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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |