also exist between Zululand frog taxonomy and other folk taxonomic systems of the world. The most notable of these is the high number of specific folk names for plants by Basotho people of Lesotho (see [25]), fish by Vaie people of Malaysia (see [19]), and Hungarian invertebrates (see [38]). To confirm whether the above consistencies and inconsistencies also apply to other indigenous South African languages requires a larger-scale investigation of amphibian folk taxonomy. The onomatopoeia, description, and imagery principles used in folk nomenclature (see [10, 24]) and outlined in this study are also evident in modern nomenclature. For instance, Arthroleptis applies description and imagery principles as it refers to the thin digits which are characteristic to the genus, while the generic common name Squeakers and its Afrikaans equivalent kikkers are onomatopoeic references to the genus’ advertisement calls. The intellectualist approach to folk and scientific taxonomy, noted in this study, is an approach based on a view that human beings recognize inherent order in the natural world regardless of biota’s practical value [8]. This however does not imply that all folk taxonomy is intellectualist in its approach as other studies have reported local utilization of organisms that are subject to folk classification and nomenclature (see [31, 37, 38]). In contrast to the current study, amphibians have been previously reported to have gastronomic and traditional medicinal value in other regions of South Africa [3, 43] and many other parts of the world [2, 42]. Overlaps between folk and modern taxonomy enable the use of modern naming conventions to supplement folk taxonomy when standardizing indigenous names. This application of modern conventions to indigenous names of course needs to be done with some exceptions and within the boundaries of folk taxonomy to avoid losing the essence of indigenous names and their relevance to those who use them frequently. No classification system, modern, or indigenous, provides an infallible way of categorizing biota [8]. Thus, the abovementioned supplementation bridges gaps in folk taxonomy. The Zulu language’s descriptive nature means that in some instances, the principles of binomial nomenclature [20] cannot be followed without affecting the meaning and appropriateness of species’ names. Thus, 25 of the 58 species names are combinations of at least 3 words while the rest are binomina. The ordering of words in the formulated isiZulu species names is another aspect of folk taxonomy that will not always conform to scientific naming rules. The isiZulu species binomen for P. edulis, inkunzi yexoxo, does not have a generic name as its first word as this would affect its meaning. Inkunzi Phaka et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2019) 15:17 used as a first word instead of the folk generic name ixoxo appropriately describes a bullish or large frog, and the resulting binomen bears a similar meaning to the species’ English name. If the folk generic name ixoxo were to be used as the first word then the resulting binomen, ixoxo yenkunzi, would merely be describing a male frog. What seems like folklore regarding grass frogs and African clawed frogs may actually constitute an observation of amphibian behavior and attempts to explain it using available knowledge. Grass frogs may be seen moments before a rain event as the humid and moderate conditions are favorable for frog activity. If this behavior is observed repeatedly by a person without an understanding of frog biology, they may conclude that the ensuing rain was brought on by the frog seen prior to the event. African clawed frogs are aquatic species; thus, seeing them on land during or after torrential rain without knowledge of how they migrate between waterbodies may lead one to incorrectly deduce that they rained from the sky. The reported “sweating” of salted frogs is an osmotic response to the high concentration of salt the frogs’ skins are suddenly exposed to. Conclusions The current study emphasizes gaps in the documentation and investigation of amphibian folk taxonomy in South Africa, while highlighting the need for standardization of indigenous frog names to increase their universality. Furthermore, this study contributes to solving two social development issues in South Africa; firstly, the need to increase public participation in biodiversity matters, and secondly, the development of indigenous languages. The research outcomes are intended not only to benefit non-scientists and but also provide a remedy to NBSAP’s acknowledgement that biodiversity is not as broadly understood as it should be [34]. In line with South Africa’s Protection, Promotion, Development and Management of Indigenous Knowledge Systems Bill [35] , this research encourages the use of indigenous knowledge systems. Through increasing universality of indigenous frog names and linking their meaning to published scientific and common names, users of these indigenous names can be introduced to other names outside their home language. The guidelines used for compiling a comprehensive species list in this study are open to further improvement since they are based on the folk taxonomy of one South African language and from one area. Additional file Additional file 1: Questionnaire used for folk taxonomy investigations in Zululand. Interview template used for the semi-structured questionnaire in this study. (DOCX 18 kb) Page 7 of 8 Abbreviations ICZN Code: International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; ICZN: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature; NBSAP: South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; NWU: North-West University Acknowledgements Authors are grateful to the interviewees for their participation and sharing of their knowledge. We sincerely thank Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife for their administrative support of this study. Funding The study was financially supported by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and the National Research Foundation (NRF), Grant UID 98114. ECN is financially supported by the DAAD-NRF doctoral scholarship (Grant UID: 108803), and the VLIR-OUS university scholarship (ID 0620854 / Contract 000000076310). Opinions expressed, and conclusions arrived at, are those of the authors and are not necessarily to be attributed to the funding bodies. Availability of data and materials The data collected was not shared as participants did not give consent in this regard. Authors’ contributions FMP, ECN, DJDK, and LHD conceptualized the project. FMP and ECN carried out the amphibian diversity workshop. FMP conducted the amphibian diversity survey, and coordinated and wrote the manuscript. ECN, DJDK, and LHD edited the manuscript. The final manuscript was read and approved by all authors. Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical clearance for the amphibian diversity part of this study was obtained from the North-West University Institutional Research Ethics Regulatory Committee (Ethics Number: NWU-00348-16-A5). This ethics committee stated that no ethics approval was necessary for human participation in this study. Consent for publication All data was collected with the consent of the participants and the participants also consented to the publication of the data. Copyright of the photograph used for the Poyntonophrynus genus belongs to LS Minter. Consent was given for use and publication of the photograph in question. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Author details 1 African Amphibian Conservation Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa. 2Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, University of Leuven, Charles Debériotstraat 32, Leuven B-3000, Belgium. 3Focus area: Self Directed Learning, Faculty of Education, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa. 4 South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Somerset Street, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa. Received: 30 October 2018 Accepted: 22 February 2019 References 1. Altaf M, Javid A, Umair M, Iqbal KJ, Rasheed Z, Abbasi AM. Ethnomedicinal and cultural practices of mammals and birds in the vicinity of river Chenab, Punjab-Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017;1:41. 2. Alves RRN, Vieira WL, Santana GG, Vieira KS, Montenegro PF. Herpetofauna used in traditional folk medicine: conservation implications. In: Alves RRN, Rosa IL, editors. Animals in traditional folk medicine. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. p. 109–33. Phaka et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. (2019) 15:17 Anthony BP, Bellinger EG. Importance value of landscapes, flora and fauna to Tsonga communities in the rural areas of Limpopo province, South Africa. S Afr J Sci. 2007;3–4:148–54. Atran S, Estin P, Coley J, Medin D. Generic species and basic levels: essence and appearance in folk biology. J Ethnobiol. 1997;17:17–43. Auerbach R. First steps in Setswana herpetology. Botswana Notes and Records. 1986;18:71–90. Bannikov AG. Amphibians and reptiles of the USSR. Moscow: Mysl’; 1971. Berlin B. Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Annu Rev Eco Evol Syst. 1973;4:259–71. Berlin B. The chicken and the egg-head revisited: further evidence for the intellectualist bases of ethnobiological classification. In: man and a half: essays in pacific anthropology and ethnobiology in honour of Ralph Bulmer. J Polyn Soc Memoirs (Dd.). 1991;48:57–66. Berlin B. Ethnobiological classification: principals of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1992. Berlin B. The first congress of ethnozoological nomenclature. J Royal Anthropol Inst. 2006;12:S23–44. Berlin B, Breedlove DE, Raven P. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. Am Anthropol. 1973;75:214–42. Brown CH. Folk zoological life-forms: their universality and growth. Am Anthropol. 1979;81:791–817. da Silva MJ, Barbosa Filho ML. Ethnotaxomy as a methodological tool for studies of the ichthyofauna and its conservation implications: a review. In: Alves RRN, Albuquerque UP, editors. Ethnozoology: animals in our lives. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2018. p. 71–94. Dougherty J. Learning names for plants and plants for names. J Linguist Anthropol. 1979;21:298–315. Du Preez LH, Carruthers VC. A complete guide to the frogs of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Penguin Random House; 2009. Du Preez LH, Carruthers VC. Frogs of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Penguin Random House; 2017. Ellen RF, Stimson A, Menzies J. Structure and inconsistency in Nuaulu categories for amphibians. J Agric Tradit Bot Appl. 1976;23:125–38. Harrison KD. When languages die: the extinction of the world’s languages and the erosion of human knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Hidayati S, Ghani BA, Giridharan B, Hassan MZ, Franco FM. Using ethnotaxonomy to assess traditional knowledge and language vitality: a case study with the Vaie people of Sarawak, Malaysia. Ethnobiology Letters. 2018;9(2):33–47. ICZN. (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Queenstown: National University of Singapore; 1999. Jacobsen N. Colloquial names for southern African reptiles and amphibians. Afr J Herpetol. 1978;18:7–13. López A, Atran S, Coley JD, Medin DL, Smith EE. The tree of life: universal and cultural features of folk biological taxonomies and inductions. J Cogn Psychol. 1997;32:251–95. Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D, editors. Atlas and red data book of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB series #9. Washington: Smithsonian Institution; 2004. Möller LA. Of the same breath: indigenous animal and place names. Johannesburg: African Sun Media; 2017. Moteetee A, Van Wyk BE. Sesotho names for exotic and indigenous edible plants in southern Africa. Bothalia. 2006;36:25–32. Mourão JS, Araujo HF, Almeida FS. Ethnotaxonomy of mastofauna as practised by hunters of the municipality of Paulista, state of Paraíba-Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2006;1:19. O’Brien CM. Do they really “know nothing”? An inquiry into ethnobotanical knowledge of learners in Arizona USA. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2010;8:35–47. Passmore NI, Carruthers VC. Further comment on English common names for south African frogs. Afr J Herpetol. 1978;19:2–7. Passmore NI, Carruthers VC. South African frogs. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press; 1979. Phaka FM, Netherlands EC, Kruger DJD, Du Preez LH. A bilingual field guide to the frogs of Zululand. Suricata 3. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute; 2017. Pinto MF, da Silva MJ, Alves RR. Ethnotaxonomical considerations and usage of ichthyofauna in a fishing community in Ceará State, Northeast Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013;1:17. Page 8 of 8 32. Ross NJ. “What’s that called?” folk taxonomy and connecting students to the human-nature interface. In: Quave CL, editor. Innovative strategies for teaching in the plant sciences. New York, NY: Springer; 2014. p. 121–34. 33. Savo V, Bisceglie S, Caneva G, Kumbaric A, Mcclatchey WC, Reedy D. “Modern Linnaeus”: a class exercise on plant nomenclature and taxonomy in comparison with a previous experiment. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2011;9:217–33. 34. South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). 2015. South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015 – 2025. https:// www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/publications/ SAsnationalbiodiversity_strategyandactionplan2015_2025.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr 2018. 35. South Africa. 2016. Protection, promotion, development and management of Indigenous Knowledge Systems Bill (B6–2016). 36. Tarrant J. My first book of southern African frogs. Cape Town: Struik Nature; 2015. 37. Tibuhwa DD. Folk taxonomy and use of mushrooms in communities around Ngorongoro and Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;1:36. 38. Ulicsni V, Svanberg I, Molnár Z. Folk knowledge of invertebrates in Central Europe-folk taxonomy, nomenclature, medicinal and other uses, folklore, and nature conservation. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;1:47. 39. Van Dijk DE. Comments on English names for southern African Anura. Afr J Herpetol. 1978a;19:38–43. 40. Van Dijk DE. English names for Southern African Anurans. Afr J Herpetol. 1978b;17:13–6. 41. Vesey-Fitzgerald D. Vernacular names. J Herpetol Assoc Rhodesia. 1960;9:5–6. 42. Warkentin IG, Bickford D, Sodhi NS, Bradshaw CJ. Eating frogs to extinction. Conserv Biol. 2009;4:1056–9. 43. Williams VL, Whiting MJ. A picture of health? Animal use and the Faraday traditional medicine market, South Africa. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016;179:265–73. 44. Zimkus BM, Lawson LP, Barej MF, Barratt CD, Channing A, Dash KM, et al. Leapfrogging into new territory: how Mascarene ridged frogs diversified across Africa and Madagascar to maintain their ecological niche. Mol Phylogenetics Evol. 2017;106:254–69. Plants in Language and Classification among BC First Nations N a n c y J . T u r n e r , C a r l a B u rt o n , a n d J a n va n E i j k INTRODUCTION T his article provides an overview of systems of naming and organizing categories of plants among Indigenous languages and cultures of British Columbia, using tools provided through the fields of ethnobotany, linguistics, and anthropology. The ways in which people name, conceptualize, and organize the plants and animals in their environments have been of interest to ethnobiologists for many decades, especially since the mid-1950s (Brown 2010; Conklin 1954; Hunn and Brown 2011; Nazarea 1999). This area of inquiry, known variously as ethnoscience, folk biological classification, or folk biological taxonomy, had its beginnings mainly through cognitive anthropology (Lévi-Strauss 1966; Tyler 1969), with connections to biological taxonomy and cognitive linguistics. It parallels investigations of other domains of classification, such as the variation in recognition and use of colour terminology, as well as in kinship terms. Early work by Conklin (1954) and others was followed by a long-standing and intensive series of studies by Brent Berlin and his colleagues (Berlin 1972, 1992, and numerous others), culminating in Berlin’s book Ethnobiological Classification (1992), in which he proposes a series of “universal principles” of ethnobiological nomenclature and classification. Researchers studying folk biological classification are interested in factors influencing plant and animal nomenclature, and shaping ethnobiological classification systems (cf. Hunn and Brown 2011 for overviews). Do these systems reflect our intellectual need and natural propensity to name and classify the different organisms we encounter? Are our human minds “wired” to make these distinctions, to recognize bc studies, no. 79, Autumn 13 135 136 bc studies the discontinuities in nature? Or, alternatively, do we simply focus on and distinguish those things that are salient and useful to us and name them to facilitate communication (Hunn 1982)? This classic “intellectual” versus “utilitarian” theoretical deliberation on ethnobiological classification is still unfolding (Nazarea 1999). Research on Indigenous knowledge systems has contributed significantly to the debate (Hunn and Brown 2011). This article draws on the fields of