QK | J 5964 JOURNAL F ETHNOBIOLOGY Rain forest habitat classification among the Matsigenka of the Peruvian Amazon - Shepard et al. The function of guachiplin, Dyphysa robiniodes, in the Lenca landscape ady -— Br Traditional knowledge of Mexican continental algae - Godinez et al. Evaluation of the cultural significance of wild food botanicals traditionally gathered in Northwestern Tuscany, Italy — Pieroni Ethnozoology of fishing communities from Ilha Grande (Atlantic forest coast, Brazil) ~ Seixas & Begossi Volume 21, Number 1 Summer 2001 JOURNAL STAFF EDITOR: William oni —— of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118 wbalee@tu du) — oe (Spanish Alejandro de Avila B., A. P. 533, Oaxaca, Oaxaca C.P. 68000, MEXICO erbo@antequer EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Meredith Dudley, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118 (m casinos ious edu) BOOK REVIEW E Michael K. Stei Maine, Gorham, ME 04038 scent maine.edu) Cc 1, Aon SS 1 : . Geography pology, University of Southern SOCIETY OFFICERS PRESIDENT: Karen R. Adams, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO PRESIDENT-ELECT: Jan Timbrook, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA SECR a Virginia Popper, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Box 951519 Fowler A-210, Los Angeles, CA 90095- CONFERENCE Mollie S. Toll, Museum of New Mexico, Office of Arcl 1 gi 1 Studies, Box 2087 Santa . NM 87504 BOARD OF TRUSTEES M. Kat Anderson, University of California, Davis, CA Leslie Main Johnson, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Melinda A. Zeder, Smithsonian Institution, Washington Ex officio Past ahecisinis Steven A. Weber, Amadeo M. Rea, Elizabeth S. Wing, Paul Minnis, Cecil Brown, Catherine S. ler, Nancy J. Turner, and Deb an M Pearsall. Permanent board member Steven D. Emslie. The rete ocmitaek: president-elect, y/t , and conference coordinator. EDITORIAL —— Eugene N. Anderson, papoage of California, Riverside, CA: ethnobotany, China, Ma nye. Scott Atran, CNRS, Paris, FRANC E: ethnobiological classification, caption, sepia d i science, labia Brent oat University rel Georgia, Athens, G Robert A e, Jr., Jardin csi liniversided Nacional kun de Mites: México, D.F., TE CON ethno- pric Mexico. H. Sorayya Carr, El Cerrito, aera zooarchaeology. Nina Etkin, eter otes of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI: medical fa the Pacific. Gayle J. Fritz, Washington ‘eislandisa St. Louis, MO: paleoe Terence E. thys. Rhode Island College, Providence, RI: oi his ole New Guinea. Chris Healey, Northern Territory University, Darwin TRALIA: ethnozoology, Australia and New Guinea. Timothy Johns, Macdonald College of McGill University, Quebec, CANADA: chemical ecology, ethnobotany, East Africa Harriet V. Kahialels, ener University, Quebec, CANADA: eth David L. Lentz, New York Botanical G nutrition, First Nations ide Canada. Garden, Bronx, NY: paleoethnobotany, Weve: Central A Brien A. Meilleur, a for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO: hei plant conservation, ethnobotanical gardens. Naomi Miller, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: paleobotany, ethnobotany, Near Eastern Archaeology. — Nabhan, Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, AZ: ethnobiology, Sonoran desert cultures. 0 M. Rea, San Diego, CA: cultural ecology, zooarchaeology, ethnotaxonomics. Elisabeth J. Reitz, University of Georgia, Athens, GA: zooarchaeology. Mollie S. Toll, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM: prehistoric and historic ethnobiology. The Journal of Ethnobiology is published semi-annually. Manuscripts for Mae and book review sections should be sent to the appropriate editors as listed on the inside back cover of this is © Society of Ethnobiology ISSN 0278-0771 COVER ee Ore a from the snbbeesinee: Codex of th ti f tetizatl (int ted by Dibbl Anderson 1963, cited in L., th lume) ee \ P y Dibble and Journal of Ethnobiology VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1 SUMMER 2001 CONTENTS ETHNOBIOTICA iv RAIN FOREST HABITAT CLASSIFICATION AMONG THE MATSIGENKA OF THE PERUVIAN AMAZON Shepard et al. 1 THE FUNCTION OF GUACHIPLIN, DYPHYSA ROBINIODES, IN THE LENCA LANDSCAPE Brady 39 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF MEXICAN CONTINENTAL ALGAE Godinez et al. 57 EVALUATION OF THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WILD FOOD BOTANICALS TRADITIONALLY GATHERED IN NORTHWESTERN TUSCANY, ITALY Pieroni 89 ETHNOZOOLOGY OF FISHING COMMUNITIES FROM ILHA GRANDE (ATLANTIC FOREST COAST, BRAZIL) Seixas & Begossi 107 BOOK REVIEWS 53,105,136 MISSOURI BOTANICAL JUL 2.9 2001 GARDEN LIBRARY ETHNOBIOTICA Today’s local sporting event of note leads me, in roundabout fashion, to ask some questions that may be pagal to roan oc S eaaty sean 2001, and as bas mee this column, Tulane’s and LSU’s b st-of-three, playoff-bound, super regional series. Zephyrs intial in nearby Harahan is sold out, and therefore the game will be broadcast on local cable in addition to the usual media outlets, such as radio and print media. The flow of knowledge from the actual innings and final result will be essentially unimpeded for all in Southeast Louisiana who care to listen or watch. And if either the Greenies or the Tigers, whoever wins today, should go on to vic- tory as the NCAA finalists or even champions in the College Baseball World Series, year 2001, as the series winds down later this month, clips from today’s game will be dissemi- nated nationwide and beyond, on the television, Internet, and so on. Baseball is a free and open game. My first question is, will etl | led be as freel ilable as b ball knowledge? Given the pee of individuals’ home pages, web-based teaching, dis- tance learning, internet classrooms, and other multimedia resources, clearly much new knowledge in Emeny fields is becoming freely accessible to anyone whe snake af: sig some reason, etl ical knowledge in the mental possession ha a mystique that seems to constrai full disclosure in 1 the media of o our time. And this const true ee denund for such knowledge by students seems to be at an all time high. Ethnobiologists have long pondered the similarities and differences between knowledge encoded in an exclusively oral format and knowledge transmitted via more permanent media, such as written text, electronic publishing, video, and audio. Baseball players com- municate the game on a fixed diamond grid according to special rules, timing, referees, and equipment, and they have been trained by specialists called coaches. Ethnobiologists transmit and translate data on relationships among people, language, culture, landscape, and biota that defy spatio-temporal fixation and universal laws that might govern their association. They are supposed to play, nevertheless, “by the rules.” If every ethnobiology article was like a baseball game, perhaps a less exclusive medium than a scientific journal, such as this one, would be the right medium for broadcasting it. However inclusive the subject matter of ethnobiology—hence, its multidisciplinarity- its audience will es psap -s = more ews than baseball’s, at least in principle and i history is a guide. Etl d in a lively debate as to the potential impact their sneuial knowledge may have on humankind or segments thereof. True baseball fans rarely question the contribution that their game has made to human welfare. (Other scien- tists, such as nuclear physicists, of course, have also had some discomfiture with free dis- closure of their own data, as have ethnobiologists, so the latter are not unique in this re- spect, though the rules of the nuclear game seem to be a bit more clear). The connection between basic and applied research in ethnobiology is no longer just on the horizon; it has been etek vce in ihe Western world it was crossed aot a pian ago, — ] medieval t , France and En medicinal plants and fasisals (On the other hand lieval herbalists were too naive linguistically, ethnographically, and biologically to be considered ethnobiologists proper, raising the subsidiary question as to what kind of training qualifies one to be an ethnobiologist?). Baseball games do not typically result in changes of the rules of the game or of sportsmanlike conduct. Because it isn’t played on a diamond grid, ethnobiological knowledge yields findings with which people sometimes disagree vehemently, as in any science. Calls by umpires in baseball games may be issues of doubt and disagreement, but final scores cannot be changed. Even in some cases where the ethnobiological knowledge in question has passed hurdles of peer review and editorial vetting, questions may persist as to whether it should or should not be disclosed in any media. But all this disagreement follows the rules, or at least it is supposed to do that. My parting question is, what are the rules and who makes them in ethnobiology? serena ani ii t = a nee - meee in sesergemed any book containing the rules will suffice, si e different books available agree on them-the main differences are between Ae ei and sei sarbig totais the rules pace be somewhat defined locally. But th lly quite n comparison, for example, to the philosophical differences evinced between the outilieatiarae and the “intellectualists” of ethnobiological renown. And they are negli- gible when compared to the debate between those who would prevent disclosure of any knowledge deemed to be in the domain of — = — versus those who believe all knowledge developed by sci Id be automati- cally and freely available to anyone, slop cibieie: Although I cénnot offer a final answer to this last question, clearly the rules of the game of ethnobiology are ingrained in standards of scholarly inquiry agreed upon by panels of specialists, since those standards represent the first obstacle to be met when disclosing findings in this journal and other, related ones. Obviously many ethnobiologists agree on such standards, and shared commentary on manuscripts submitted for publication is a feature one notes as an editor (though not al- ways, Of course). In cea sone no ~ - shes one of ethics of the Society of Ethnobiology and the Int Eth ther with the ethical codes of the various sister disciplines that converge on ethnic such as that of the Ameri- can Anthropological Association, which p constitute a portion of the rules = the ae on in anot ane e percili way to sp I “he in baseball. For th sound d ethical tin the field of research and baa: even “f the pela — — - sa eiuguen aug —— me uni- beir is ened in eee ae quantities, will probably never be: as freely and completely avail- able as the no-hitters, RBI’s, home runs, double and triple plays, number of innings, and final score from your or my favorite baseball game, the audience for that knowledge con- ceivably could grow in sophistication and number with continuing informed debate and inquiry into the rules for research and conduct, as this debate develops in forums that are genuinely open, accessible, and democratic. I am basically optimistic, since it is clear from a recent increase in submissions to this journal and from many presentations at the last oe meeting of the rSeeiety os oe (the ssp inte — are available at http:// thnot dedicated people whe are inclined t to keep the debate on ‘the rules of the § game alive i in an admirably professional, forthright manner. It’s time to close; the first pitch has just been thrown. Journal of Ethnobiology 21(1): 1-38 Summer 2001 RAIN FOREST HABITAT CLASSIFICATION AMONG THE MATSIGENKA OF THE PERUVIAN AMAZON GLENN H. SHEPARD JR. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazénia (INPA) onj. Villar Camara, R. 3, C. 105 Manaus, AM 69083-000 BRAZIL DOUGLAS W. YU School of Biological Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7T], U.K. MANUEL LIZARRALDE Department of Anthropology Connecticut College New London, CT, U.S.A. MATEO ITALIANO Comunidad Nativa de Shipetiaari Madre de Dios, PERU ABSTRACT The Matsigenka (or Machig ) Indians of the Peruvian Amazon ib fi in f t hal din g ie t of ecological 1 LF a4 4: 1 _j 41 2S at £. ‘ VW 4 phi 1 har a such as seach hydrology, and disturbance regimes. The Matsigenka distinguish : some 69 Ge eallyletined habitats (some of which overlap) and 29 abiotically-defined habitats, as well as ten soil types and at least seven habitats associated with specific faunal indicators. Palms and other Monocots are particularly important as indicator species in bigeye ear classification. The Matsigenka consi tic features somewhat independently when assessing forest habitats. sectran not organized into a single, unified hierarchy, the multiple systems of habitat description intersect to define forest types. Comparing Matsigenka habitat classification with that of several other Amazonian indigenous groups, a number of common features are observed. Civep the scientific validity of indigenous: and and environmental ‘degradation, i bs is is important that ethnobiologists, frOpical biologi sts, Amazonian biodiversity. words: Matsigenka, Peru, habitat classification, Amazon rain forest, a iat ogy. RESUMEN.— Los indigenas Matsiguenka (0 Machiguenga) de la Amazonia Peruana describen y definen ambientes (habitats) de la selva de acuerdo a un 2 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 22 1 poets rc cjctoma ] d lacifi sud bidticos y también aoe abidticos como — = caracteristicas edaficas y regimenes de perturbacién. Los Matsiguenka distinguen aproximadamente 69 tipos de habitats definidos por vegetacién y 29 habitats definidos por factores abidticos. Ademas, distinguen diez tipos de suelos y por lo menos siete habitats definidos por indicadores faunisticos. Palmeras y otros monocotiledéneas son especialmente importantes como especies indicadoras en el sistema Matsiguenka de clasificacién ecolégica. Los varios factores bidticos e abidticos son casi independientes y no pueden ser organizadas en una tinica sistema de clasificaci6én. Sin embargo, estos multiples sistemas de clasificaci6n paralelos se juntan en la definicién de habitats especificos. Existen varias caracteristicas en comun entre la clasificacién ecolégica matsiguenka y la clasificacién ecoldgica de otros indigenas amazénicos. Considerando la sofisticacién de los conocimientos ecolégicos indigenas, y considerando los procesos acelerados de degradacién cultural y ambiental en algunas regiones amazoOnicas, es sumamente importante que etnobidlogos, ecdlogos, conservacionistas y comunidades indigenas colaboren en los estudios sobre la biodiversidad amazonica. 4 RESUME.