Cargando…

Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa

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 r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Phaka, Fortunate M., Netherlands, Edward C., Kruger, Donnavan J. D., Du Preez, Louis H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6434812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30914047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3
_version_ 1783406545420156928
author Phaka, Fortunate M.
Netherlands, Edward C.
Kruger, Donnavan J. D.
Du Preez, Louis H.
author_facet Phaka, Fortunate M.
Netherlands, Edward C.
Kruger, Donnavan J. D.
Du Preez, Louis H.
author_sort Phaka, Fortunate M.
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6434812
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64348122019-04-08 Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa Phaka, Fortunate M. Netherlands, Edward C. Kruger, Donnavan J. D. Du Preez, Louis H. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed Research 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-03-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6434812/ /pubmed/30914047 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis 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.
spellingShingle Research
Phaka, Fortunate M.
Netherlands, Edward C.
Kruger, Donnavan J. D.
Du Preez, Louis H.
Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa
title Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa
title_full Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa
title_fullStr Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa
title_full_unstemmed Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa
title_short Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa
title_sort folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in zululand, south africa
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6434812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30914047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3
work_keys_str_mv AT phakafortunatem folktaxonomyandindigenousnamesforfrogsinzululandsouthafrica
AT netherlandsedwardc folktaxonomyandindigenousnamesforfrogsinzululandsouthafrica
AT krugerdonnavanjd folktaxonomyandindigenousnamesforfrogsinzululandsouthafrica
AT dupreezlouish folktaxonomyandindigenousnamesforfrogsinzululandsouthafrica