linguistics, anthropology, and ethnobotany, and it shows how these disciplines have been brought together in describing Indigenous knowledge systems relating to the naming and classification of plants over the past 120 years or so in British Columbia. A number of early ethnographic studies in northwestern North America have inventoried plant names and ethnobotanical knowledge of individual speech communities and language groups (e.g., Boas 1921; Swanton 1905; Steedman 1930; Gunther 1973 [1945]; Smith 1920-23; Smith 1928), although they seldom considered the higher order taxa or classification systems for plants in any explicit or systematic way. Studies focusing particularly on classification have mostly been undertaken since the 1970s. The ways in which plants are categorized and named help us to understand interrelationships between language, cognition, memory, survival, and world view. Overall, ethnobotanical classification systems represent the tremendous richness of ancient collective knowledge, much of it encoded in languages. Thus, for British Columbia’s First Peoples, these systems are of great importance as elements of the languages, cultures, and heritage of our province. In the following section, we provide a brief overview of the Indigenous languages of British Columbia. We then review some of the studies of ethnobiological naming and classification that have been undertaken in the province. Descriptions of some of these taxonomic systems and their key characteristics follow. We make specific reference to the hierarchical arrangement of plant categories and to the ways in which categories can either expand to include more members or become more restricted as the relative importance of plants changes over time or as people encounter new plants and environments. We then discuss the ways in which plant names can be borrowed by one language group from another and how they sometimes change in meaning, or reference, as they move from language to language, or as circumstances for the speakers of the languages change. Finally, we describe changes in plant classification systems during the recent colonial period, when a wide range of new species was introduced. Plants in Language and Classification 137 INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA The Indigenous peoples of British Columbia speak over thirty distinct languages or major dialects (see Figure 1 in the Introduction to this volume), which are, in turn, classified within several language families: Na-Dené, Tsimshianic [Ts’msyenic], Wakashan, Salishan, and the isolates Haida and Ktunaxa, which have no identified linguistic relatives. Na-Dené includes Tlingit, which is spoken on the Coast but also extends into Alaska, and numerous Dene (Athabaskan) languages, whose territories extend from the Subarctic almost to the Arctic Ocean and eastward across Canada as far as Hudson Bay. There are also Dene (Athabaskan)-speaking peoples and their descendants in restricted coastal areas in southern Oregon and northern California, and in the southwestern United States. Tsimshianic and Wakashan peoples reside mainly in the coastal regions of the study area, while Salishan peoples are represented both in the coastal and southern interior areas of British Columbia and extend into Washington, Idaho, and Montana (and, formerly, into Oregon as well). Haida is spoken on Haida Gwaii and in southeastern Alaska, while the Ktunaxa are settled in the southeastern part of British Columbia and the neighbouring United States. Tlingit, Tsimshianic, Wakashan, coastal Salishan, and Haida fall within the Northwest Coast cultural area, while the interior Salishan groups fall into the Plateau area, together with the Ktunaxa, although the latter also have strong affiliations with Plains cultures. British Columbia’s Dene (Athabaskan)-speaking peoples occupy the Subarctic culture area, although the Tsilhqot’in are often considered transitional to the Plateau area. Details regarding the linguistics and cultural affiliations of BC Indigenous peoples are given in Helm (1981); Suttles (1990); Thompson and Kinkade (1990); Walker (1998); and Yinka Déné Language Institute (2007). In the fur trade era of the early 1800s, Cree-speaking peoples came into the province and a few are living in communities in the northeastern region. In most cases, these languages incorporate names for between about 120 and 150 different species of plants as well as many higher order plant names. Many of these names originated in ancestral “proto-languages,” often reflected by related, or cognate, names for the same or similar species in sister languages (cf. Kuipers 2002 for Salishan). There are also many instances of plant names and terms being borrowed, or loaned, from one language to another (Turner in press). 138 bc studies ETHNOBIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATION STUDIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Studies of ethnobiological classification and nomenclature of BC First Nations have contributed to our overall understanding of how people name and classify plants and animals in their environments. The first studies focusing explicitly on ethnobiological classification were based on the ideas and approaches of Berlin (cf. 1972, 1992) and colleagues (cf. Turner 1974). Our experiences suggested that the detailed series of questions to Indigenous experts, as promoted by other researchers in ethnobiological classification (Tyler 1969), were not particularly successful. Repeated questions for each type of plant, such as “What is this [X]?” “What is X a kind of?” “Are there different kinds of X?” may yield information about classification systems, but they are tedious and irrelevant to many Indigenous experts. Inferences drawn from the context of discussions and conversations, and from names of plants and botanical categories themselves, have been more effective in revealing the ways in which plants (as well as fungi and algae) are named and classified (Turner 1974). Simply having people talk about the plants and their relationships from their own cultural perspectives provides many insights. In British Columbia, most studies that have focused on ethnobotanical nomenclature and/or classification were based on primary information documented during general ethnobotanical research or from compilations drawn from secondary sources (e.g., Brown 1984; Hunn 1982; Hunn and French 1981; Johnson 1994; Turner 2003, 2004; Turner and Brown 2004). Methods used consisted of interviews with Indigenous language speakers and knowledge holders about names and uses of particular plants, and relationships between plants and broader taxonomic categories. Understanding nomenclature can only come from knowing the vocabulary and meanings of terms in particular languages, and much of the linguistic work in ethnobiological nomenclature and classification has been conducted by linguists specializing in certain languages, including native speakers and language specialists (e.g., Turner and Efrat 1982; Turner et al. 1983; Turner, Bouchard, and Kennedy 1980; Turner et al. 1990). Historical linguistics and comparative linguistic studies have also been important in British Columbia as elsewhere (cf. Kuipers 2002). In the early 1970s, following the concepts and methodologies of Berlin and his colleagues, Turner and Van Eijk, working with other linguists (Bouchard, Kuipers, Levine, Nater), undertook to document the plant Plants in Language and Classification 139 classification systems of Haida, Nuxalk, and Stl’atl’imx (Lillooet) (Turner 1974). This comparative research suggested that common linguistic ancestry (as between the Salishan languages of the Nuxalk of the central coast and Stl’atl’imx of the middle Fraser River) had a greater effect on people’s plant classification systems than did environmental similarity (e.g., between Haida and Nuxalk, distinct and unrelated language groups, whose territories are ecologically similar). Haida, Bella Coola (Nuxalk), and Lillooet (Stl’atl’imx) languages seemed to conform generally to Berlin’s (1992) proposed “universal” classification structure. However, the BC languages have significantly smaller vocabularies of basic (“folk generic”) plant names (approximately one hundred to two hundred terms) than is typical among subtropical and tropical agrarian groups (approximately five hundred terms [see Berlin 1992]). This is consistent with other ethnobotanical vocabularies of language groups in temperate, non-agricultural regions with less diverse flora and with classification systems that are generally smaller and less complex hierarchically (Hunn et al. 1990; Turner 2004; Turner et al. 1980). PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE OF BC FIRST NATIONS For BC First Nations, there