— Les indiens Matsigenka (ou Machi de l’Amazonie péruvienne décrivent les habitats de la foret tropicale. avec un systeme complexe de classification écologique qui réunit plusieurs facteurs biotiques, par exemple végétation, et des facteurs abiotiques, par exemple topographie, hydrographie, caractéres édaphiques et régimes de perturbation. Les Matsigenka distinguent a peu pres 69 types de végétation et 29 types d’habitats définis par facteurs abiotiques. En plus, distinguent dix types de sols et au moins sept habitats définis par des associations faunistiques. scene ce aysteane, seme et d’autres Les plusieurs catégories biotiques e abiotiques s sont presque indépendantes et ne peuvent pas étre réunies dans un seul systéme de classification. Ces multiples systemes paralléles de classification se aoe quand méme dans la définition d’habitats spécifiques. Ils se rencontrent plusieurs similarités entre le systeme Matsigenka de classification écologique et ceux d’autres indiens de l’Amazonie. En considérant _ Lon ae sobbed ange et en considérant les rapides ee de evient essentielle la collaboration entre etnobiologistes, écologistes et indiene dans la recherche de la biodiversité amazonienne. PROLOGUE: THE DARE The research that led to this paper began as a dare. Shepard (an ethnobotanist) heard that Yu (an ecologist) was learning the taxonomy of Cecropia, a genus of pioneer trees that host a number of ant species. Shepard suggested that Yu consult with the local indigenous people, the Matsigenka, with whom he had been con- ducting ethnobotanical research for several years, and who recognized a number of folk species of Cecropia. Yu chided, “Cecropia taxonomy is a mess. We have been working on it for years. Some of the species are very close. Not even the expert on the genus has been able to figure them out. I doubt the Matsigenka even have names for many species.” Shepard dared Yu to test his instinctive distrust of folk biology. Open to the challenge, Yu began to interview the occasional Matsigenka Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 3 visitors to the Cocha Cashu research station in Manu National Park, and was sur- prised by the findings. The Matsigenka had names for almost every species of Cecropia found in the area, including some that as yet had no established botanical names. More interestingly, the Matsigenka recognized various sub-groups of Ce- cropia that corresponded exactly with the intermediate taxonomic groupings identified by botanists after several seasons of field and herbarium work. Yu was impressed by the sophistication of Matsigenka folk taxonomy, “We could have saved two years of taxonomic muddle!” Unfortunately for Shepard, no formal wager had been made. Instead, the dare shifted to a higher level, and the stakes (in scientific, if not monetary terms) went up. If indigenous people could provide insights into taxonomic conundrums, could they also shed light on the extent of habitat diversity in tropical forests? HABITAT DIVERSITY IN AMAZONIA The rain forests of southeastern Peru exhibit a staggering diversity of life: 1300 species of butterflies were identified at a single locality (Lamas et al. 1996) and 319 species of birds were counted in a census of one square kilometer of habitat on the Manu River (Terborgh et al. 1990). One hectare may contain up to 300 species of trees (Gentry 1988b), and a single tree may contain more ant species than are present in all of Britain (Wilson 1986). Complementing this great diversity of locally-oc- curring species (“alpha-diversity”), there is increasing evidence for high levels of “beta-diversity,” that is, diversity at the level of species communities or habitats. Habitat diversity in Amazonia has been found to be associated with a wide range of biotic and abiotic factors. Foster (1990b) discusses how river dynamics in the Peruvian Amazon shape patterns of natural disturbance, forest succession, and vegetative diversity in floodplain areas. Gentry (1988a) analyzes the role of envi- ronmental gradients (water regimes, soils, elevation) affecting vegetation types in the Western Amazon. Pires and Prance (1985) describe some twenty vegetation types for the Brazilian Amazon, basing their classification principally on flooding regime and water color (‘black’ /’white’/’clear’) as well as soils, geographic area, overall biomass and other vegetative features (e.g., open forest, dry forest, liana forest, palm forest). Some tropical biologists theorize that alpha and beta diversity are directly related: the high species diversity of Amazonian forests may depend upon a mosaic of juxtaposed niches and micro-habitats (Terborgh et al. 1996). How many types of habitat exist in Western Amazonian forests, apparently the most species-rich on earth? Erwin (1984) mentions seven forest types found in the Tambopata Reserved Zone. Foster (1990a) describes twelve vegetation types for the Manu River floodplain, half of them referring to successional zones along the river margin. Encarnacién (1993) describes eighteen distinct vegetative asso- ciations for lowland forests (below 400 m above sea level) of Loreto, Ucayali, and Madre de Dios. Early analysis of satellite images of the southeast Peruvian Ama- zon resolved ten to fifteen color/shade combinations or ‘biotopes’ (Salo et al. 1986), corresponding to general forest types distinguished by scientists on the ground: e.g., mature floodplain forest, upland terra firme, swamps, dwarf forests on acidic white sand, and | zones tly, the same group of Finn- ish scientists has used satellite imagery to suggest more than 100 habitat types for 4 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 the Peruvian Amazon (Tuomisto et al. 1995). However, there is still little evidence from the field to support these conclusions (Condit 1996). Large-scale ground sur- veys are expensive and time-consuming, and so far, perhaps only a few hundred hectares of Amazonia’s five million square kilometers of forest have been system- atically collected, mostly around cities, along major rivers and highways, and at a handful of well-studied research stations (Nelson et al. 1990; Tuomisto 1998). It is unlikely that such limited surveys are representative of the total diversity of spe- cies, not to mention of species communities, in Amazonian forests. 1 What we are attempting to do in this interdisciplinary research project is to take advantage of an already meanane 2 spasm of forest habitat diversity that covers tens of thou- sands of hectares: the forest tion system of the Matsigenka, an indigenous population of the southeastern Peruvian rain forest. THE SCIENCE IN ETHNOSCIENCE Most native peoples living in the Amazon basin do not (yet) have access to herbarium collections, ecological theory, or electronic tools such as computers or satellites. Yet in their ‘daily iniberarHons with the environment, and in the accumu- lation of this ] peoples like the Matsigenka have amassed a rich body of knowledge about the diversity of the organisms and species communities in their territory. We are developing an interdisciplinary methodology, which we have dubbed “ethnobotanical ground-truthing” (Shepard et al. in press) to document the vast and understudied body of indigenous knowl- edge about th t while taking advantage of recent advances in tropical ecology and remote sensing technology. The | iesiemanrel in pimcteaenet é scene to understand not only the content but also th 1957). The method of folk taxonomy (Conklin 1964, 1972) has contributed to the study of kinship terminology (Frake 1964), ethnomedical systems (Frake 1961), color classification (Conklin 1955; Berlin and Kay 1969), and especially to the fields of ethnobotany and ethnozoology (Conklin 1954, 1957; Diamond 1966; Berlin et al. 1973, 1974; Bulmer 1974; Hunn 1977; Posey 1979; Berlin 1992). Ethnobiological research over the past fifty years has challenged colonial stereotypes of indigenous peoples as “irrational” or “pre-scientific.” The pioneering work of anthropologists Conklin and Berlin and naturalists Bulmer and Diamond served to document the sophisti- cated botanical and zoological knowledge of indigenous societies around the world, knowledge that in many cases rivaled that of scientific taxonomists of the time (see Bulmer 1974: 9; Carneiro 1978: 204-206; Berlin 1992: 4). Our own experience in the “Cecropia challenge” is another in a long list of such anecdotes. More recent studies in ethnoecology have applied the procedures of ethno- science to ecological processes as understood by native people (Posey 1983; Posey and Balée 1989; Toledo 1992). If the eee of SS OU OTE and Stinozooiog ets are any indication, we expect the ecol ople to be likewise relevant for scientists. Parker et al. oad point out the deficiencies i ina number of scientific typologies for A t that folk knowl- edge represents an important source of sane information for academic Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 5 researchers as well as development planners. In fact, Pires and Prance’s (1985) widely accepted forest classification for the Brazilian Amazon draws heavily upon the folk terminology of Brazil’s caboclos, riverine dwellers of mixed indigenous, European, and African descent whose ecological vocabulary is clearly indigenous (Tupi-Guarani) in origin. Encarnaci6n (1993) likewise combines regional vernacu- lar with scientific vocabulary in a description of lowland forest habitats in Peru. We suggest that further interdisciplinary study of indigenous ecological classifi- cation in Amazonia could facilitate the assessment of habitat diversity within local landscapes as well as at broader regional scales (Shepard et al. in press). STUDY REGION, COMMUNITIES AND PERSONNEL The Matsigenka belong to the Arawakan cultural/linguistic family, and have a current population of about 13,000 people. They live in extended family settle- ments and small communities distributed along various tributaries of the Urubamba, Madre de Dios, and Manu Rivers, a region of hilly rain forests, or montana, that fringes the eastern slope of the Andes. Historical records as well as folk tales indicate that the Matsigenka maintained trading relations with Andean populations since at least the time of the Inca Empire (Camino 1977; Lyon 1981; Renard-Casevitz et al. 1988). At the turn of the twentieth century, many Matsigenka fled to remote settlements in the headwater regions in order to escape the atroci- ties ushered in by the “rubber fever” (von Hassel 1904; Lyon 1976; Rummenhdller 1985). Especially since the 1950’s, missionaries of various denominations have sought to contact Matsigenka from dispersed villages and settle them in semi- permanent native communities along major river courses (d’Ans 1981). However, an unknown number of remote populations still persist in a self-imposed state of isolation (Shepard in review). De reset ine cultivate OG maize, plantains, sweet potatoes and other crops ned to forest regeneration after a few years of active cultivation (Johnson 1983). The Matsigenka also hunt, fish, and gather a wide range of raps Acute anes mission une uaa ane trading centers, some of coffee, cacao, or annato (Baksh 1984). Many Matsigenka settlements, aS in the Upper Urubamba region, have received legal title to communally-held lands according to Peru’s “Native Communities Laws” (Mora and Zarzar 1997). Some communities receive bilingual education based on a practical orthography and didactic materials in the Matsigenka language developed by Protestant missionaries of the Summer Insti- tute of Linguistics (see Snell 1998). Our principal research sites are in the Matsigenka communities of Yomybato and Tayakome within the Manu Biosphere Reserve, a 1.6 million Ha area of pro- tected tropical forest located in the department of Madre de Dios in southeastern Peru. Additional research was carried out in the Matsigenka communities of Mayapo, Puerto Huallana, and Camana of the Picha River, some 150 km west of the Manu study site (see Figure 1). Shepard has carried out ethnobotanical research in Yomybato, Tayakome, and other indigenous communities of the region since 1986, and is fluent in the 6 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 Study Sites: 1- ram: bowed 2 - Tayakom e 3- Soa pn — 100 Km Z. 4- — Huallan K——“X 5 - Mayapo 6 - Camana FIGURE 1.— Study area, Southeast Peru Matsigenka language. In 1996, tropical ecologist Douglas Yu and ethnobotanist Manuel Lizarralde joined Shepard in the field for three months to carry out a pre- liminary study of Matsigenka forest classification in Yomybato. In 1997, Shepard collaborated in Conservation International’s Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of the Cordillera de Vilcabamba (Schulenberg in press). There, he carried out a brief study of ethnoecology, forest classification, and resource use patterns in the mentioned Matsigenka communities of the Picha River. The dialect of Matsigenka spoken on the Picha River is mutually intelligible with that spoken in Manu, but contains a number of dialect variants, including variation in some animal and plant names. In 1999, Shepard and Yu returned to the Manu for three months, armed with LANDSAT satellite images of the region (Shepard et al. in press). Mateo Italiano was our principal indigenous item te in the sae Bideetas all field Ses, though Hilary ot ler Mat to this study (see Acknowledgments). “Vouchers specimens, including many of the plant spe- cies mentioned in this text, have been deposited at the herbaria of Universidad Nacional de San Marcos, Lima, Universidad de San Antonio Abad, Cuzco, and in the reference collection of Robin B. Foster at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Species authors and voucher collection numbers, where available, are listed in the Appendix. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 7 MATSIGENKA HABITAT CLASSIFICATION When describing forest habitats, the Matsigenka use a rich and sophisticated vocabulary for designating vegetational and faunal characteristics as well as to- pographic, hydrologic, edaphic (soil-related), and other abiotic features. Criteria used to designate habitats are not organized into a single hierarchy, but are rather distributed throughout a number of parallel classificatory systems including bi- otic and abiotic variables. The multiple systems of habitat description intersect to define forest types. In Tables 1-12, Matsigenka habitat vocabulary? is organized according to a number of biotic and abiotic criteria: topographic and hydrologic features, disturbance regimes, soil types, vegetation types, and faunal habitat in- dicators. Habitat types in the tables are assigned reference numbers (hereafter, ref.) for convenience, as follows: prefix “T’ for topographic/hydrologic features (Tables 1 and 2); prefix “D’ for disturbance regimes (Table 3); prefix ‘A’ for higher- order categories or general classes of abiotic factors (Tables 1-3); prefix ‘S’ for soil types (Table 4); number only (no prefix) for vegetation types (Tables 5-11); and prefix ‘F’ for faunal indicators (Table 12). Tables 1-12 include detailed descriptions of the various abiotic and biotic habitat variables and associated vegetation. Table 13 presents a matrix of correspondence between biotic and abiotic variables and indicates which vegetation types are found in each of the study sites. Because habitat definitions overlap to some extent, it is difficult to count the exact, total number of forest types recognized by the Matsigenka. Informants from five study communities named 76 biotically-defined habitats, some of which over- lap, including 50 lowland primary forest types defined by indicator species (individual communities ranged from 38 to 43 types per community), seven kinds of secondary vegetation, six montane-only vegetation types, six forest types de- fined by overall vegetative aspects, and seven habitats defined by faunal associations. Furthermore, the Matsigenka distinguish 21 habitats defined by to- pography and hydrology, eight degrees of forest disturbance, and ten soil types affecting vegetation. Studying Table 13, it becomes apparent that some vegetation types are limited to specific topographic, drainage, soil, or disturbance conditions, while others are more widespread. Some vegetation types were noted in all five study communities, while others were restricted to a few communities or only one of the two study regions (Manu, Picha). Habitat Classification: Abiotic Criteria— Abiotic variables commonly noted by the Matsigenka fall into four broad categories: topography, hydrology, soils, and dis- turbance regimes. The categories, however, are not mutually exclusive, but rather depend closely on one another. Topographic and hydrologic features are used by the Matsigenka to distinguish two broad categories of habitats: floodplains (ovogeshi), and uplands/interfluvium (nigankipatsa). This broad geomorphologic distinction is incorporated into our organization of Tables 1 and 2, and corresponds with the general habitat classification scheme used by Western scientists (see Terborgh et al. 1996). Swamps and lakes (inkaare) appear to form a somewhat independent category, cross-cutting the upland/lowland distinction. Montane forests of the Andean foothills (otishipaketira) are treated as a separate category due to their distinctive topography, climate and vegetation (see Table 9). The TABLE 1.