Multi-dimensionality and variability in folk classification of stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini)

ZAMUDIO, FERNANDO; HILGERT, NORMA INÉS

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnopharmacology

ethnobiomed@etnobotanica.de

Lugar: Londres; Año: 2015

1746-4269

BackgroundNot long ago Eugene Hunn suggested using a combination ofcognitive, linguistic, ecological and evolutionary theories in order to accountfor the dynamic character of ethnoecology in the study of folk classificationsystems. In this way he intended to question certain homogeneity in folkclassifications models and deepen in the analysis and interpretation ofvariability in folk classifications. This paper studies how a rural culturallymixed population of the Atlantic Forest of Misiones (Argentina) classified honey-producingstingless bees according to the linguistic, cognitive and ecological dimensionsof folk classification. We also analyze the socio-ecological meaning of binomializationin naming and the meaning of general local variability in the appointment ofstingless bees.MethodsWe used three different approaches: the classical approachdeveloped by Brent Berlin which relies heavily on linguistic criteria, theapproach developed by Eleonor Rosch which relies on psychological (cognitive)principles of categorization and finally we have captured the ecologicaldimension of folk classification in local narratives. For the secondapproximation, we developed ways of measuring the degree of prototypicality basedon a total of 107 comparisons of the type "X is similar to Y"identified in personal narratives.ResultsVarious logical and clustering strategies coexist and wereidentified as: graded of lateral linkage, hierarchical and functional.Similarity judgments among ethnotaxa resulted in an implicit logic ofclassification graded according to taxa's prototypicality. While there is aconsensus on naming stingless bees with monomial names, a considerable number ofunderrepresented binomial names and lack of names was observed. Two posible explanationsabout reported local naming variability are presented.ConclusionsWe support the multidimensionality of folk classificationsystems. This confirms the specificity of local classification systems but alsoreflects the use of grouping strategies and mechanisms commonly observed inother cultural groups such as the use of similarity judgments between more orless prototypical organisms. Also we support the idea that alternative namingresults from a process of fragmentation of knowledge or incomplete transmissionof knowledge. These processes lean on the facts that culturally basedknowledge, on the one hand, and biologic knowledge of nature on the other, can beacquired through different learning pathways.