is a notable commonality in the types of plants (as well as fungi and algae) that are recognized and named, although there are also many uniquely named plants. A general survey of over fifty languages and major dialects of Indigenous peoples of northwestern North America revealed some 260 species (and closely related groups of species) that were named in three or more Indigenous languages of British Columbia. An even larger number (about 280 species) were named in only one or two languages (Turner in press). Hierarchies of Taxa in BC Indigenous Plant Classification The overall organization of plant categories, or taxa, in BC First Nations languages tends to follow a shallow hierarchical arrangement, similar to that of everyday English language. Major taxa include lesser taxa in a short series of levels, or ranks. In English folk taxonomy (as opposed to non-Aboriginal scientific taxonomy),1 the all-inclusive category 1 It is important to recognize that “folk taxonomies,” whether the classification systems of everyday English speakers or of Indigenous peoples or others, function very well as systems of organizing, naming, and communicating to others in society about living things; however, these “folk” systems have a different role from the non-Aboriginal scientific biological taxonomic system, which has a mandate to distinguish, classify, and name every living thing 140 bc studies “plant” is fairly definitive for most people, who, for example, would be able to distinguish easily between a “plant” and an “animal,” with an outlying general group of fungi or mushrooms.2 In our everyday lives, we recognize a number of broad subcategories: trees, bushes, herbs, or herbaceous plants (sometimes also just called “plants”), grass, ferns, and so forth. Within some of these (generally mutually exclusive) categories, there may be a small number of broad subcategories (e.g., evergreen tree), but mostly there is an array of multiple, restricted subcategories – the basic “kinds” of plants – which often correspond with scientific species or groups of related species, such as oak or dandelion. Some of these basic categories are further delineated: for example, red oak, white oak, common dandelion. First Nations plant categories and patterns of naming tend to follow such a hierarchical arrangement. For speakers of Indigenous languages in British Columbia, although an overarching concept of “plant-ness” is evidently widely recognized (e.g., through the use of a “plant” suffix and through general conversation that indicates various plants as being part of a common set), there is seldom an all-encompassing term for “plant.” And even in cases in which there might be a general term for “plant,” what might be included within the designation can vary from person to person or language to language. “Seaweeds” (marine algae) are generally associated with green, leafy plants but might be named in a way that contrasts them with (terrestrial) plants. In some cases, plants, while not actually named, are characterized under a descriptive phrase such as “things that grow” (Turner 1974, 1987). In discussions about plants and animals in general, Okanagan elder Selina Timoyakin shared a classification of “living things,” including various categories of what would be classed as plants, drawn from her own traditions (Figure 1). Significantly, she included “rocks” in her scheme since, in the world view of Okanagan and other First Nations, rocks are considered “beings.”3 around the planet in relation to its evolutionary relationships. Therefore, these two types of taxonomies have different purposes and different structures. 2 Even within botanical science, the concept of “plant” is not always definitive. Fungi, Lichens, and Algae are now considered separate from Bryophytes, and from Vascular plants, although less than a century ago these groups were all classified within a common “Plant Kingdom.” 3 In First Nations traditional narratives, stars, wind, rivers, and mountains are also seen as actors within the living world, beings in one phase of their existence that have agency and spirit just as do trees, berry bushes, bears, geese, salmon, and humans. This view of relationships of all other entities with humans is referred to as kincentricity, or kincentric ecology (cf. Dennis Martinez, personal communication, 2006; Turner 2005). Plants in Language and Classification Great Chief (kwilstn) “sweathouse” “Fish” (Chief – Steelhead Trout) “Those that fly” (Chief – Golden Eagle) Coyote (snk’lip) “Those that walk with paws” (Chief – Cougar) “Those that walk with hooves” (Chief – a special celibate buck Mule Deer) “Those that crawl on the surface” (worms, frogs, snakes) (Chief – a special small kind of rattlesnake) 141 “Rocks” (brown, red, blue, black) (Chief – Black Flint) “Trees with leaves” (Chief – Rocky bushes, Mtn Maple) flowers, “Trees with and trees needles” (Chief – White Pine) “Grasses” (Chief – Bluebunch Wheatgrass) “Those without blood” (insects and spiders) (chief not recalled) “Roots” (Chief – Bitterroot) “Berries” (Chief – Black Huckleberry) Figure 1. The domains and their chiefs in Okanagan cosmology (as contributed by Selina Timoyakin in Turner 1974, 79). Note: dotted line indicates those domains that, collectively, would be widely considered by most English speakers to be in the “Plant” universe. Some of these categories closely align with broad scientific taxa, whereas others (e.g., “Those that crawl…”) include categories that are only distantly related. As in the Okanagan example, BC Indigenous languages tend to include general named categories for “tree,” “bush,” and “grass and grasslike plants” that are based on large-scale morphological features,4 such as size and habit, although these may simultaneously reflect utilitarian traits (e.g., trees often equate with firewood and construction materials [see Hunn 1982]). These broad subcategories (Berlin’s 1992 “life form” taxa), in turn, encompass more restricted taxa (Berlin’s “folk generics”) that are mutually exclusive and that number several to many within a given “life form” category. They are considered the most basic and fundamental ethnobotanical category and are almost always named with primary terms. Often they correspond with “genus” or a distinctive species of scientific taxonomy (Turner 1974). Sometimes, in folk classification, 4 That is, features relating to the form and structure of organisms. 142 bc studies Figure 2. Gitga’at varieties of Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca) (Turner and Thompson 2006). different species within a scientific genus (e.g., Pinus) will have their own basic “folk” term unrelated to that of other species in the genus. In BC languages, some of the basic “folk generic” taxa are further differentiated into two or more “folk specific” categories (using Berlin’s terms) [i.e., different named varieties of a particular kind of plant, such as saskatoonberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) or crabapple (Malus fusca)]. There are probably no “folk varietals” as defined by Berlin. Some BC First Nations also recognize some mid-level categories (Berlin’s “intermediate” rank taxa) but not all these are named (unnamed, or, in Berlin’s terminology, “covert” [cf. Turner 1989]). Table 1 provides examples from BC First Nations languages of plant taxa at each of these different ranks within a general hierarchical conceptual framework. Berlin (1992) and Brown (1984) suggest that taxa at different ranks tend to become named in a particular order, with “folk generic” rank names developing first in time, followed by general “life form” names and then names for taxa at other ranks.5 5 As noted previously, many languages do not include a name for the most inclusive taxon, corresponding to English “plant.” Plants in Language and Classification 143 Table 1 Examples of plant taxa at different levels of inclusiveness, or ranks, in BC First Nations languages, as drawn from ethnobotanical reference sources The ranks follow the hierarchical categories proposed by Berlin (1992), from most general and inclusive to most distinctive. (Note: the writing systems used in this table generally follow those of the original sources, where these are “practical systems” based mainly on characters in the English alphabet. In all cases, the reader should refer to the original sources to ensure complete linguistic accuracy [note that “7” is a glottal stop].) Rank (from most general and inclusive terms to most specific and restricted) Examples of corresponding terms/ lexical elements from various languages Reference I. Most general rank (suffix indicating ~“plant”)i Nuu-chah-nulth (Hesquiaht): tl’aqapt – plant (general); also generic rank name for