— a ae defined by topography and hydrology, part one: Ovogeshi, ‘floodplain forest’. Includes examples of associated vegetatio Along rivers: Cecropia, esi Ficus (potogo), Cedrela (santari), Guadua ko) Floodplain, gallery, upland elements condensed into a narrow floodplain Tree ferns (tinkanari), Socratea exorrhiza (vakirintsi), Macrocnemum roseum Ref. Habitat Translation Associated Vegetation Al Ovogeshi ‘Bend forest’: i.e., in meander belt, ae ore (riverine) forest, general term; also any lowland forest not floodplain of river or stream ncluded in a specific biotic/abiotic habitat type Tl otsegoa ‘branch’: seasonally flooded island, Cecropia spp. (tonko, inkona), Ochroma (paroto) branch of river T2 imparage open beach or wide stream bed Sandy beach: Tessaria (impomeri), Gynerium (savoro) with sparse vegetation Rocky beach, sream beds: Calliandra (kovanti), Crenea (pantyoporoki), Cassia (pochokiroshi), Senna herzogii (shimashiri) T3 oaaku, ‘on the water’: at water’s edge otapiku ‘on the bank’: on or near river / (kapiro, yaivero), Urera (ta stream bank Along streams: Hy priecitg (niapashi), Inga (intsipa), Aulonemia (samatsi), Cyathea (tinkanari T4 osateni ‘where water gathers’: seasonal Heliconia (sagonto ), Bactris (shianti), lianas (shivitsasemai), tangled canal, depression in floodplain vegetation (narongashi) T5 otonkoatera ‘hill in floodplain’: levee island Floodplain near river on small rise forming island when river floods: ovogeshiku Cedrela (santari), shinkipini (?) T6 nigankivoge ‘middle of bend’: central floodplain Mature (late successional) floodplain forest, characterized by large trees: at medium distance from river Ceiba pentandra (pasaro), Gallesia integrifolia (shitiro), Dipteryx polyphylla (pageroroki), Sloanea sp. (terorivanteki) T7 choeni_ ovogeshi, ‘a little floodplain, a little upland’: + Mixed floodplain/upland elements; palms Attalea butyracea (shevo), choeni otishi transitional zone from floodplain to Socratea salazarii (kompapari), Wettinia (kepito) are indicators of uplands transition to uplands T8 ovogeshi niateni ‘stream floodplain’: large stream gallery forest T9 = niateniku ‘along the stream’: small stream gallery forest (niapashi T10 inkaare lake/swamp, general term; types distinguished according to size, proximity to — permanence and vegeta Oxbow lake: aquatic grasses eg. kentakorishi), Ludwigia (yogetsapini ), Renealmia (porenki ) ‘Renacal’ swamp: Ficus trigona (tiiroki) ‘Te 39 GUVdHHS TON ‘TZ “TPA TABLE 2.— Habitats defined by topography and hydrology, part two: Nigankipatsa, ‘uplands’. Includes examples of associated vegetation. Dialect variants separated by slash (Manu/Picha). Ref. Habitat Translation Associated Vegetation A2 Nigankipatsa, ‘Middle earth’ (between river basins), more interfluvium (terra firme), general terms; also any uplands Otishinapatsa ‘hilly earth’ included in a specific biotic/abiotic habitat type (T10) inkaare lake/swamp (see Table 1) Upland palm swamp: Mauritia (koshi), Oenocarpus (sega), eg (tsireri) Seasonal upland swamp/lake: Diplasia (imere), aquatic grasses, (sampetashi), Inga sp. (intsipa), Mauritia (koshi), ant vias (sakaropini) Tll osateniniateni ‘stream depression’: Py, Socratea exorrhiza (vakirintsi), Diplasia (imere), Mauritia (koshi), Cyathea tree ephemeral stream headwaters in ferns (tinkanari), Oenocarpus (sega poorly drained uplands T12 pampa ‘flat area’: especially flat uplands, —_In uplands, usually with understory palms Wettinia (kepito), Socratea alluvial terrace salazarii (kompapari), and/or Geonoma spp. (chogina, tsikero, memerishi) T13 agiringira, down slope, up slope (depending _—_ Slope specialists: Aulonemia bamboo (samatsi), Styloceras, (pompoki), otonkoatera on speaker’s perspective Phytelephas (kompiro), Sagotia (kovuvapini) T14_— otishi ‘hill’: hill crest, ridge, mountain Slope specialists; montane vegetation T15 imperita cliff, rocky outcrop; also uplands Cliff: secondary growth, slope specialists: Erythrina spp. (taiiri, songaare), (terra firme) on cliff adjacent to river Cecropia spp. (tonko ro) Rocky outcrop: ferns (tsirompi), orchids and bromeliads (ananta), moss (tagamu) Uplands adjacent to cliff: Upland forest (nigankipatsa) T16 okonteaatira spring, waterfall Ferns (tsirompi), bromeliads (ananta), moss (tagamu) T17 oyashiaku headwaters; higher-elevation Stream headwaters: small stream gallery forest, slope and rock specialists; foothills, transition to montane higher-elevation species: Hyospathe(?) palm (kapashi), yellow Guadua abitat bamboo (kiteri kapiro) T18 otishipaketira ‘many hills’: Andean foothills Montane vegetation (above 600 m); see Table 10 T19 omarani otishi / High Andean vegetation ‘large mountains’ / ‘high mountains’ chovivanteni otishi L00z Jowrurns ADO TOISONHLA JO TVNUNO[ 10 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 KA = 1 tn a a Ms primary forest (i Ll 4 oo 2 E secondary or ‘weedy’ foes vegetation (Table 10), regardless of uplands / floodplain status. Matsigenka forest classification defies a strictly hierarchical organization, and re- veals a number of intersecting classificatory principles which we have attempted to represent in the accompanying tables. Many Matsigenka habitat terms, especially those referring to geomorphology and hydrology, are locative expressions, formed by adding the suffix -ku to nouns. For example, niateni, — becomes niateniku, ‘in or alongside the stream’, i.e., habitat found al lso common in habitat vocabulary are loca- tive-like verbal expressions formed with the subordinating suffix -ra (‘the place where...’, ‘the time when...’): otarankira, ‘the place where a cliff has eroded’; omakaramangaitira, ‘the place where the soil is crunchy and has long hair’ (i.e., accumulated Spaghnum moss growth). Topography (Table 2). The Jay of the land is of primary importance in it forest ka terminology includes words for slopes (agiringira, otonkoatira, ref. T13), plains and plateaus (pampa, T12), rock and sand- stone outcrops (imperita, T15), Andean foothills (otishipaketira, T18), and high mountains (omarani otishi, chovivanteni otishi, T19). The people of the Picha River use the additional term ogisaamaguinteni (‘blue to look at’, much like our own Blue Ridge Mountains) to refer to forested foothills that appear blue from a distance. The word otishi (T14) is related to the anatomical term -tishita (‘back, spine’) and can be used to refer to ridges, hills, and mountain ranges as well as to the uplands in a general sense. Many topographic features are associated with specific suites of vegetation. For example, steep ridge crests around Yomybato village frequently show an un- derstory dominated by the trunkless palm Phytelephas macrocarpa (kompiro), a vegetation type known as kompiroshi (ref. 15). There is not necessarily a one-to- one correspondence between topographic features and vegetation, however. For example, some ridge crests have vegetation other than kompiroshi, while kompiroshi may also occur in lowland forest near the river. Hydrology (Tables 1 and 2). The Matsigenka word for water (nia) also refers to rivers (nia) and streams (niateni). Water regimes play a crucial role in shaping forest habitats. Seasonal patterns of rainfall, rising and falling river waters, flood- ing frequency, and long-term river dynamics are especially important. The Matsigenka have terms that refer to seasonally inundated islands and peninsulas (otsegoa, ref. T1), sandy and rocky beaches (imparage, T2), and river and stream flood plains in general (ovogeshi, Table 1). Distance from the river and frequency and severity of flooding are important factors influencing vegetation. The Matsigenka distinguish habitats found at the water’s edge (oaaku, T3), along river and stream banks (otapiku, T3), at medium distance from the river within the floodplain (nigankivoge, T6), and transitional areas from lowland to upland forest (choeni ovogeshil/choeni otishi, T7 where seasonal flooding is rare or less severe. The Matsigenka distinguish between the wide, flooded forest of large rivers (ovegesitsane, ‘tue floodplain forest’ ), the narrower gallery forest of tributary rivers an i ‘stream floodplain’, T8), and small stream gallery forests ( niateniku, ‘along the stream’, T9). The uplands or terra firme? forests are located on the high ground between TABLE 3.— Habitats defined by disturbance regimes, with examples of associated vegetation. Deforested area, general term; forest with open or disturbed canopy or understory; natural forest openings, often ant-plant mutualisms or dry lake beds, some believed to be the villages of invisible guardian spirits Area subjected to flooding during rainy season, floodplain (ovogeshi) as well as upland swamps and rainwater lakes (inkaare); vegetation apamankera, ‘flooded long ago’; choeni apamankera, ‘floods a little’; magatiro apamankera, ‘floods everything’; osateni, ‘water gathers’, through it’, i.e., seasonal canal, or permanent cut-off of meander loop Secondary growth: Cecropia spp. (yaaro, tonko, inkona), Erythrina spp. (taiiri, songaare), lianas (shivitsasemai), tangled growth (narongashi) Gaps caused by tree falls; recent gaps have weeds (tovaseri), tangled growth (narongashi), vines and lianas (shivitsasemai); older gaps have Hillsides at high elevations with moss (kamu), ferns (tsirompi) or grass e Swidden from prior years (2-15+ years), not weeded, with secondary growth but producing fruit trees and other slow-growing cultigens: Ref. Habitat Translation Associated Vegetation A3 — Karapage ‘Opening, clearing’ (Saangariite) D1 apamankera nia ‘place of inundation, flooding’ determined by frequency and severity of flooding: pairani i.e., standing water during rainy season; okenati nia, ‘river runs D2 i otarankira ‘place of erosion’: landslide, cliff D3 oterongerainchato ‘where a tree fell over’ Cecropia sciadophylla (yaaro), Capirona (kapirona), other pioneer D4 __— potagarine ‘burnt hillside’ (shimpenashi) showing signs of disturbance b D5 __ tsamairentsi ‘place of work,’ new swidden garden Recently cleared and planted swidden, actively weeded (1-2 years) D6 ~=magashipogo productive swidden from prior years Bactris gasipaes (kuiri), Inga edulis (intsipa), Bixa orellana (potsoti), Tephrosia (kogi) D7 __ pairani magashipogo old swidden fallow Mature secondary or “primary” forest regrown from old or ancient swidden fallow; recognized by historical knowledge, secondary growth (Cecropica, etc.) or by presence of hardy cultigens like ayahuasca (Banisteriopsis, kamarampi) barbasco (Tephrosia, kogi) D8 — inchatoshi ‘tree leaves’: forest, primary forest Forest, general term; “primary” forest; forest with large-diameter trees that has largely recovered from past disturbance L00z towns XODOTIOISONHLA JO TVNMNOL 12 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 river basins, beyond the reach of seasonal flooding. The Matsigenka use several words to refer to upland terra firme habitats in general. Nigankipatsa (Table 2) means literally ‘middle earth’ or ‘land between,’ i.e., land between river basins, and is similar to the geological term interfluvium. The term otishinapatsa (Table 2) means literally ‘elevated, hilly earth’, implying both elevation and rugged to- pography, and can also be used as a general term for the uplands. In some instances the term otishi (‘ridge, hill’, ref. T14) may also be used in a general sense to refer to the uplands. Other hydrologic terms refer to seasonally waterlogged depressions or canals in the floodplain (osateni, T4), springs and waterfalls (okonteaatira, T16), river and stream headwaters (oyashiaku, T17), and the swampy headwaters of ephem- eral streams in the uplands (osateni niateni, T11). The Matsigenka distinguish vegetation associated with several kinds of lakes and swamps (inkaare, T10), in- cluding semi-permanent oxbow lakes and backwater swamps in the river floodplain, and seasonal lakes or swamps formed by the accumulation of rainwa- ter in flat, poorly drained upland areas. Disturbance regimes (Table 3). Western Amazonian river floodplains are in a constant state of transition as the river undermines land in some places and de- posits sediments in others, provoking a steady wave of forest disturbance and regeneration. Occasionally, the river cuts off a loop (okenati nia, ‘the water flows across’) as it seeks a new course, shifting real estate from one bank to the other and isolating former river meanders to form oxbow lakes. The Matsigenka are well aware of these processes and their long-term effects. Though individuals may not have seen the formation of a particular oxbow lake (inkaare) or river bend (onkuiaatira) during their lifetime, they have an accurate idea of how these fea- tures were formed. Matsigenka informants often remark on the dynamic nature of the forest, for example by noting that the mature lowland forest in which they stand may once have been an open stretch of beach flanked by Gynerium cane thickets (savoroshi, ref. 29), or by musing about the future of a particularly nice piece of flat uplands near a cliff, fated eventually to erosion and collapse into the river. The Mat ka are als tob of shorter-term disturbance patterns such as seasonal flooding (apamankera nia, ref. D1), forest succession in gaps caused by tree falls (oterongira inchato, D3), landslides (otarankira, D2), wind storms, lightning strikes, and natural fires as well as human agricultural activities (refs. D5-D7). Matsigenka of the Picha River described ‘burnt mountainsides’ (potagarine, D4), high-elevation areas characterized by moss and grasses that ap- parently catch fire on especially dry years. The Matsigenka consider certain small, natural forest clearings (karapage, Table 3) to represent the village and gardens of the invisible guardian spirits, the Saangariite. The term inchatoshi (D8) means literally ‘tree leaves’, but can be used in a general sense to refer to forest, and more specifically, to “primary” forest, that is, forest that has many large-diameter trees and has largely recovered from any past disturbance. Contrasting with primary forest is a set of terms referring to various stages of forest regeneration in tree-fall gaps, garden clearings, and other forms of disturbance (see Table 9). Soils (Table 4). The Matsigenka often examine the soil of forest habitats, espe- TABLE 4.— Soil vocabulary, indicating agricultural suitability and examples of associated habitats. Ref. Term Translation Agricultural Suitability, Associated Habitats Sl jenkivane sandy loam Preferred for manioc, barbasco fish poison; found especially in flat uplands (pampa) $2 potsitapatsa ‘black earth’: river sediments, humus se for peanuts and plaintains; found in river and stream flood plain (ovogeshi) $3 kiteri kipatsi ‘yellow earth’: yellow (ferralitic?) soils Suited for agriculture but not ideal; found in uplands, hills (otishi) S4 impaneki sand, beach Preferred for watermelons, peanuts; aquatic beach vegetation: Tessaria (impomeri), Gynerium (savoro S5 sokopane white sand soils Agricultural suitability unknown; rare in uplands, white sand soils with small trees (otyomiaige inchato), lianas (shivitsasemai), Oenocarpus sega S6 kiraapatsa ‘red earth’: red clay or red clay/sand Suitable for agriculture if clay content not too high; red clay used for oam ceramics; hilly uplands (otishi); stream floodplains (niateniku), animal mineral licks (itsimint) S7 kusomiriakipatsa ‘hard lumpy earth’: i.e., contractile Clay soil that forms clay soi hard lumps when dry, poor for apa with Guadua sp. (yaiveroshi), animal mineral licks (itsimin S8 inkaarepatsa, ‘swamp/lake earth’: mud Poor for agriculture; swamp vegetation: Mauritia (koshi), Ficus trigona jampovatsa ‘mud’ (tiiroki), Diplasia os grasses (sam} ), Renealmia (porenki), other aqua S9 mapuseku rocky soil Usually poor for Facaiirks except in slightly to gy: asad rocky S10 omakaramangaitira ‘crunchy long-haired soil’: i.e., thick accumulation of moss (poor for agriculture) uplands; beach vegetation: Cassia (pochokirontoshi), S (shimashiri), Tessaria (impomeri); extremely rocky th in Sea lianas (shivitsa), small trees (otyomiaige inchato); rocky hillsides, stream banks: moss (tagamu), ferns (tsirompi), orchids and bromeli- ads (ananta) Agricultural suitability unknown; montane, cloud forest with moss (tagamu), ferns (tsirompi), orchids and bromeliads (ananta) LO0c towns ASO TOISONHLA JO TVNUNOL 14 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 cially when selecting sites to clear for agriculture (Johnson 1983). The general word for soil, kipatsi, also ) refers to dirt, clay and pottery, land, ethnic territories or coun- tries, and the world as a whole, much like the English word ‘earth’. The Matsigenka distinguish soils according to color, texture, composition (especially clay/sand ratio), and drainage properties. Most terms for soil types include the suffixes - patsa, referring to fleshy substances (earth, clay, meat, fruits, bodies), or -pane (-vane in some phonetic environments) referring to powders (ash, sand, tobacco snuff). Specific soil types recognized by the Matsigenka include sandy loam (jenkivane, ref. S1), black river sediments (potsitapatsa, ‘black earth’, S2), yellow soils (kiteri kipatsi, ‘yellow earth’, S3), beach sand (impaneki, S4), alluvial white sand soils (sokopane, $5), red clay soils (kiraapatsa, ‘red earth’, S6), contractile clay soils (kusomiriakipatsa, ‘hard lumpy earth’, S7), mud (jampovatsa, ‘mud’ or inkaarepatsa, ‘swamp /lake earth’, S8), rocky soils (mapuseku, S9), and the spongy or crunchy soils (omakaramangaitira, $10) created by moss accumulation at high elevations. Soil drainage properties strongly affect vegetation and are especially important in indicating suitability for agriculture: well-drained, sandy loam in the uplands is generally preferred for manioc and corn cultivation, while upland ridges are ideal for planting barbasco fish poison (Tephrosia spp.). Wetter, black lowland soils are preferred for plantains and peanuts. Poorly drained soils are unsuitable for agriculture, and are indicated by specific suites of vegetation. Habitat Classification: Biotic Criteria.— Abiotic factors interact with biotic processes (e. g., predation, growth, dispersal, and competition), historical events, and hu- man manipulation to shape the species composition and physical structure of a particular habitat. Within the broad habitat categories defined by abiotic variables, the Matsigenka use biotic criteria to achieve a finer level of differentiation. Matsigenka terminology for vegetation types and other biotic indicators is espe- cially rich and nuanced. Biotically-defined habitats are distinguished according to dominant or indicator species (Tables 5-10), overall vegetative aspect or ‘phyto- architecture’ (Table 11), and faunal indicators (Table 12). Most Matsigenka vocabulary items referring to vegetative features include the suffix -shi, ‘leaf/leaves’. In other contexts, the suffix is used to specify the leaf (as opposed to some other part) of a plant, or acts as a numeral classifier (Shepard 1997). In the case of habitat vocabulary, the suffix -shi is used in a collective sense, indicating that a given species or vegetative feature is dominant or highly salient in a certain habitat. For example, kapiroshi, means literally ‘kapiro bamboo leaves’, but in the context of habitat classification refers to forests dominated by stands of this bamboo (Guadua weberbaueri). Many Matsigenka terms for vegetation types refer to such dominant or indicator species, as presented in Tables 5-10. We have divided indicator species into a number of naturally and perceptu- ally-defined sub-groups: palms (Table 5); bamboos (Table 6); ferns and herbs (Table 7); trees and shrubs other than palms (Table 8); secondary or weedy growth (Table lb ane, montane vegetation (Table ees Some uot these . groupings reflect named in- ferns (tsirompi), herbs (inchashi), secondary growth/ weeds (tovaseri). Other groupings (palms vs. other trees) are natural and salient, but do not correspond to Matsigenka clas- sificatory habits: the term inchato, ‘tree’, refers to trees including palms, while TABLE 5.— Habitats indicated by palm species, and their uses. Dialect variants separated by slash (Manu/Picha). Ref. Vegetation Translation Description Uses tirotisht Astrocaryum murumuru forest ec me where A. murumuru (tiroti) is common, edible Jom wig palm heart; mes dominant in understory alm weevils 2 shevoshi _ Attalea butyracea forest tredeifon from Rcodplain to uplands roof thatch 3. tsigaroshi Attalea phalerata forest Floodplain only, A. phalerata (tsigaro) often occurs in edible ae” heart; palm stands weevils; that 4 kontashi Attalea tesmannii forest Rare, patchy, occurs along stream banks edible sae: mesocarp carved for pipes, ornaments 5 shiantishi Bactris concinna forest Dense stands of spiny B. concinna (shianti) along edible mesocarp seasonally al clay ie canals, depressions (osatent), especially in floodplain 6 tsirerishi Euterpe precatoria forest E. precatoria var. precatoria (tsireri), var. ee: edible mesocarp, heart (suana) stands in poorly drained uplands, Oenocarpus (sega), Mauritia (koshi) 7 tsikeroshi/ Geonoma deversa forest Flat uplands with dense understory of Geonoma deversa thatch choginashi (tsikero / chogina) 8 S neatiels / Geonoma maxima forest Flat uplands with dense understory of Geonoma maxima _ thatch chigeroshi (tyonkinto / tsikero) 9 memerishi/ Geonoma brongniartii forest Hilly uplands, higher elevations, dense understory of — thatch metakishi Geonoma brongniartii (metakishi) 10 kapashi Hyospathe (?) sp. forest Hill crests at higher elevations, dense understory of thatch Hyospathe (?) sp. (kapashi) 11. kamonashi _Iriartea deltoidea forest Common in floodplain and ee I. deltoidea (kamona) doa heart, palm weevils; occurs in stands especially in flooplains eg for manioc beer 12. koshishi/ Mauritia flexuosa forest Swamps (‘agu oF ) epee d by M. flos (koshi, te: eupa & — toturokishi toturoki) in flood r wet upla habitat for hunt 13 kinirishi Mauritiella sp. forest Swamps with Pr ig sp. (kiniri), 4 exorrhiza edible mesocarp important (kontiri ), Euterpe (tsireri.); not found in Manu habitat for hun 14. segashi Oenocarpus bataua forest O. batahua (sega) in swampy uplands, sometimes with — edible mes oe & hes art; pie (koshi) or Euterpe mae 0 also on white sand _— meristem fibers used as sokopane), montane forest near lakes kindlin 15 kompiroshi Phytelephas macrocarpa forest Especially on hill crests, also in " floodplat in edible immature endocarp 16 vakirintsishi / Socratea exorrhiza forest Moist aon sei ten. stream gallery ‘tes and stream _ spiny aerial root used as hi headw coarse grater 17 all ae /Socratea salazarii forest Widespread in uplands, especially flat areas spiny aerial root used as fine konkap rater; temporary thatch 18 kepitookt Wettinia augusta forest Widespread in uplands at higher elevations, especially edible mesocarp; temporary thatch LO00c Foewuns ADOTOISONHLA JO TVNUNO! 16 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 inchaki, ‘stick, shrub’, refers to shrubs and small trees, including small palms. Bamboos may represent an unnamed or “covert” intermediate category (see Ber- lin 1992), since they are considered to be neither trees (inchato), nor shrubs (inchaki), nor herbs (inchashi), nor lianas (shivitsa). The distinction montane vs. lowland is salient in Matsigenka classification of vegetation, as discussed below under “Perceptual Criteria.” It seems significant that palms, bamboos, grasses, and other Monocots are so prominent as indicator species in Matsigenka forest classification. Of 50 primary forest vegetation types recognized by the Matsigenka (Tables 5-8), a total of 33 are designated according to the presence of Monocot indicator species, 18 of which are palms. Many palms and other Monocots are colonial, abundant, or highly ap- parent in the understory, making them salient as indicator species. It also appears that certain palm, bamboo, grass, and other Monocot species have adaptations for specific soil or drainage properties, making them useful as indicators for some habitat type (Gentry 1988a; Encarnacién 1993; Clark, Clark and Read 1998). Palm Forests (Table 5). Palms are especially important economic species for the Matsigenka (see Table 5) and other indigenous groups of Amazonia (Balick 1984). Some of the palm forests recognized by the Matsigenka have been described in the scientific literature (Foster 1990a), for example Mauritia flexuosa palm swamps (koshishi, ref. 12), and Attalea murumuru (formerly Astrocaryum) and A. phalerata (formerly Scheelea) stands in mature lowland forest (tirotishi, ref. 1; tsigaroshi, ref. 3). Attalea butyracea stands (shevoshi, ref. 2) occur in transitional areas between lowlands and uplands, and are harvested as thatch material for temporary shel- ters, for example seasonal fishing camps on the beach. Moist forests and swamp borders often contain the important edible palms (fruit and heart) Euterpe precatoria (tsirerishi, ref. 6) and Oenocarpus batahua (segashi, ref. 14). Seasonal water courses (osateni, ref. T4) in the floodplain or uplands are dominated by lianas and dense stands of spiny Bactris concinna (shiantishi, ref. 5). Hill crests as well as certain stream floodplains contain a dense understory of the palm Phytelephas macrocarpa TABLE 6.— Habitats indicated by bamboo species. Ref. Term Translation Description samatsishi —__ Aulonemia sp. forest Forest dominated by non-spiny bamboo Aulonemia (samatsi ), uplands and slopes = \o 20 songarentsishi Chusquea spp., Olyra spp. On slopes, also montane; small bamboo forest species (songarentsi) 21 manipishi Guadua angustifolia forest Single species stands of large diameter, spiny rate: G. ei? (manipi) near river ma 22 kapiroshi Guadua weberbaueri forest Forest Pa ae by spiny bamboo G weberbaueri (kapiro); occurs in large areas in floodplain and uplands 23 yaiveroshi Guadua glomerata forest | Low canopy forest dominated by spiny bamboo Guadua glomerata (yaivero); ss, floodplain only, especially on clay soils shinkeroshi _Guadua sp. forest Forest dominated by spiny bamboo Guadua sp. (shinkerokota); uplands only Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 17 (kompiroshi, ref. 15), which has a white endocarp that is edible when immature, and which later hardens into what is known as vegetable ivory or tagua. Other palm forests do not appear to have been documented by scientists yet, probably because the Matsigenka live at higher elevations in interfluvial areas that are not easily accessible to research teams. For example, upland forests begin- ning at approximately 450 m elevation on Manu tributaries and along the Picha River are dominated by the understory palm Wettinia augusta (kepitoshi, ref. 18), previously consider rare for the Manu River. Kepitoshi is synonymous with flat, well drained uplands for the Matsigenka, and is characterized by loose, sandy soils, making it the preferred forest type to clear for swidden agriculture. Similar forests at slightly lower elevations along the main course of the Manu are domi- nated by a different understory palm, Socratea salazarii (kompaparishi, ref. 17). Some flat uplands contain scattered stands of various Geonoma species (tsikero, ref. 7; tyonkinto, ref. 8; memerishi, ref. 9), all used as roof thatch. Along ridges at higher elevations (approximately 600-700 m elevation) in headwater regions, kapashi (Hyospathe sp.?, ref. 10) palm stands are found, a preferred roof thatch material due to the large leaf size. The palm Attalea tessmanti (kontashi, ref. 4) is found quite rarely (two stands or less per community visited) in small clusters along stream banks. The palm contains a delicious, almond-like nut guarded within a hard mesocarp that is used to make tobacco pipes and other craft items. Because the konta palm is both valued and rare, the Matsigenka identify and remember the location of kontashi stands throughout a large area. Bamboo Forests (Table 6). Bamboo forests are among the easiest to identify from satellite imagery of Amazonia (Nelson 1994). Nonetheless, the taxonomy and ecology of Amazonian bamboos remains poorly studied, since flowering and fruit- ing events for some species occur at great intervals, at least 15-30 years in the case of certain Guadua species. The Matsigenka describe six bamboo-dominated forest types, and recognize six folk taxa of bamboos within the scientific genus Guadua, some of which may not yet have scientific names. Guadua angustifolia (manipishi, ref. 21) is the largest of the local bamboos, with tall, elegant stems that can exceed 10 cm in diameter and 12 m in height. Occurring only along smaller tributary rivers, manipi forms small, circular, single-species stands surrounded by thorny branch shoots reminiscent of barbed wire. Stands of the spiny bamboo Guadua weberbaueri (kapiroshi, ref. 22) dominate much of the upland forests in both the Manu and especially the Picha study sites, and is readily identifiable on satellite imagery of both regions (Shepard et al. in press). G. weberbaueri is an important economic species, used in the manufacture of arrow points (kapirokota). Yaiveroshi (ref. 23) appears to refer to G. glomerata, having narrower leaves and stems than G. weberbaueri. It occurs less commonly in medium to large stands on contractile clay soils, what the Matsigenka describe as ‘hard, lumpy earth’ (kusomiriakipatsa, ref. S7) because of its tendency to form discrete lumps when dry. The Matsigenka observe that contractile clay soils and yaiveroshi are associ- ated with macaw clay licks (irapitari kimaro, ref. Fl), which form on the eroding side of river banks. Shinkeroshi (ref. 24) or shinkerokota is an unidentified Guadua species (possibly G. sarcocarpa) forming stands much like G. weberbaueri in some upland areas. In addition to these taxa, the Matsigenka name two additional folk TABLE 7.