kinnikinnick, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi; Note: tl’aqaptsu7isim [“plant that grows under (ocean)” – for seaweeds, gen.] Turner and Efrat 1982; Turner 1987 Nuxalk: – lhp (suffix denoting “tree/ bush,” “plant”) [e.g., kwululuuxwu (wild strawberries, Fragaria spp.); kwululuuxwu-lhp (strawberry plant)]; versions of this suffix are found in all Salishan languages (Kuipers 2002; Turner, Ignace and Compton 1998) Turner 1973, 1974, 1987; cf. also Turner et al. 1990; Turner and Hebda 2012 Dakelh (Saik’uz): tl’o – grass, hay, marijuana (general) Poser 2008 I. Most general rank (suffix indicating ~“plant”) I. Most general rank (suffix indicating ~“plant”) I. Most general rank (suffix indicating ~“plant”) II. Broad subcategory within “plant”; corresponding with “life form” rank of Berlin (1992) (cf. Turner 1987) Haida (Skidegate): – xil (suffix denoting “leaves, leafy plant”) cf. xil ‘leaf/ medicine’; xil sgunxulaa ‘fragrant leaves/ plant/medicine’ (for yarrow, Achillea millefolium and related aromatic plants); applied widely but not universally in Haida plant names Turner 1974, 1987, 2004 Ditidaht: – apt (suffix denoting “tree/ bush,” “plant”) [e.g., tutubuqwsapt (lit. ‘standing-in-the-water plant’); versions of this suffix are found in all Wakashan languages Turner et al. 1983; Turner 1987 144 bc studies Rank (from most general and inclusive terms to most specific and restricted) Examples of corresponding terms/ lexical elements from various languages Reference II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Nisga’a: hap’iskw (grass, sedge) (general) Burton 2012 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Nisga’a: majagalee (flower) (general) Burton 2012 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Ts’msyen: müdza g alee – flower/house plant (general) Turner and Thompson 2006 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Nlaka’pamux: syíq-m – grass (general) Turner et al. 1990; Turner 1987 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Turner et al. 1980 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Okanagan-Colville: swupúla7xw (lit. ‘ground-hair/growth’) – grass/low leafy growth (general) Straits Salish (Saanich): q’ə´ch’ əy7 – mosses, lichens (general) Turner and Hebda 2012 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Nisga’a: bilak – mosses and dry soft lichens Burton 2012 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Dakelh (Saik’uz): imbenidzo – mushroom Poser 2008 (general) Nisga’a: gayda ts’uuts’ (mushroom with caps) Burton 2012 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Stl’atl’imx, or Lillooet: sgáp – “tree, general” (lit. ‘something standing, put upright’) (see name for Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, below) Kuipers 1974, 1989; Turner 1987 Nisga’a: gan (tree) Burton 2012 Nlaka’pamux: muyx – “tall bushes” (originating from Proto-Interior Salish term for cottonwood, Populus balsamifera) (cf. mulx “stick” in Stl’atl’imx) Turner et al. 1990; cf. also Kinkade 1989; Kuipers 2002; Turner et al. 1998 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Plants in Language and Classification 145 Rank (from most general and inclusive terms to most specific and restricted) Examples of corresponding terms/ lexical elements from various languages Reference II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Nisga’a: hlguugan – “shrub, bushes” (hlgu means ‘small’; gan is ‘tree/wood’) Burton 2012 II. Broad subcategory within “plant”: “life form” Nisga’a: damtx (ferns) Burton 2012 III. Midlevel or “intermediate” rank category (cf. Berlin 1992; Turner 1989)ii Haida (Massett): kiid – “evergreen tree”; also Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) (a polysemous term) Turner 2004 III. Midlevel or “intermediate” rank category name Stō:lo, or Upriver Halkomelem: skous Galloway 1982; cf. – “potato; edible tuber or root” (cf. Proto- also Kuipers 2002 Salish s-qawts (Indian) potato) III. Midlevel or “intermediate” rank category name Nuu-chah-nulth (Hesquiaht): sachk-mapt Turner and Efrat (lit. ‘sharp plant’) – thistles (Cirsium 1982; Turner 1989 spp.), blackberries (Rubus ursinus), and other spiny or thorny plants (similar term in Ditidaht) III. Midlevel or “intermediate” rank category name III. Midlevel or “intermediate” rank category name IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name (cf. Berlin 1992) St’at’imc/Stl’atl’imx (Lillooet): qwláwa7 – “onions” (including domesticated onions and wild onions) (cf. qwláwa-7úl ‘real/original onion,’ for nodding onion Allium cernuum) Turner, et al, 1987; Turner 1989 Ditidaht: tlichsap – edible roots (general); Turner et al. 1983 also specific name for Pacific silverweed (Potentilla egedii) St’at’imc/Stl’atl’imx (Lillooet): sgap-7úl Turner 1987; (lit. ‘real-tree’) – Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga Turner et al. (1987 menziesii) (cf. name for tree, above: sgap) IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Nisga’a: simgan (lit. ‘real tree’) – western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Burton 2012 Turner et al. 1980 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Okanagan-Colville: merílhp (lit. ‘medicine-plant’) – subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) Kwakwaka’wakw: ham’úm’s-m’es – cascara tree (Rhamnus purshiana) (cf. ham’úm’s – cascara bark) IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Turner and Bell 1973 146 bc studies Rank (from most general and inclusive terms to most specific and restricted) Examples of corresponding terms/ lexical elements from various languages Reference IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Ts’msyen: nagaganaw (lit. ‘dress/frill of the frog’) – lung lichen (Lobaria pulmonaria) and other foliose lichens Turner and Thompson 2006 Straits Salish (Saanich): tl’əsíp – licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) Turner and Hebda 2012 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Nisga’a: ts’ak’a aam – licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) Burton 2012 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Secwépemc: púxwstl’ye (cf. púxwem ‘to blow with the mouth’) – cinder conk fungus (Inonotus obliquus) Mary Thomas, pers. comm. to NT 2001 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name St’at’imc/Stl’atl’imx (Lillooet): 7ús7-az’ Turner et al. 1987; – black mountain huckleberry plant (Vac- also Turner 1989 cinium membranaceum) [cf. 7úsa7 ‘berry, general’; – az’ (plant suffix)] Nisga’a: simmaaý – black mountain huckleberry berry (Vaccinium membranaceum) Burton 2012 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Nisga’a: sbiks – highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule) Burton 2012 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Turner et al. 1990 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Nlaka’pamux: kəl’wet – false Solomon’sseal (Maianthemum racemosum subsp. amplexicaule) Turner 2004 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Haida (Skidegate): xuyaa tluuga (lit. ‘Raven’s canoe’) – beach pea (Lathyrus japonicus) and giant vetch (Vicea nigricans subsp. gigantea) Gitxsan: sganmaa’ya smex (lit. ‘black bear berry plant’) – red baneberry (Actaea rubra) Smith 1997 Dakelh (Ulkatcho): tl’otsun – nodding onion (Allium cernuum) Hebda et al. 1996 Okanagan-Colville: sp’its’n – Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum) Turner et al. 1980 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Plants in Language and Classification 147 Rank (from most general and inclusive terms to most specific and restricted) Examples of corresponding terms/ lexical elements from various languages Reference IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Straits Salish (Saanich): shiwə7 7ə tl’ stqeyə7 (lit. ‘wolf ’s urine’) – Indian pipe (Monotropa uniflora) Turner and Hebda 2012 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Secwépemc: legmín – alumroot (Heuchera cylindrica) Mary Thomas, pers. comm. to NT 2001 IV. Most basic plant category; “folk generic” rank name Kwakwaka’wakw: nexwm’és, neqw’elhm’es (bush) – salal (Gaultheria shallon) (cf. neqw’élh(i) – salal berries) Turner and Bell 1973 V. Most restricted category; “folk specific” rank names (cf. Berlin 1992) Ts’msyen: moolks sigawgáaw (lit. ‘crow’s crabapples’); gasasii (lit. ‘long legs’); and bu’uxs (lit. ‘dice’) – all “varieties” of Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca) (Figure 2) Turner and Thompson 2006 V. Most restricted category; “folk specific” rank names Ditidaht: bachlheey’-apt and ch’ukwtlapt – two varieties of yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) Turner et al. 1983 Nlaka’pamux: spəqpáq, spəqpaq-élhp (lit. ‘white-white’); si7h-úse7, si7huse7-élhp (lit. ‘good fruited’); qwu7qwu7-úse7 (tək