— Habitats indicated by ferns and herbs. Montane-only vegetation not included (see Table 10). Dialect variants separated by slash (Manu/Picha). Ref. Term Translation Description 25 tinkanarishi Cyathea spp. (tree fern) forest Tree fern (tinkanari) found in tag to diffuse stands along stream beds, in stream gallery forest; also montane 26 __tsirompishi Pteridophyta (fern) stands Patches qi miscellaneous ame species in moist or rocky areas in stream gallery forest, uplands; also montane 27 itsirianeshi Aechmea | SP. fore Small, dense stands of pineapple-like eee Aechmea (itsiriane matsontsori (jaguar’s itor plantation’) matsontsori, ‘jaguar’s pineapple’) in understo 28 imereshi Diplasia sp. forest In moist to swampy areas, oe with Diplasia (imere ), also known as saviripini, ‘machete plant’ due to its sharp edges 29 savoroshi Gynerium saccharoides stand Common beach, river of Sn copa cane thicket often just behind Tessaria (impomerishi 30 ~— chakopishi Gynerium sagittatum stand Less common, beach bedetin along ite river course, also planted in old gardens; reed for arrow shafts (cha 31 sagontoshi Heliconia metallica forest a one dea especially in seasonal fet depressions between levee isla 32 tsipanashi Marantaceae spp. forest Floodplain, uplands near at Ichnosiphon, Calathea, other Marantac spp. leaves (tsipana) used to steam food 33 shimpenashi, Poaceae spp. (grasslands) Grass and small bamboo species Pe um } i (shimpenashi), pitty (tiposhi i) in pera manent eet on eroded slopes; (also montane , Andean ‘pajonal’ grasslands; Table 10) 34 sampetashi / Poaceae spp. (aquatic grasses) Aquatic veuetsui in lakes, swamps kentakorishi 35s porenkishi Renealmia sp. stand Edge of swamps, lakes; aquatic weeds: ginger-like Renealmia (porenki), fuchsia-like Ludwigia ha iit i) 36 impomerishi Tessaria integrifolia stand Open beach vegetation, sometimes with Senna (shimashiri); before Chhetiuth (areal 6 cane thicket Te 49 CaVddHS T ‘ON ‘TZ ‘TOA Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 19 species or varieties related to G. weberbaueri (kapiro, ref. 22), but which occur only in headwater regions at higher elevations: kirajari kapiro, (‘red Guadua’), preferred for arrow-points due to its anticoagulant properties, and kiteri kapiro (‘yellow Guadua’), noted for its glossy, yellow stem. The non-spiny bamboo Aulonemia (samatsishi, ref. 19) is a specialist of slopes and disturbed uplands. Like Guadua, Aulonemia undergoes synehroneuk flowering, fruiting, and die-back throughout a life cycle th s. Similar to Aulonemia, the montane bamboo Chusquea (songarentsi, ref. 20) was described by the people of the Picha river as occurring in Andean foothills (otishipaketira, T18). Fern and Herb Indicator Species (Table 7). A number of grasses occur in fairly dense stands, mostly in disturbed or inundated areas with few or no trees. Lakes (inkaare, T10), including oxbow lakes in the river meander belt and smaller, sea- sonal rainwater lakes in the uplands, are often dominated by aquatic grasses (sampetashi, ref. 34). Terrestrial grasses (shimpenashi) and grassy bamboos (tiposhi, ref. 33) are found in permanent clearings, on slopes, and in montane and Andean ‘pajonal’ grasslands. Cane thickets of Gynerium saccharoides (savoroshi, ref. 29) occur along. beach margins just inland from stands of the treelike Compositaceae Ti ishi, ref. 36). Arrow cane, G. sagittatum (chakopishi, ref. 30) is less c common, occurring i in natural stands along the upper course of rivers and in cultivation in garden fallows. This cane is used in the manu- facture of arrows (chakopi), and is harvested principally in December and January after it has flowered and fruited. Ferns and other herb species may occur in distinctive stands in the forest un- derstory, and are used as habitat indicators. The tree fern Cyathea (tinkanarishi, ref. 25) is a prime indicator of small stream gallery forests (niateniku, T9). Other ferns (generically known as tsirompishi, ref. 26) occur in moist or rocky areas and montane habitats. Heliconia metallica stands (sagontoshi, ref. 31) occur in moist, slightly depressed areas between levee islands in the floodplain, usually parallel to the river. Stands of various Marantaceae species (tsipanashi, ref. 32) occur in somewhat moist areas in the floodplain and uplands. The leaves of some Marantaceae (mostly Calathea and Ichnosiphon) are used to wrap food for steam- ing. The turmeric relative Renealmia (porenkishi, ref. 32) occurs in moist areas, especially along swamp and lake borders. The leaves are used to steam fish, im- parting their spicy flavor, and the yellow root is used as a dye as well as for various medicinal purposes. The pineapple relative Aechmea occurs in the uplands in small stands known as ‘jaguar’s pineapple plantation’ (itsirianeshi matsontsori, ref. 27). Moist upland areas and swamp borders contain the razor-edged sedge Diplasia (imereshi, ref. 28), also known as saviripini, ‘saber plant’, wrapped around ma- chete blades in the belief that they will maintain a sharp edge. Other Indicator Species (Table 8). Several habit ized by the Matsigenka are defined by the presence of shrubs and understory trees other than palms. Slopes between upland terraces in the Picha River are dominated by stands of the small tree Sagotia (kovuvapishi, ref. 50), usually mixed with the palm Wettinia augusta (kepitoshi, ref. 18). At higher elevations on slopes towards stream headwaters in the Picha region, there occurs a low canopy forest two small Clusiaceae tree spe- cies, Chrysochlamys ulei (kachopitokishi, ref. 43) and Tovomita weddeliana TABLE 8.— Habitats indicated by tree species other than palms. Secondary and montane vegetation not included (see Tables 9, 10). Dialect variants separated by slash (Manu/Picha). ers; understory of C. ule Ref. Term Translation Description 37. — matsityananashi Alibertia pilosa forest Floodplain near river; open understory w/ A. pilosa (matsityanana), Randia armata Weide. aula Psychotria sp. (orovampashi), Phytelephas (kompi 38 toaroshi Apuleia leiocarpa forest Uplands, near cee or in old disturbed areas 39 kovantishi Calliandra amazonica Along steep, rocky banks of soul rivers, large streams; branches of C. amazonica (kovanti) hang ov 40a __ setikoshi/ Cecropia membranacea forest Floodplain by river; first stage of direst succession after beach, some inkonashi times with Ochroma lagopus (paroto), Tachigali spp. (makotaniro), Triplaris americana (kanat) 40b __ tonkoshi Cecropia polystachya forest Branch islands, disturbed areas along river or stream; much like C membranacea (setikoshi), sometimes used interchangeably with setikoshi 41 _ santarishi / Cedrela odorata forest Successional forest on levee island or by river, often with Ficus spp. (potogo) santavirishi 42 pariashi Cedrelinga caeteniformis forest Flat uplands, diffuse stand (old seed pine e of canopy tree C. caeteniformis (paria) with dense spam under 43. kachopitokishi Chrysochlamys cf. ulei forest On slopes at higher elevations nea m hea (kachopitoki), Tovitoma weddeliana ( corte | pe: Wettinia augusta deptto) 44 _—piamentsishi/ — Clavija cf. longifolia forest On slopes with Aulonemia apa stands of understory treelet C. pakitsashi (‘bow plant’, ‘eagle plant’) longifolia used as hunting medicin 45 __ taiirishi, Erythrina spp. forest Successional growth on river bank, ~aasanig cliffs: Erythrina spp. (taiiri [orange songaareshi ln os ene [purple]), also Luehea sp. (koshirite), Cassia/Senna spp. shim 46 = potogoshi Ficus spp. for spatercdt| forest by river or stream, often with Cedrela (santari), just (especially F. insipida) beyond beach orCecropia (inkona) zone 47 _ tiirokishi Ficus trigona swamp Floodplain swamp (‘renacal’) dominated by F. trigona (tiiroki), other aquatic species 48 kofiorishi/ konorishi Hevea brasiliensis forest Flat uplands, palm understory, with H. brasiliensis, ‘India rubber’ (kofiori), Protium (tsivaki), Parkia (sampoa) 49 —_ intsipashi Inga spp. forest Water-adapted Inga spp. (intsipa oaaku) along the forest border of swamps and small lakes 50 kovuvapishi Sagotia sp. forest On slopes with Wettinia, ref. 18 (Picha River only) 0c Te 39 CUVdHdHS LON ‘TZ ‘TOA Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 21 (tegarintsipini), also mixed with Wettinia (kepitoshi, ref. 18). In the Manu, neither of these forest types were found to occur. Instead, slopes and ridges were found to contain the small tree Clavija longifolia in the understory (piamentsishi, ref. 44). The Matsigenka name for the understory shrub Alibertia pilosa is matsityananashi, which appears to mean ‘sorcerer’s Genipa’ (the exact etymology is somewhat unclear, but the Ate eae vas the noun Stem ana, ‘Genipa’, is unmistak- able). In fact related to th an otherwise open understory in river pe stream floodplains of the Manu. Fleck and Harder (2000) note similar stands of the closely related shrub Duroia hirsuta, known as ‘devil’s swidden’ to the Matses Indians. The dominance of Duroia may be due to the presence of chemical constituents released by the plant that inhibit the TABLE 9.— Secondary or ‘weedy’ (tovasiseku) vegetation. Dialect variants separated by slash (Manu/Picha). Ref. Vegetation Translation Description Tovasiseku: ‘Place of weeds’ Weedy secondary growth 51‘ tovaseri ‘weeds’ Weeds (tovaseri), especially along trails, around house clearings, and in swidden gardens; also any weedy secondary growth 5 nN narongashi ‘tangled leaves’: dense Dense, weedy undergrowth of secondary growth herbs, shrubs, creeping vines and lianas; especially in recent treefall gaps, swidden fallows o Ww shivitsasemai ‘matted lianas’: liana forest Floodplain, stream gallery or slope orest with thick, woody lianas in understory, especially Uncaria spp. (shamento), Davilla nitida (tsororoapini), Bignoniaceae in areas of past flooding, erosion ol ie yaaroshi Cecropia sciadophylla forest | Secondary forest with C sciadophylla (yaaro), other pioneer species; old garden fallows, large wind blow-downs; also in montane forest on slopes ol oO shintishi Guazuma crinita forest Low-canopy secondary forest with G. crinita (shinti), other weedy and pioneer species in swidden fallows kogi oshivokera Tephrosia sp. “Primary” forest regrown from old (‘where fish poison grows’) or ancient swiddens, recognized by presence of barbasco fish poison kogi) uo ON a N pugoroshi Vernonia forest Young secondary growth with Vernonia spp., other weedy species in recent swidden fallows 22 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 growth of competing seedlings (Page, Madrifian and Towers 1994 cited in Fleck and Harder 2000). Though not documented, similar processes may be involved in the formation of the Alibertia pilosa stands noted by the Matsigenka. Other forest habitats are indicated by the presence of salient, sparsely abun- dant emergent trees. These include important timber species Cedrela odorata (santarishi, ref. 41), occurring in early successional forest along the river’s edge, and Cedrelinga cataeniformis (pariashi, ref. 42), occurring in flat uplands. Both spe- cies, used in the manufacture of dugout canoes by the Matsigenka, are abundant in the Manu, but are threatened or locally extinct wherever commercial logging activities are present. Hevea brasiliensis, the famous “India rubber” that provoked feverish exploitation throughout the Amazon basin at the turn of the 20th century, occurs in stands (kofiorishi, ref. 48) in flat upland areas of the Manu and Picha. Some stream gallery and disturbed forests along Manu tributaries were found to contain diffuse stands of the leguminous tree Apuleia leiocarpa (toaroshi, ref. 38), previously considered rare for Manu. Secondary Forest (Table 9). Secondary or ‘weedy’ growth (tovaseri ref. 51) is treated as a separate category by the Matsigenka, contrasting with the category of primary forest (inchatoshi, D8). Specific secondary vegetation types include vari- ous stages of forest regeneration in garden fallows dominated by weedy pioneer trees such as Guazuma (shintishi, ref. 55), Vernonia (pugoroshi, ref. 57), and Cecro- pia sciadophylla (y hi, ref. 54). The Matsigenka also recognize old garden fallows in apparently primary forest, belied by the presence of the cultivated fish poison, Tephrosia (kogi, ref. 56). Wind is an important cause of natural disturbance in up- land forests in Matsigenka territory. Moderate winds fell single trees quite commonly, causing small tree fall gaps (oterongera inchato, D3) that are quickly colonized by herbs and creeping vines, forming a dense, tangled vegetation de- scribed as narongashi (ref. 52). Strong wind storms are rare, but can topple trees throughout tens and even hundreds of hectares (Nelson and do Amaral 1994). Trees of the genus Cecropia are especially important as indicators of habitats showing various degrees of natural and human disturbance. The Matsigenka rec- ognize both wind-generated and anth dary forests by the presence of pioneer species, notably Cecropia sciadophylla (yaaroshi, ref. 54). Cecropia membranacea (setikoshi; ref. 40a) and C. polystachya (tonkoshi, ref. 40b) occur in similar habitats of early forest succession along river margins and on branch is- lands. In addition to the Cecropia species forming conspicuous stands, the Matsigenka recognize a number of additional folk species and varieties, some of which have not been assigned definitive scientific names. Not only do the Matsigenka have distinct names for virtually all the Cecropia species occurring in their territory, they also distinguish between species which the specialist of the genus, C.C. Berg, had previously considered to be the same (D. Yu, personal ob- servation). The Matsigenka taxon inkitsekago corresponds to the provisional taxonomic name C. prov. pungara, previousl idered by Berg to be identical to C. membranacea (setiko / inkona in Matsigenka, ref. 40a). Unlike the latter, inkitsekago is characterized by strongly stinging ants, and is used by the Matsigenka to make a fire drill. A similar situation is found in the case of the poly- typic Matsigenka taxon kaveari, previously included under a single species name, TABLE 10.— Montane (otishipaketira) vegetation types. Ref. Vegetation Translation Description Otishipaketira: ‘Many hills’: Andes, foothills Montane habitat general term (Table 2) 58 katarompanaki Clusia sp. forest Montane forest with katarompanaki shrub w/ paddle-shaped leaves, latex, (Clusia sp.), formerly traded as incense 59 ~—sikasankari koka Erythroxylum coca? (‘fragrant coca’) On slopes, understory with ‘fragrant coca’ (kasankari koka); said to be former Inca coca plantations 60 ~=—kashikarishi Polylepis sp. forest Montane dwarf forest characterized by kashikarishi, reddish shrub w/ narrow coriaceous leaves (Polylepis sp.) 61 yaviroshi Puya sp. stand Montane grasslands with spine-tipped terrestrial Bromeliad yaviro (Puya sp.) that ‘looks like pineapple’ 62 tsiriantiniroshi Tillandsia sp. (Spanish moss) Cloud forest, many epiphytes, notably tsiriantiniroshi, ‘mother of pineapple’ (Tillandsia, indeed a Bromeliad) 63 tipeshi Spaghnum sp. (moss) Montane; ground cover ofSpaghnum moss (tipeshi), spongy or crunchy underfoot (omakaramangaitira; Table 4, S10) (D4) potagarine ‘burnt hillside’ (Table 3) (14) segashi Oenocarpus bataua forest (Table 5) (20) songarentsishi Chusquea spp., Olyra spp. (Table 6) (25) tinkanarishi Cyathea spp. forest (Table 7) (26) tsirompishi Pteridophyta (fern) stands (Table 7) (33) shimpenashi, tiposhi Poaceae spp. (grasslands) (Table 7) (54) yaaroshi Cecropia sciadophylla forest (Table 9) (66) otyomiaigeni inchato ‘small trees’ (Table 11) (67) terira ontime inchato ‘where no trees are’ (Table 11) L00zc JeuTUINS XDOTOISONH.LA JO TVNMNO[ 24 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 C. latiloba. The Matsigenka distinguish between ‘true kaveari’ (recently recognized by botanists as C. prov. puberula) and ‘kaveari adjacent to the water’ (C. latiloba), accurately noting the ecological difference between two otherwise quite similar species. Bark fibers from both kaveari species are used to make bowstrings. Kirajari tamarotsa (‘red tamarotsa’) is a new species' of Cecropia that is closely related to but distinct from C. engleriana, known as kutari tamarotsa (‘white tamarotsa’) by the Matsigenka. Both species have fibers used in the manufacture of net bags. Montane Forest (Table 10). In 1997, Shepard worked with a team from Conser- vation International as part of their “Rapid Assessment Program” (RAP) in the Cordillera Vilcabamba (Schulenberg in press). By conducting community map- ping exercises, the team was able to generate a highly detailed picture of the spatial distribution of resources and habitats throughout the Picha basin in just a few weeks of fieldwork (Shepard and Chicchon in press). One of the most surprising findings was a remarkably detailed knowledge among lowland Matsigenka communities about high-elevation vegetation types including cloud forest and high-Andean grasslands. This knowledge included details of the plants’ colors, forms, odors and other characters sufficient to allow an approximate scientific identification for most of the plants (see Table 10). Many of these identifications were confirmed later by botanists working in the rapid biodiversity assessment of the Vilcabamba mountain range. Though contemporary Matsigenka communities are located on the lower courses of the Picha and its tributaries, oral histories re- veal that the Matsigenka inhabited the headwaters of the river system until relatively recent times. Some ities migrated across the Vilcabamba moun- tain range to and from the adjacent Tambo and Mantaro river systems to escape epidemic diseases or persecution during the rubber fever, the hacienda slave trade through mid-century, and the political violence of the 1980’s. Younger generations maintain accurate ecological knowledge of distant vegetational and faunal com- munities they have never seen by means of a rich and active oral tradition. The Matsigenka of the Picha accurately describe cloud forests cont g small, twisted trees (otyomiaigi inchato, ref. 68), tree ferns and terrestrial ferns (tinkanarishi, tsirompishi, ref. 25, 26), bromeliads and orchids (keshi, ananta, see ref. 68), and the ubiquitous garlands of Spanish moss (Tillandsia, a pineapple rela- tive), known in Matsigenka as tsiriantiniro, ‘mother of pineapple’ (ref. 62). Informants also described hilly regions with ‘spongy, long-haired soil’ (omakaramangaitira, ref. S10), apparently referring to the presence of accumu- lated Spaghnum moss (tipeshi, ref. 63). In the summer months, this vegetation is said to become extremely dry and burns easily like kindling. At least one moun- tain with this kind of vegetation in the Picha headwaters is known as Potagarine (ref. D4), ‘burnt mountain’. Folk tales describe ancient trading relations between the Matsigenka and the Inca Empire, and explain the presence of stands of a fra- grant variety or species of Erythroxylum (kasankari koka, ‘fragrant coca’, ref. 59) on some hillsides, said to be former Inca coca plantations. The Matsigenka de- scribe a number of other montane and Andean grassland elements, for example: kurikiipinishi, “shrub with glossy, spiny leaves” (Ilex; see ref. 68); oevaroshi, “shrub with fragrant leaves, white underside, many small seeds” (Asteraceae or Ericaceae, see ref. 68); yaviroshi (ref. 61), “plant with spine-tipped leaves that looks some- TABLE 11.— Habitats defined by overall vegetative aspect. Dialect variants separated by slash (Manu/Picha). Ref. Vegetation Translation Description 64 = kusokiri inchato ‘hard wood trees’ Uplands, primary forest with large diameter hardwood trees, notably sandy-barked Chrysobalanaceae (mapumetike, ‘stone tree’); difficult to fell with ax for swidden agriculture 65 kurayongashi / ‘high leaf forest’, High canopy forest: in floodplain, mature, late successional forest karororoempeshi ‘high branching forest’ (nigankivoge) with large trees (Table 1, T6); in uplands, on ridges and along small stream valleys, large canopy trees with high, spreading crowns; it is difficult to hunt arboreal animals because of height of branches; includesSwietenia macrophylla (yopo), Cariniana spp. (tsirotonaki), Copaifera spp. (kumpe, koveni), Lauraceae (inchoviki), Sloanea sp. (asingiritaki), Huberodendron? (yomenta), other specie 66 okametira ‘good place’: i.e., for walking, | Mature lowland forest, upland terraces and wide, flat ridge crests; forest forest with open understory with medium to high canopy, widely spaced emergent trees, and open understory with few understory palms, lianas or treefalls 67 ~—_ oshavishitira ‘low leaves’: low canopy forest In uplands: low canopy forest of shrubs, small trees, lianas on eroded soils, clay, or white sand (sokopane); in floodplain: on contractile clay soils, usually with yaivero bamboo 68 otyomiaigeni inchato ‘small trees’: dwarf forest Montane (see Table 10): elfin cloud forest, small, twisted trees, many epiphytes e.g., Spanish moss (tsiriantiniro), lichens (tsigiri), Bromeliads / Orchids (keshi, ananta). Cyclanthaceae (evanaro); ferns (tsirompi), Selaginella (kamu); trees include oevaroshi, ‘fragrant, white leaf, man seeds’ (Asteraceae/Ericaceae?), sangavantoshi (?), Ilex (kurikiipinishi), Melastomataceae (savotaroki), Cyathea (tinganari) 69 terira ontime inchato ‘where no trees are’ Andean grasslands (Table 10), mountains above tree line, very cold (katsingari (D8) inchatoshi ‘tree leaves’: primary forest (Table 3) (51) tovaseri ‘weeds’ (Table 9) (52) narongashi ‘tangled leaves’: dense (Table 9) secondary growth (53) shivitsasemai ‘matted lianas’: liana forest (Table 9) LO007Z JouruINS KOO TOISONHLA JO TVNNOL SZ TABLE 12.— Habitats defined by faunal associations. Ref. Habitat Translation Description / Associated Vegetation Fl irapitarikimaro ‘where macaws sit’: macaw clay lick Guadua sp. bamboo (yaivero), contractile clay soils (kusomiriakipatsa) F2 __itsimini ‘their licking place’: animal mineral lick | Guadua sp. bamboo (yaivero), Aulonemia bamboo (samatsi), red clay soils (kiraapatsa F3 vuimpuyoseku,/ ‘place of the screaming piha’, Singing grounds of the screaming piha, Lipaugus vociferans itime kovutatsirira ‘where the guardians live’ (vuimpuyo), mostly in flat uplands with Wettinia (kepito), Socratea salazarii (kompapari) F4 — matyaniroshi ‘fire ant forest’ Forest containing large numbers of small fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata (matyaniro ), often associated with tangled under story (narongashi) in the uplands; gardens or house sites found to contain this ant are abandoned to avoid massive stinging which can cause serious illness or (in eyes) blindness F5 =matyagirokishi _—‘ant shrub forest’ Small clearings formed by mutualistic relationship of Cordia nodosa shrub (matyagiroki) and Myrmelachista ants (iriite, matyaniro); Cordia clearings in uplands on F6 —sakaroshi ‘ant garden forest’ Especially in swamps; large numbers of ant-garden ants (sakaro), especially Campanotus, on host plants Codonanthe (kimaroshi), Peperomia (sakaropini), and others F7 _—ikepage animal den Animal den in overturned roots of trees, especially in high- turnover upland forests with understory palms 92 Te 9 GUVdaHS TON ‘TZ ‘TOA Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY a7 what like pineapple” (Puya); kashikarishi (ref. 60), “shrub with red, narrow lan- ceolate leaves” (probably Polylepis); and katarompanaki, “tree with latex and paddle-shaped leaves” (Clusia), the latex of which was formerly traded as incense. Overall Vegetative Aspect (Table 11). Additional Matsigenka habitat terms re- fer to overall vegetative characteristics or forest architecture. High canopy forests (kurayongashi, ‘high leaves’/ karororoempeshi, ‘high, ramifying branches’, ref. 65) occur in mature lowland forest (nigankivoge, T6), stream gallery forests (T8, T9), and along ridges adjacent to streams. Forests with an open understory are referred to in general as okametira, literally ‘good place,’ i.e., for walking (ref. 66). Hardwood forests (kusokiri inchato, ref. 64) are found in flat upland areas, char- acterized by numerous large-diameter trees with hard trunks, especially silica-containing Chrysobalanaceae (mapumetike, literally ‘stone tree’). Such ar- eas were impossible to clear for agriculture before high: quality steel axes were introduced (or re-introduced) to isolated ) beginning in the 1950's, and are still avoided if possible. Low canopy forests (oshavishitira, ref. 67) occur on eroded or white sand soils in the uplands, as well as in disturbed areas. Forests with tangled undergrowth (narongashi, ref. 52) and lianas (shivitsasemai, ref. 53) are also found in disturbed areas, especially river and stream floodplains. Matsigenka of both the Picha and Manu are aware of the presence of dwarf or cloud forests (shaveigi inchato, ref. 68) in the foothills, and of Andean grasslands at high elevations beyond which trees do not grow (terira ontime inchato, ref. 69). Faunal Characteristics (Table 12). In a few cases, the Matsigenka describe habi- tats according to specific faunal associations. The Matsigenka distinguish between clay licks (irapitari, F1) on cliffs or along the river’s edge, visited mostly by ma- caws, and mineral licks (itsimini, F2) visited by both birds and mammals, usually along stream beds or eroded banks. Both are associated with red clay and contrac- tile clay soils (S6,S7) and, in the case of macaw clay clicks, with yaiveroshi bamboo forest (ref. 23). Both are also important places for hunting, especially from blinds. Singing grounds of the screaming piha bird (Lipaugus vociferans) are often found in flat, primary forest in the uplands, and are described by the Matsigenka as a forest type unto its own, vuimpuyoseku (‘screaming piha place’, F3). The Matsigenka consider the screaming piha (vuimpuyo or kovutatsirira, ‘guardian’) to be a guardian spirit of shamans, and its voice is likened to shamanistic singing. Certain ant species form associations with some kinds of vegetation, also noted by the Matsigenka as salient forest types (F4-F6). Perceptual Features of Classification.— The Matsigenka use several sets of dichoto- mous, paired terms to distinguish perceptually salient groups of organisms. Some of the terms have been discussed individually above, but it is instructive to recre- ate the dichotomous pairs. Examples include: ¢ Flatland (pampa ) vs. Montane (otishi) vegetation; ¢ River’s mouth (otsitiaaku) vs. Headwater (oyashiaaku) species and habitats; ¢ River’s edge or aquatic (oaaku) vs. forest interior (niganki, ‘middle’); ¢ Weedy secondary growth (tovaseri) vs. Primary forest (inchatoshi); ¢ Terrestrial (saaviku, ‘below’) vs. Arboreal habit (enoku, ‘above’); ¢ Women’s (ashi tsinani) vs. Men’s (irashi surari) medicinal plants (see Shepard in press); 28 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 ¢ Diurnal (yanutake kutagiteri, ‘walks at day’) vs. Noctural habit (yanutake tsiteniyeti, ‘walks at night’); ¢ Wild (inkenishiku, ‘in the forest’; kogapage, ‘on its own’) vs. Domesticated or tamed plant and animal species (pankirintsi, ‘planted’; piraatsi, ‘reared, raised as a pet’); ¢ Native (kantani pairani, “always since ancient times”) vs. Introduced crops, animals, pests and diseases (irashi virakocha, “of the whites”; oponia kamatitya, “comes from down river”) Such examples further complicate a strictly hierarchical interpretation of in- digenous habitat classification. Depending upon the perceptual bias of the speaker, species and environments can be classified and grouped according to a number of equally valid categories. Spiritual Ecology.— Matsigenka knowledge of forest ecology is an integral part of mythology, cosmology, religion, and spiritual beliefs. For the Matsigenka, shamans play an important role in people’s interaction with the environment. The shaman develops a relationship with a spirit twin among the Sangariite, benevolent spir- its of the forest, by taking tobacco and other psychoactive plants (Baer 1992; Shepard 1998). The Sangariite themselves are invisible in ordinary states of consciousness, inhabiting a remote plane of existence accessible only to shamans. However the locations of their villages (or at least, pale manifestations thereof on this plane of existence) are perceptible as small, natural clearings in the understory of some upland forests. For the ecologist, these clearings are created by the symbiotic rela- tionship between the shrub Cordia nodosa and the mutualistic ant genus Myrmelachista (Davidson and McKey 1993). Matsigenka names for this forest type reflect both mundane and supernatural understandings of its nature: ‘ant-shrub forest’ (matyagirokishi; Table 12, F5), ‘village of the invisible ones’ (itimira Sangariite), or simply ‘clearing’ (karapage; Table 3, A3). Though recognizing the ant-plant symbiosis, the Matsigenka attribute the ul- timate cause of the clearings to the activities of the invisible Sangariite, who, like humans, clear the forest and cultivate swidden gardens. By taking hallucinogenic plants, Matsigenka shamans are able to perceive the true, hidden nature of these enigmatic places and thus gain access to the invisible villages of the all-powerful Sangariite. The Sangariite raise as their pets all the game animals eaten by the Matsigenka (Baer 1984), and shamans may bargain with them to improve local hunting conditions. The Sangariite are also said to provide Matsigenka shamans with new crop cultivars for their gardens, especially manioc and medicinal sedges of the genus Cyperus (Shepard 1999b). Such an example sounds quaint, but not particularly relevant to Western sci- entists. However a closer look led to an interesting discovery. The Matsigenka pointed out distinctive scars and swellings visible on adjacent tree trunks in areas where Cordia ee have ‘been established for long periods of time. For the h f the other-worldly fires set by the Saangariite to clear gardens around their villages. Shepard pointed out these scars to Yu, who found that they were in fact (at least in this plane of existence) trunk galls created and inhabited by Myrmelachista worker ants. This is the first time that ants have Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 22 been found to gall plants. The increased colony longevity resulting from the be- havior helps to explain Myrmelachista’s mysterious persistence in the face of competition from other ant species, previously assumed to be superior competi- tors that can also inhabit Cordia nodosa. Thus, Matsigenka observations led to a new insight into the important theoretical problem of species coexistence. The ecology and taxonomy of bamboos are also incorporated within the Matsigenka belief system. Kapiro bamboo, Guadua weberbaueri (ref. 22), used by the Matsigenka to manufacture arrow points, undergoes synchronous flowering and fruiting on long cycles of 15 to 30 years (Nelson 1994). After fruiting, kapiroshi stands throughout an entire nagion fie and decay, growing back from seeds over a period of several years. The Matsi the die-back of kapiroshi stands to the magical powers of shamans. Through the early 1980's, the Matsigenka of the Manu river were raided and attacked periodically by a hostile is sland sid enous group, the Yora or “Nahua” (Shepard 1999a), resulting in and deaths on both sides. One respected (and feared) Matsigenka shaman/sorcerer had lost many family members to Yora raids in the headwaters of the Manu River, and was wounded himself. According to local accounts, he recovered a long bone from the skeleton of a Yora man killed during a raid in about 1978, split open a length of kapiro bamboo stem, inserted the bone, applied a mixture of dangerous plants known only to sorcerers, tied the bamboo stem shut, and buried it in a large stand of bamboo. In 1981 or 1982, kapiroshi bamboo stands — the region flowered, fruited, and died. For the } die-back of kapiroshi was caused intentionally by the sorcerer so that the Yora would suffer a shortage of bamboo for arrows and thus stop attacking the Matsigenka. The Matsigenka also attribute the epidemics that decimated the Yora population beginning in 1985 (see Zarzar 1987) to this act of sorcery. After kapiroshi bamboo stands die, arrow-making material becomes scarce for a period of one to two years during which the bamboo grows back. A number of alternate Guadua species of similar stem size to kapiro are available, for ex- ample yaivero (ref. 23) and shinkerokota (ref. 24). However the Matsigenka consider these species inappropriate as material for arrow points due to spiritual considerations. It is said that if one kills monkeys or other animals with arrow points made from yaivero or shinkerokota, the Sangariite spirits become angry and send game animal populations far away. This belief may have its basis in empirical observations. The alternate bamboos may be simply less effective at kill- ing prey, leaving more wounded animals to die later. Furthermore, in the aftermath of a major alteration in forest structure such as caused by massive kapiro bamboo fruiting and die-back, the behavior and territorial distribution of game animals may indeed change. Hunters must certainly be tempted, and perhaps at times obliged, to use alternate bamboo species during the ensuing shortage of kapiro bamboo for arrow points. The coincidence between the use of alternate bamboos and possible alterations in game animal behavior might have led to these beliefs. The prohibition might also represent an unconscious adaptive strategy of long- term game conservation. Every 15 to 30 years, during the year or two of kapiro bamboo shortage, Matsigenka hunters who indeed follow the proscribed bamboo avoidance would either have to reduce their hunting of game animals, or migrate 30 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 to a distant area where independent kapiro stands in a different stage of the life- cycle could be found. In either case, or even if neither interpretation is correct, the prohibition of alternate bamboo species reflects a principle of ecological homeo- stasis that pervades Matsigenka beliefs and practices. For the Matsigenka and other indigenous Amazonian groups (see Reichel-Dolmatoff 1976), interactions between humans and the natural world are regulated by a system of checks and balances. When humans violate certain natural and supernatural principles, Nature settles her scores with a vengeance (Shepard in press). COMPARATIVE ASPECTS OF HABITAT CLASSIFICATION BY NATIVE AMAZONIANS Though often more descriptive th tive in focus, ethnobiological stud- ies demonstrate their true power and importance when applied in a comparative context: data from different indigenous and folk societies are compared with one another, and indigenous knowledge is compared to that of Western science. Else- where, we have compared the vision of forest as seen by the Matsigenka with that seen by tropical ecologists and LANDSAT satellites (Shepard et al. in press). Here, we compare the results of our study with those of other published research on habitat classification among Native Amazonians. The forest classification systems of indigenous Amazonian populations have been studied by only a handful of researchers. Carneiro (1978) carried out one of the first systematic studies of tree classification by a Native Amazonian people, and briefly mentions the main forest habitats recognized by the Kuikuru of Brazil: primary forest, early secondary growth (weeds), regrown secondary forest, and gallery forest (forest adjacent to rivers or lakes). Posey (see Parker et al. 1983: 170- 171) outlines the major ecological zones recognized by the Kayapé of Brazil: grasslands (kapét), mountains (Krai), and forest (ba). The category of forest is fur- ther divided into gallery forest, d jungle, high forest, and forest with openings caused by accumulated water; gallery pee is further divided into different zones relating to closeness to water. The category of grasslands is also divided into five vegetative types depending on the height of the grass and the relative abundance of trees. Transitional zones between vegetation types are also important in Kayap6 habitat classification, subsistence, and village placement. Posey notes that the Kayap6 choose their village sites strategically to take advantage of the maximum possible diversity of ecological zones: for example, eight distinct vegetation types and two transitional zones are located within the vicinity of Gorotire village. In the same publication, Frechione (ibid.: 178-179) describes soil types and vegetative indicators used by the Venezuelan Yekuana to select garden sites. Ten forest types are discussed. Of these, forests dominated by vines/lianas, bamboo, wild plantains, and two unidentified tree species are suitable for agriculture. The remaining categories are not suitable for t savanna , palm swamps, other wet forests, forest on steep slopes, and sacred burial grounds. Balée’s (1994) inno- vative ethnobotanical study among the Ka’apor of Brazil included exhaustive botanical surveys of eight one-hectare tree plots. Balée compares species composi- tion between two of the forest types recognized by the Ka’apor, old garden fallows Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 31 and primary forest, and concludes that srs oat agricultural practices may en- hance the biological diversity of Amazonian fore Andrello (1998) provides a preliminary a of fifty-three natural habi- tat types recognized by the Baniwa Indians of the Upper Rio Negro in Brazil. Most habitat types are defined according to the presence of indicator species, many of which have economic importance for the Baniwa. For some habitat types, soil types are included within the definition. Specific habitat types are divided among three broad categories defined by flooding regime and soils: edzaua (terra firme up- lands), arapé (igapo flooded forest), and ramariene (nutrient-poor campinarana white sand forest). Secondary forest is treated as a separate category, reinhame (‘used place’) and is further sub-divided into multiple vegetation types defined according to the presence of useful species. Unfortunately, the study was carried out in a brief time period, and does not include botanical identifications for indi- cator species, though some species (especially palms) might be identifiable at least to genus based on common name identifications provided. The most thorough study to date of forest classification by Native Amazonians is Fleck’s (1997) remarkable master’s thesis on Matses (Mayoruna) ethnozoology. Fleck describes 47 vegetation types recognized by the Matses within the Galvez River basin in eastern Peru. By combining vegetative and geomorphologic desig- nations, the Matses are able distinguish 178 different habitats. Fleck demonstrates statistically significant differences in vegetation and small mammal fauna among a sample of Matses-defined habitats, demonstrating the ecological relevance of indigenous knowledge (Fleck and Harder 2000). Though the Matsigenka and Matses belong to distinct language families (Arawakan and Panoan) and live some 600 kilometers apart, and though we were not aware of Fleck’s work until after completing our first two field seasons, the results of the two studies show remark- ably similar overall patterns. The Matsigenka and Matses distinguish many of the same vegetation types, for example: Attalea tesmanii palm forest, A. butyracea palm forest, Bactris spp. palm forest, Phytelephas macrocarpa palm forest, Euterpe precatoria palm forest, Mauritia flexuosa palm forest, Oenocarpus bataua palm forest, Cecropia spp. secondary forests, Cedrela forest, Ficus forest, bamboo forest, liana forest, and low-canopy forest on eroded or white sand soils. Both groups rely on many of the same criteria when describing forest habitats: t y, distance from the river, flooding regimes, drainage patterns, and indicator s species, especially palms. Geo- morphologic (topographic/hydrologic) habitat classification of the Matses and Matsigenka is virtually identical. Both recognize a number of habitats not cur- rently described in the scientific literature, especially in the poorly studied upland terra firme. Considering the various studies of indigenous habitat classification together, several common themes and patterns emerge. Abiotic and biotic factors are con- sidered somewhat independently. Abiotic factors (topography, flooding and disturbance regimes, soils) are used to distinguish a small number of general cat- egories. The distinction between floodplain (also called gallery forest, lowlands, igapo, etc.) and mpionds kterra ome) is found i in all iin ates ayers: and is Also, the distinction between primary forest and secondary forest, including various stages of swidden fallow 32 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 regeneration, also appears as a salient category in all systems. Depending on the particular ecological setting, swamps, mountains, savannas or grasslands, and white sand forests (campinarana) are also recognized as distinct higher-order cat- egories. Within general abiotic categories, biotic features, mostly indicator plant species, are used to define more specific habitat types. Palms seem to be especially important as indicator species. In several cases, authors mention habitats defined by overall forest architecture, for example liana forests, low-canopy forest, high- canopy forest, and bamboo forest. There are differences between the various systems, which may be due to cultural variation as well as ecological differences between the widely separated regions. Nonetheless, we perceive an overall pat- tern of extraordinary concordance between habitat classification by culturally distinct and geographically separated groups. CONCLUSION: ETHNOECOLOGY AND THE FUTURE OF AMAZONIA Tropical forests and their peoples are increasingly threatened by the global economy. Much of Amazonia remains virtually unstudied in terms of basic floris- tic and faunal composition (Nelson et al. 1990; Patton et al. 1997; Tuomisto 1998; Terborgh 1999). Indigenous and folk knowledge about the environment represents a vast and underutilized database about habitat diversity, species distributions, ecological interactions among organisms, economically important species, and sustainable management practices (Posey 1983). aoe knowledge about habitat diversity is a particularly important area for ft ical research in Amazonia. Considering the highly detailed habitat knowledge of indigenous groups such as the Matsigenka and the Matses, and considering the similarities ound amc ng habitat cl tems of multiple indigenous groups, it seems plausible that further ethnoecological research could contribute to the scientific study of tropical forest diversity in the Amazon basin. Indigenous habitat knowl- edge in combination with GPS and satellite technology proves to be a particularly power tool for carrying out studies of habitat diversity at local, and perhaps broader regional scales (Shepard et al. in press). Ethnobiological/ etl ical research methods iat for carrying out rapid ecological evaluations (see Sobrevilla and Bath 1992) i in in- digenous territories. For example, Conservation International's rapid biodiversity assessment (RAP) in the Cordillera Vilcabamba (Schulenberg in press) included resource and habitat mapping exercises with local Matsigenka communities. As a result of the efforts of Conservation International and other Peruvian organiza- tions, the Vilcabamba may soon be granted legal status as a protected natural area linked with two large, indigenous reserves. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWE) has recently financed a study of feasibility of community-based manage- ment of the proposed reserves, and will certainly draw on the ethnoecological data generated by the Conservation International “ethno-RAP” team (Shepard and Chicchon in press). In collaboration with the Peruvian Institute of Natural Re- sources (INRENA), the World Bank is currently financing a study to implement indigenous management programs for selected natural protected areas in other parts of Peru. With European funding, the Brazilian National Indian Foundation Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 33 (FUNAI) has recently initiated a program (PPTAL) of rapid ethnoecological as- sessments in indigenous territories as a first step toward implementing participatory management plans specific to each territory. By collaborating with indigenous communities, tropical ecologists, and conservation organizations, ethnobiologists could assist in the integration of folk and scientific knowledge in any number of basic and applied research projects. Ethnobiological research, broadly conceived, is an important tool in document- ing and preserving biocultural diversity. In addition to its scientific or practical value, ethnobiological study also reveals the spiritual importance of ecological processes in the native worldview. Studying traditional knowledge carries with it a great ethi- cal responsibility, both in terms of returning benefits derived from research as well as respecting and safeguarding sacred aspects of this knowledge. Ultimately, ethnobiological research can serve to build bridges of mutual understanding and respect between local people and Western scientists and conservationists, and may prove crucial in advancing international conservation goals. NOTES ' Nelson et al. (1990) provide a striking example of the use and abuse of biased data to arrive at conclusions about biodiversity patterns at large scales. Centers of species diver- sity and endemism, assumed by tocene, turned out to correlate strongly with foci of collection effort. Not surprisingly, ar- eas that have been collected intensively show high degrees of species diversity and ende- mism, while areas that have been poorly collected show low diversity and endemism! 