stsáqwm), qwu7qwu7use7-élhp [lit. ‘watery-fruit’ (Saskatoonberry)]; snk’y’ep-úpse7 (lit. ‘little coyote berry’); təxtəx-óxse7 (lit. ‘little bitter berry’); tl’əxwixw-úse7 (lit. ‘little sweet berry’); nəq’naq’-óqw’se7 (lit. ‘little-rottenberries’) – all varieties of Saskatoonberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) (equivalent terms in Stl’atl’imx) Turner et al. 1990 V. Most restricted category; “folk specific” rank names V. Most restricted category; “folk specific” rank names V. Most restricted category; “folk specific” rank names Ditidaht: huubaaq and qistuup – different edible parts (leafstalks and budstalks) of cow-parsnip (Heracleum maximum); (many languages name these parts with different terms) Turner et al. 1983 Haida (Massett): dall-xil-sgid (lit. ‘red rain leaves/medicine’), for red columbine (Aquilegia formosa), and dall-xil-guhlahl (‘blue rain leaves/medicine’), for blue harebell (Campanula rotundifolia) Turner 2004 148 bc studies Rank (from most general and inclusive terms to most specific and restricted) Examples of corresponding terms/ lexical elements from various languages Reference V. Most restricted category; “folk specific” rank names Straits Salish (Saanich): pəlpəq’xəlíqw (lit. ‘white ones’); nəq’íx (lit. ‘black’); nənəl’pxwíqw OR nəlpxwíqw (lit. ‘blond ones’); nənəl’ kwəmíqw (lit. ‘red ones’) – all colour forms of salmonberries (Rubus spectabilis) Turner and Hebda 2012 This term represents an exception, since Indigenous languages of BC and neighbouring areas generally do not include a single lexeme whose meaning corresponds with that of the English word “plant” (Turner 1974, 1987). This term would not include fungi (Turner and Efrat 1982, 20). ii As noted by Berlin (1992), many “intermediate” categories are covert, or unnamed, and may be quite variable and ephemeral (Turner 1989). i Expansion of Reference, Restriction of Reference, Type Categories, and Polysemy As can be seen from Table 1, the names of taxa at different ranks in BC First Nations languages are frequently linked across the ranks, with terms that are applied at one rank (e.g., generic) also applied at a more general rank [e.g., as “plant, general” in the case of the Hesquiaht word for kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) in the first entry of the table]. In the development of a language, a category name at one rank may give rise to a name of a broader rank through a process of “expansion of reference” [e.g., the Haida name for Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), kaayd (Skidegate dialect), also sometimes refers to all evergreen trees in a forest (Turner 1974, 1988, 2004)]. Alternatively, a name for a particular plant may originate from a more general term, through “restriction of reference.” For example, the Stl’atl’imx term for black mountain huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), 7úsa7, is also a general term for “berry” and contains the same element as the words for “face” and “eye.”6 Expansion of reference can also occur in the broadening of a name to incorporate other objects with similar properties, as in Nuxalk k’amk’ for bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana), also now “garden hose,” and Saanich təw’təw’ə´ləqəp for bracket fungus (Laricifomes pinicola and related spp.; lit. “echo-maker”), also now “telephone”. 6 Its name in Nuxalk and some other languages is also applied both specifically to black huckleberry and generally to all berries (Turner 1987, 1989; Turner et al. 1987). Plants in Language and Classification 149 As with worldwide ethnobiological classification systems and scientific taxonomies, BC indigenous plant classification systems include particular species or groups of species of high importance (e.g., black mountain huckleberry in several languages) that are regarded as the “most typical,” or “type,” of their categories. The names of these taxa may be elevated to a higher order category or named by a general category term (Berlin 1992). For instance, in a sense, the Interior Salish terms for black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) reflect “type” status, serving as prime representatives of a broader category (see also Trager 1939). The Okanagan-Colville name is mulx, derived from an ancient Proto-Interior Salish term (Kuipers 2002). The related Nlaka’pamux term muyx refers to any tall bushes, whereas in Stl’atl’imx the corresponding term mulx means “stick” (Turner et al. 1990), all indicating a special elevated status for the term. (The “Chiefs” in the schematic diagram of Figure 1 could also be considered “types” for their categories.) “Polysemy” refers to the name for a taxon being applied simultaneously at two different levels of inclusiveness (e.g., with black mountain huckleberry in Stl’atl’imx), and it is common in BC plant classification systems. Context distinguishes at which rank the word is being applied, and further descriptive terms can help avoid confusion. For example, the Stl’atl’imx term qwláwa7 is applied to any onion; if a person wishes to specify the native nodding onion (Allium cernuum), she or he would say qwláwa-7úl (lit. “real/original onion”). Also among the Stl’atl’imx, bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) was distinguished from other grasses by its name (s-)ləqəm-7úl (lit. “real/original grass/hay”). Cognates, Borrowed Names, Translation Borrowings, and Semantic Shifts Similarities in words among BC Indigenous language families reflect both shared origins and subsequent contact. Cognate plant names – that is, those that are related due to derivation from a common ancestral form – are very common across languages within each of the various BC language families. The words for soapberry (Shepherdia canadensis) are a case in point: all the Salishan languages have related names for soapberry, all derived from a term reconstructed to Proto-Salish xwus, meaning “to foam, or froth” (because these saponin-containing berries can be whipped into a stiff foam, a favourite confection of Indigenous peoples of British Columbia) (cf. Kuipers 2002; Turner and Burton 150 bc studies 2010). This, in turn, suggests an ancient origin not only for the name but also for the use of soapberries in making this whipped confection. The suggested ancient origin of soapberry use reflected in its names is consistent with other evidence of ancient use: widespread distribution of this species in the paleoecological record, mention of soapberry in traditional narratives, and development of specialized implements like soapberry whippers and soapberry spoons in a number of places (Turner and Burton 2010). Plant names are also commonly borrowed from one language to another, and the direction of borrowing may be indicated by plant distribution.7 For instance, since soapberry does not grow on Haida Gwaii, its names in Skidegate and Masset dialects (‘as and xagutl’iid, respectively) can be assumed to have been borrowed from their Ts’msyen and Tlingit counterparts. Another example is marine edible red laver seaweed (Pyropia abbottiae and related spp.), whose names in coastal languages can be assumed to have been borrowed into interior languages of peoples such as Gitxsan and Dakelh, who obtained the seaweed through trade (Turner 2003; Turner and Loewen 1998). Not all borrowings reflect a straightforward history: borrowed terms may be altered to better conform to the recipient language, with the usual suffixes being added, obscuring their origins. For example, the Haida and Ts’msyen (Coast Tsimshian) names for highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule) (hlaayaa and lháiya, respectively) are obviously related. However, the bush itself has its own distinctive name in each respective language: hlaayaa hlq’a’ii “highbush cranberry bush” for Haida, and sxán lháiya “wood of highbush cranberry” for Ts’msyen. The typical “bush” component of the name is specific to each language (Turner in press). In other cases, a name might be borrowed in concept but translated into the receiving language: “translation borrowing.” Running clubmoss (Lycopodium clavatum), for example, is named up and down the Northwest Coast, each name pertaining to “belt,” especially “deer’s belt,” but each rendered in the vocabulary of its respective language. Semantic changes in BC languages are windows into a myriad of cultural changes. The previously mentioned Stl’atl’imx term (s-)ləqəm-7úl (“real/original grass/hay”) for bluebunch wheatgrass is an example of a “semantic shift” resulting from changing circumstances. After people started to practise ranching and replanted their lands with domesticated 7 In languages that are related it may be difficult to know whether two similar names are cognates or whether one or both are borrowed. Sometimes linguists have to rely on plant distributions/phytogeography to distinguish cognate words from those that are borrowed. Plants in Language and Classification 151 pasture and forage crops, the term started to be applied to introduced hay crops, alfalfa, sweet-clover, red clover, and timothy grass (Turner and Brown 2004). Semantic shifts can also occur when people move to a different location and lose access to particular plants but gain access to other, similar ones, which then inherit the original name. For example, edible whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) seeds are called stsek’ in Secwépemc and the tree is called stsek’élhp, terms deriving from Proto-Salish s-c’ik’, or s-c’ik, for fir or pine cone, hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), or acorn (Quercus garryana) (Kuipers 2002). Since the ancestral Salish homeland is thought to have been in the lower Fraser River valley (Kinkade 1989), where whitebark pine does not grow, the logical assumption is that the original meaning of s-ts’ik’ shifted to embrace whitebark pine when this tree, with its edible “nuts,” was first encountered in the Interior mountains. Plant Names and Their Application For BC First Nations, as for the creators of ethnobiological, or “folk,” classification systems everywhere, there is no need to conform to any underlying rules in the naming and classification of plants.8 The primary purpose of these folk systems is to organize different kinds of plants in ways that assist memories and allow communication about species that are important in particular cultural contexts (including world views, practices, and culturally important species). They are therefore more variable in structure and generally less extensive than scientific taxonomies (Hunn and Brown 2011). Plants of lesser importance, even though they may be common and recognizable, are often named in BC Indigenous languages only by a higher order term, such as “grass,” “flower,” or “moss.” In turn, these general categories may incorporate only one or two named, distinctive members, along with a number of unnamed members within the broader taxon – as in the example of the Stl’atl’imx (s-)ləqəm-7úl for bluebunch wheatgrass, one of the few types of (s-)leqem (“grass/hay”) named at a generic level. In general, the plants most commonly named in Indigenous languages of British Columbia reflect the ways in which people interacted with 8 This is in contrast to non-Aboriginal scientific biological classification, to which strict rules of nomenclature and organization are applied. Scientific taxonomy is intended to be exhaustive and to reflect evolutionary relationships of species. The significant convergence between scientific and folk systems is that they both reflect visible differences, or discontinuities, between various organisms – differences that tend to be due to genetically determined traits, on which the non-Aboriginal scientific system is based (Berlin 1992; Hunn and Brown 2011). 152 bc studies and perceived the plant world. These include those that are highly visible, especially trees and shrubs (almost all of which are named in almost all languages within the respective range of the species), those that are culturally important (as sources of food, materials, medicines or for other purposes), those that are distinctive in some way, and/or those that are potentially harmful or have close similarity to culturally salient types (Turner 1974). Distinctive features include: taste (e.g., the Okanagan word for black mountain huckleberries, st’xalhk, derived from t’axt, “sweet”); material use [e.g., the Ts’msyen name for Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), sahakwdak, “bow”]; medicinal use [e.g., the Okanagan-Colville name for subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), merílhp “medicine-plant”] (Turner et al. 1980); or colour, scent, or some other trait [e.g., the Ditidaht name for bedstraw (Galium aparine), k’witipt, “it grabs you,” because of the “sticky” nature of this plant]. In a study of over 625 distinct plant names (including many synonyms) in Nlaka’pamux Interior Salish, over 20 percent refer to growth form or some other notable characteristic of the plants and nearly 10 percent to colour of flowers or foliage (Turner et al. 1990). Some plants are named after their similarity to other plants, as in the Hesquiaht (Nuu-chah-nulth) name for ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), pilhpits’aqmapt, “plant that resembles redcedar inner bark,” or one of the Haida names for broadleaved plantain (Plantago major), ‘ laanaa hlgunga (Skidegate dialect), “village skunk-cabbage,” or the Nlaka’pamux name for twisted stalk (Streptopus amplexifolius) and several other similar species in the Lily family: snúkw’e7s e ke´ lwet, “friend/relative of false Solomon’s-seal” (Maianthemum racemosum). Others are named from their association with animals. For example, a number of berry species are known as “black bear’s berries” in various languages (Turner 1988). In some cases, if the terms are very old [e.g., the Tsilhqot’in word chinŝdad for silverweed, or cinquefoil (Potentilla anserina)], or if they have been borrowed from another language (e.g., Skidegate Haida name for soapberry, ‘as), their original meaning is obscured (Turner and Burton 2010). The meaning, or derivation, of a plant name – its etymology – can help us to understand its cultural history as well as its history of use. For instance, the terms for plants named after the tools made from them (or perhaps vice versa) would not only serve as names but also convey knowledge about the best material for a certain purpose. Examples include: the derivation of the name for yew tree as “bow,” or “bow tree,” in a number of languages; the name for bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) as “paddle-tree” in some Salishan languages (e.g., q’emel’áy’, “paddle Plants in Language and Classification 153 tree” [sq’emel, “paddle”] in Squamish) because of its use for making high-quality paddles; the name for oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) in various languages as “digging stick plant” (e.g., Sechelt qálxay’ [cf. sqalx, “digging stick”]); the name for hardhack (Spiraea douglasii) as “fish spreader plant” (cf. Upriver Halkomelem t’áats’elhp) (Galloway 1982); and the name of devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus) as “codfish lure plant”   (ʕayxwqwapt) in Ditidaht (Turneret al. 1983). DISCUSSION The plant names and classification systems of BC First Nations epitomize the rich diversity of knowledge systems and of peoples’ relationships with their environments. They show patterns of sharing and exchange between groups and how people adapt their lifeways to fit in with new and changing environmental, social, and economic conditions. They reflect long time frames and give clues about the cultural salience of particular species. Those species of highest cultural significance tend to have names that are more widespread across languages and show greater “lexical retention,” or longer duration within a language (Brown 2010; Turner 1988). The levels of generality and inclusiveness in systems for naming plants – hierarchical arrangements – allow us to remember names and relationships more easily, just as we can use family names, along with “given names,” to help us remember that a particular group of siblings is interrelated. Thus, in British Columbia, as elsewhere, the suites of names for plants in Indigenous languages help people to remember the plants and to organize their knowledge about them. As these systems develop and as new plants are introduced or gain importance in a culture, it becomes relatively straightforward to “add in” new names. Often this is done simply by extending the reference for an existing term for a similar plant and calling the new plant by a variant of that name. In BC First Nations languages, many of the introduced domesticated species (like potatoes, rhubarb, onions, strawberries, and currants) are named with the same, or modified, terms that are used for similar indigenous species [e.g., wapato (Sagittaria latifolia), dock (Rumex aquaticus var. fenestratus), wild onions (Allium spp.), wild strawberries (Fragaria spp.), and red huckleberries (Vaccinium parvifolium)]. In this way, a new, overarching category may be created within the existing classification hierarchy. Sometimes the newly introduced plant or plant product comes with its own name, and in the development of languages and classification 154 bc studies systems, the new name may be adopted, in some cases replacing an existing name for a similar, already known plant. This type of replacement occurred in Haida with the native Pacific crabapple. The Haida name was completely transferred, at least by some, to domesticated apples, and native Pacific crabapples were then designated as “Haida apples,” an adjective that would not have been necessary before the new apples were introduced (Turner 1974, 2004). Knowing how names become focused on one particular entity or species, and how they become broadened to apply at more general levels, can also inform our understanding of a given language and culture over time and geographical space. At what point does a merely descriptive name (e.g., English “black berry”) become formalized into a true name corresponding with a single kind of plant (“blackberry”), and what triggers such a change? We may never understand exactly how and when this shift occurs, but having examples from a wide spectrum of languages and environments can help us to identify the process. Systems of ethnobiological and ethnobotanical classification also fit into a broader framework of vocabulary and conceptual knowledge of habitats, landscape features, and places (Johnson and Hunn 2010; Thornton 2008). They feed into the taxonomic systems of many other classes of things: tools, containers, weaving and cooking techniques, canoes and vessels, house types, kinship systems, and colours, to name just a few. As well, they connect with the ways in which humans care for and manage their plant resources; cultivation and domestication are intimately connected with the conceptual aspects of the plants involved and vice versa (Brown 2010). In British Columbia, the Indigenous names and categories for plants provide a forum for assessing the impact of colonization and the dramatic shift in food production systems and lifeways that was imposed by the colonial authorities and settlers, and adopted, sometimes willingly, sometimes only out of necessity, by First Nations (Lutz 2008). The takeover of Indigenous lands and the explicitly stated policy of converting First Peoples to farming and ranching lifestyles in the European tradition resulted in the incorporation of a huge body of new names and terminology into existing plant classification systems (Turner and Brown 2004; Turner and Turner 2008). However, for most Indigenous people today, the loss of native vegetation and the degradation of many habitats and species due to industrial activities, urbanization, and other impacts have made it more difficult to maintain their familiarity with the original plants. Unfortunately, too, language suppression was part Plants in Language and Classification 155 of the colonial package, and the richness of peoples’ languages and vocabularies – and plant classification systems in general – was subdued and, in some cases, totally lost through the influence of authoritarian residential schools and other colonial institutions. However, initiatives for language revitalization are flourishing for most of the province’s Indigenous languages, and the renewal of names and knowledge associated with plants is a major part of many of these (cf. First Peoples’ Cultural Foundation 2012). Furthermore, ethnoecological restoration has given some promise to enhancing the growth and recovery of indigenous plants and habitats. Because of this, we hope that the names and categorizations of plants and their associated knowledge will be able to continue into the future. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are indebted to many Indigenous cultural and language specialists from First Nations across British Columbia who have shared their teachings and insights with us. Dr. Daisy Sewid-Smith (Mayanilth) (Kwakwaka’wakw), the late Dr. Earl Claxton Sr. (YELKA´TŦE), Dr. John Elliott (STOLCEL) (both Saanich), Sigidimnak ’ Hagwilook ’am saxwhl giis (Irene Seguin), Sigidimnak ’ Ts’aa Gabin (Verna Williams) (both Nisga’a), and the late Dr. John Thomas (Tl’íishal, Ditidaht) are six outstanding Indigenous language scholars who have made major contributions. Many others are named in the publications cited. We also thank the many academic linguists who have devoted their professional lives to a better understanding of the languages of our region, many of whom are co-authors in works cited. Finally, we thank the anonymous peer reviewers whose comments have helped improve our article. REFERENCES Berlin, B. 1972. “Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomenclature.” Journal of Language in Society 1: 63-98. –––. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plant and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boas, F. 1921. Ethnology of the Kwakiutl. Bureau of American Ethnology 35th Annual Report, 1913-14, parts 1 and 2. Based on data collected by George Hunt. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Brown, C.H. 1984. Language and Living Things: Uniformities in Folk Classification and Naming. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. –––. 2010. “Development of Agriculture in Prehistoric Mesoamerica: The Linguistic Evidence.” In Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica, ed. John E. Staller and Michael D. Carrasco, 71-108. New York: Springer-Verlag. 156 bc studies Burton, C.M.A. 2012. “Wilaat Hooxhl Nisga’ahl [Galdoo’o] [Ýans]: Gik’uuhl-gi, Guuń-sa ganhl Angoogaḿ; Using Plants the Nisga’a Way – Past, Present and Future Use.” PhD diss., University of Victoria. Conklin, H. 1954. “The Relation of Hanunóo Culture to the Plant World.” PhD diss., Yale University. First Peoples’ Cultural Foundation. 2012. First Voices: Language Legacies Celebrating Indigenous Cultures. Available at http://www.firstvoices.com /. Galloway, B. 1982. Upper Stō :lo Ethnobotany. Sardis, BC: Coqualeetza Education Training Centre. Gunther, E. 1973 [1945]. Ethnobotany of Western Washington: The Knowledge and Use of Indigenous Plants by Native Americans. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Hebda, R.J., N. J. Turner, S. Birchwater, M. Kay, and the Elders of Ulkatcho. 1996. Ulkatcho Food and Medicine Plants. Anahim Lake/Victoria: Ulkatcho Band/Royal BC Museum, Victoria. Helm, J., ed. 1981. Handbook of American Indians: Vol. 6: Subarctic. Ed. William C. Sturtevant. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Hunn, E.S. 1982. “The Utilitarian Factor in Folk Biological Classification.” American Anthropologist 84 (4): 830-47. Hunn, E.S., and C.H. Brown. 2011. “Linguistic Ethnobiology.” In Ethnobiology, ed. E.N. Anderson, D. Pearsall, E. Hunn, and N. Turner, 319-33. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Hunn, E.S., and D.H. French. 1981. “Lomatium: A Key Resource for Columbia Plateau Native Subsistence.” Northwest Science 55 (2): 87-94. Hunn, E.S., with J. Selam and family. 1990. Nch’i-Wana “The Big River”: MidColumbia Indians and Their Land. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Johnson, L.M. 1994. “Wet’suwet’en Ethnobotany: Traditional Plant Uses.” Journal of Ethnobiology 14 (2): 185-210. Johnson, L.M., and E.S. Hunn. 2010. “Landscape Ethnoecology: Reflections.” In Studies in Environmental Anthropology and Ethnobiology. Vol. 14: Landscape Ethnoecology: Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space, ed. L.M. Johnson and E.S. Hunn, 279-97. New York: Berghahn Books. Kinkade, M.D. 1989. “Prehistory of Salishan Languages.” Paper read at the 88th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Kuipers, A.H. 1974. The Shuswap Language. The Hague: Mouton. –––. 1989. A Report on Shuswap with a Squamish Lexical Appendix. Paris: Peeters– Selaf. –––. Salish Etymological Dictionary. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 16. Missoula: University of Montana. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lutz, J. 2008. Makuk: A New History of Aboriginal-White Relations. Vancouver: ubc Press. Nazarea, V., ed. 1999. Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Poser, W.J. 2008. Saik’uz Whut’en Hubughunek Stoney Creek Carrier Lexicon. Vanderhoof, BC: clc Writing System Version, Saik’uz First Nation. Plants in Language and Classification 157 Smith, H.I. 1920-23. Unpublished Papers. Vol. 1. National Museum of Civilization Bulletin No. 63. Hull, Quebec. –––. 1928. Materia Medica of the Bella Coola and Neighbouring Tribes of British Columbia. National Museum of Canada Bulletin No. 56. Ottawa, Ontario. Smith, H.I. 1997. Ethnobotany of the Gitksan Indians of British Columbia. Ed. B.D. Compton, B. Rigsby, and M.-L. Tarpent. Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper 132, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. Steedman, E.V. (ed.) and J.A. Teit . 1930. Ethnobotany of the Thompson Indians of British Columbia. (Based on field notes of James A. Teit.) Bureau of American Ethnology, 45th Annual Report, 1927-1928, 441-522. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Suttles, W.P., ed. 1990. Handbook of North American I…