2 All Matsigenka terms in the text and tables are written using the practical orthography oe Py Snell (1998). Matsigenka and other indigenous language terms are written in bold italic 3The uplands or interfluvium are commonly | referred to in the scientific literature as terra firme, ‘solid earth’, t g as codified by Pires and Prance (1985). 4The authors have been in contact with Cecropia specialist C.C. Berg about the possibility of assigning a ae name to the new species. The names suggested include C. tamarotsa, reflectin l name for the species, and C. sia referring to the net bags (jempo) fade by the Matsincake from the species’ bark fibers 5 The Matsigenka term kogapage is rather hard to translate into English, since it means simultaneously “on its own,” “for no good reason,” and “useless.” The concept is easier to encapsulate in the Spanish expression, asi no mas! 34 SHEPARD et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Major funding for this study was provided by the A.L. Green Fund of Harvard University. We thank Edward O. Wilson for considering our project for the award, and Kathleen Horton for her efficiency and courtesy handling the disbursements. Additional funding for preliminary phases of the project was provided by the Wenner-Gren Foundation (1995, 1997), the National Science Foundation (1996), Conservation International (1997), and Centro de Orientamento Educacional (1998). Institutional support was provided by Asociacién Peruana para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza (APECO) and by the herbarium of Universidad Nacional San Marcos (UNSM), Lima. We thank our Peruvian colleagues Joquina Alban and Hamilton Beltran (UNSM) for their collaboration in the project. We would also like to thank Ada Castillo (Manu National Park), Cesar Uchima (INRENA), Silvia Sanchez (APECO), and Alejandro Smith (APECO) for their kind assistance in many matters, Robin sscrineal and ayana Wachter of the Chicago Field Museum provided invaluable f botanical vouchers. We thank two anonymous reviewers for many helpful suggestions, and one anonymous reviewer in particular for suggesting that we explore the role of perceptual dichotomies (e.g., arboreal vs. terrestrial habit) in Matsigenka perceptions of the environment. We thank Luisa Maffi and Thomas Carlson for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. To David Fleck, we acknowledge our appreciation for a productive exchange of ideas, and for sharing unpublished data. We thank Patrick Klemawesch and “la comisién de visita conyugal,” Maria Nazareth F. da Silva and Sophie Adams, for their hard work, patience, and excellent company in crossing the Y2K threshhold without mishap. On this note, we also thank the elusive Togyeri for holding their fire. David Sidaris provided life-saving, comic relief during an arduous week of portage. Finally, thanks to Alejandra Araos, Carlos Avanti, Cesar Avanti, Alejo Matsipanko, Merino Matsipanko, Manuel Maviti, Casiano Nontyogitso, Agosto Oyeyoyeyo, Rani Rios, Ismael Vicente, Mariano Vicente, Mew Vicente: Lucho. Yoveni, Celsor, Manuel, Lucio, and many other Matsigenka = LITERATURE CITED ANDRELLO, GERALDO. 1998. O ambiente natural e a ocupagao tradicional dos povos indigenas. Pp. 55-71 in Povos Indigenas do Alto e Médio Rio Negro: Uma Introducao a Diversidade Cultural e Ambiental do Noroeste da Amazénia Brasileira, Aloisio Cabalzar and Carlos Alberto Ricardo (editors). Instituto Socioambiental (ISA)/ Federacao das Organizacg6des Indigenas do Rio Negro lo. RD. 1984. Die Religion me Matsigenka, Ost Peru. Wepf & Co. Yee Basel. epee 2. The one intoxicated by abate: Matsigenka shamanism. Pp. 79- 100 in Portals of Power: Shamanism in South America, Jean Matteson-Langdon and Gerhard Baer (editors). University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque BAKSH, MICHAEL GEORGE. 1984. Cultural Ecology and Change of the Machiguenga Indians of the Peruvian Amazon Pri. dissertation (Anthropology), University of California, Los Angeles. BALEE, WILLIAM. 1994. Footprints of the Forest: Ka’apor Ethnobotany: The Historical Ecology of Plant Utilization an Amazonian People. Columbia University Press, New York. BALICK, MICHAEL J. 1984. Ethnobotany of palms in the ee ie Advances in Economic Botany 1:9-2 BERLIN, BRENT. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of and Animals in Categorization of Plants als Princeton Traditional Societies. Pranars: Press, Princeton. Summer 2001 , DENNIS BREEDLOVE and PETER RAVEN. 1973. General principles of sweet Nea tion an erican Anthropologist 75: 214-242. ,and___. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal Plant t Classification: An Introduction — otanical Ethnography Ty Mayan-Speaking People of a Chiapas. Academic Press, New Y and PAUL KAY. 1969. Basic Color Tow Their Universality and Evolution. University of California Press, Berkeley. BULMER, RALPH. 1974. Folk biology in the New Guinea highlands. Social Science Information 13(4/5):9-28 CAMINO, ALEJANDRO. 1977. — correrias e intercambio entre Amazonia Peruana 1(2):123-140. CARNEIRO, ROBERT. 1978. The knowlege and use of rainforest trees by the Kuikuru Indians of central Brazil. i. 201-16 in The Nature and Statu Ethnobotany, Richard I. Ford (at. Anthropological Papers, No. Aut isin 7 Michigan, Ann Arbor CLARK, D. B., D. A. CLARK and J. M. READ. 1998. Edaphic variation and the mesoscale distribution of tree species in a neotropical rain forest. Journal of Ecology 112. CONDIT, R. 1996. ne and mapping vegetation types in mega-diverse tropical ean Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:4-5. CONKLIN, HAROLD C. 1954. The Relation of Hanun6o Culture to the Plant World. .D. dissertation (Forestry), Yale University, New Haven. . 1955. Hanunoo color categories. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(4):339-344. — 19Or. Hanunoo Agriculture, a ae pee in the Phillipines. Forestry Development Paper, No. 12. FAO, Rome. . Lexicographical treatment of folk taxonomies. Pp. 41-59 in Cognitive Anthropology, cones Tyler (editor). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 35 . 1972. Folk Classification: A Topically Arranged Bibliography of ontemporary and _ Background References through ‘1971. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven D’ANS, ANDRE-MARCEL. 1981. Encounter in Peru. Pp. 145-162 in Is God an American? An Anthropological Perspective on the Missionary Work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Seren Hvalkopf and Peter Aa (editors). International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), Copenhagen DAVIDSON, D.W. and D. MCKEY. 1993. Ant-plant symbioses: Stalking the Chuyachaqui. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:326-332. DIAMOND, J.M. 1966. Zoological classification system of a primitive people. Science 151:1102-1104. ENCARNACION, FILOMENO. 1993. El bosque y las formaciones vegetales en la llanura amazénica del Peru. Alma Mater 6:95-114. Universidad Nacional de San Marcos, Lim azon. M. — saa Ohio State University, Col = —— JOHN D. HARDER. 2000. _ Matses Indian rainforest habitat and mammalian n Amazonian owe Journal of Ethnobiology 20(1):1- FOSTER, ROBIN B. 19908. The floristic forest. Pp. 99-111 in Four Neotropical Rainforests, Alwyn H. Gentry a Yale er egg Press, New Haven . 1990b. Long-term change in 1 the ~~ successional forest community of the Rio Manu floodplain. Pp. 565-572 in Four Neotropical Rainforests, Alwyn H. Gentry (editor). Yale University Press, ew Haven. FRAKE, CHARLES O. 1961. The diagnosis of disease among the Subanun of Mindanao. American Anthropologist 63:113-132. 36 SHEPARD et al. . 1964. The ethnographic study of cognitive systems. Pp. 28-41 in Cognitive Anthropology, Stephen aa (editor). Waveland Press, Prospec Hights, Illinois. GENTRY, ALWYN H. 1988a. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental geographical gradients. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 75:1-34. Ei anne | ree species richness of upper Amazonian forests. Proceedings of the National — of Science 85(January ‘88):15 GOODENOUGH, WARD. 1957. Cultural Series on Lan 9:167-173. HUNN, EUGENE S. 1977. Tzeltal Folk ology: The Classification of Discontinuities in Nature. Academic guage and Linguistics Press, New York. JOHNSON, ALLEN. 1983. Machiguenga gardens. Pp. 29-63 in ans gg “opie of Native Amazonians, R. Hames and W. Vickers fecaore). Acudenie Press, New York. -H.H. MIELKE, D.J. HARVEY and MM. CASAGRANDE. 1996. Taxonomic composition and ecological structure of ie species-rich butterfly community at Pakitza, is Nacional del Manu, Pert. Pp. 217 The Biodiversity a Southeastern Peru, D.E. Wilson and A. Sandoval (editors). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. LYON, PATRICIA J. 1976. Dislocacién tribal y clasificaciones lingiiisticas en la zona del Rio Madre de Dios. Pp. 185-207 in Actas y Memorias, XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Lima, 2-9 de agosto, 1970), Vol. 5. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima. —__——. 1981. An imaginary frontier: Prehistoric highland-lowland interchange in the southern Peruvian Andes. Pp. 2-16 in Networks of the Past: Regional Interaction in Sere ari (Proceedings of the XII Annual Conference of the te a nae of Calgary), ee deere a nse and P.G. Duke (editors). University of Calgary Axchaslowea! Association, Calgary. Vol. 21, No. 1 ieee CARLOS and ALONSO ZARZAR. Carlos Yanez (editors). Biblos S.A. (GEF/UNDP/UNOPS), Lima. NELSON, B., C.A.C. FERREIRA, M.F. DA SILVA AND M.L. KAWALSKI. 1990. centers, refugia and botanical collection density in Brazilian Amazonia. Nature 345:714-716. isla . Natural forest disturbance and change in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote age Review 10:105-125. AO AMARAL 1994. Destledive wind effects deletiod tat, eimai and Remote Sensing Remeines 339-34 EH, £.E:;-5. MADRINIAN and G.H.N. TOWERS. 1994. Identification of a plant growth inhibiting iridoid lactone ye Duroia hirsuta, th ‘Devil’s Garden’. Experientia 50: 840- 842. PARKER, EUGENE, DARRELL POSEY, OHN FRECHIONE Z PRANCELINO DA SILVA. oO Museum of Natural History 52(8):163- 203. PATTON, JAMES L., MARIA NAZARETH DA SILVA, MARCIA C. LARA and MEIKA MUSTRANGI. 1997. Diversity, differentiation and the historical biogeography of nonvolant small mammals of the neotropical forests. Pp. 455-465 in Tropical Forest Fragments: cone Management and sha vation Fragmented mmunities, William F. Laurance and Richard O. Jr. Bierregaard (editors). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. PIRES, JOAO MURCA and GHILLEAN T. PRANCE. 1985. The vegetation types of the Brazilian Amazon. Pp. 109-145 in : homas E. Lovejoy (editors). Pergamon Press/IUCN, Oxford and New York. Summer 2001 POSEY, DARRELL A. 1979, Ethnoentomology of the Gorotire Kayapo of Central Brazi : dissertation speed University of Georgia, Athens. So 1963. Indigenous ct: pi knowledge and development of the Amazon. Pp. 225-58 in The paladin of Amazonian Development, Emilio F. Moran (editor). Westview Press, ibe Colorado. Pes noe WILLIAM BALEE (editors). 1989. masdatee Manage i Amazonia: Indigenous nee Folk Sg pr Advances in Economic Botany, Vol. 7. New York Botanical Gardens, New York. REICHEL-DOLMATOFF, GERARDO. 1976. Cosmology as ecological analysis: A view from the rain forest. Man 11(3):307- 318. RENARD-CASEVITZ, FRANCE MARIE, THIERRY H. SAIGNES and ANNE CHRISTINE TAYLOR. 1988. Al Este de los Andes: Relaciones entre las los Siglos XV y XVII. Ediciones Abya- Yala/IFEA, Quito. RUMMENHOLLER, KLAUS. 1985. Von Informationsstelle Lateinamerika, Bonn SALO, J., R. KALLIOLA, 1 HAKKINEN, Y. NEN, P. NIEMELA, M. PUHAKKA and P.D. COLEY. 1986. River dynamics and the diversity of Amazon lowland forest. Nature 322:254- 258 SCHULENBERG, THOMAS S. (editor) in the Northern Cordillera Peru. RAP Working Pines. No. 11. International, SHEPARD, GLENN H. JR. 1997. Noun classification and ethnozoological Langua 1:29-57. Department of eo gata University of Pittsburgh, Senses in two Amazon ore n pre subsistence and worldvie JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 37 8. Psychoactive plants and er ve ed ric medicines of the Matsigenka. cpt of Psychoactive Drugs 30(4):321-3 . 1999a. Pharmacognosy and the an Societies. Ph.D. dissertation (Aittheaistldiy), necipuco ae of California, Berkele hamanism and diversity: A cideienks Becta Pp. 93-95 in Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, Darrell A Posey (editor). UNEP wei Biodiversity Assessment, Supplement 1. United Nations Environmental Programme Intermediate Technology Publications, London ss. Primates in Matsigenka rldview. Chapter 6 e Conservation Implications of Human and Nonhuman Primate Interconnections, Agustin Fuen Linda Wolfe (editors). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, . in review. Uncontacted native groups and * agin exploration in Peru. Paper presented at the International r os ini das maa ig Ethnological Sciences (ICA Conference, Williamsburg, VA, ies 1998. Session proceedings in review in El Dorado Revisited: Mining, Oil, Environment, and Human Rights in the Amazon, Leslie = aay phoned University of rizona Press, Tucso AVECITA CHICCHON. in ress. geet use and ecology of the Matsigenka of the eastern slopes of the Cordillera Vilcabamba. Chapter 16 in A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Northern Cordillera Vilcabamba, Peru, Thomas S. Schulenberg ppsirada RAP Working Papers, No. 11. rvation International, Washington . .. DOUGLAS W. YU ‘a BRUCE meserts beh ‘in press. Peso the ee Amazon. In Siicbotany and Conservation of Biocultural Diversity, Luisa Maffi, Thomas Carlson York Botanical Gardens, New York. 38 SHEPARD et al. SNELL, BETTY E.. 1998. Pequefio Diccionario Machiguenga-Castellano. Documento de Trabajo, No. 32. Instituto Lingtiistico de ‘nit ynllpmaaas Institute of Linguistics, Lim SOBREVILLA, CLAUDIA and ‘PAQUITA BATH. 1992. Evaluacién Ecologica Rapida: Un manual stu usuarios de América Latina y el Cari e Nature Conservancy, Latin Hele Science rogram, Arlington, TERBORGH, JOHN. 1999. Requiem for ature. Island Press, Washington, D.C. , RO OSTER and PERCY NUNEZ. 1996. Tropical tree communities es re) e nonequilibrium hypothesis. Ecology 77:561-567. senpiaaeeicn g SCOTT ROBINSON, THEODORE A. Il PARKER, CHARLES UNN and NINA PIERPONT. 1990. Structure and organization of an Amazonian forest bird community. Ecological "aco 60(2):213-238. Vol. 21, No. 1 TOLEDO, VICTOR M. 1992. What is ethnoecology?: Origins, scope, an implications of a rising discipline. Etnoecologia 1(1):5-21. hee Sti ie HANNA. 1998. What satellite ery and large scale field studies can tell about biodiversity patterns in Amazonian forests. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 85:48-62. K. RUOKOLAINEN, R. ~ KALLIOLA, A. LINNA, W. DANJOY and Z. RODRIGUEZ. 1995. Dissecting Ps 66. VON HASSEL, JORGE M. 1904. Los varaderos del Purtis, Yurtia Boletin A es Sociedad Geografica de Lima 15:241-246. WILSON, See O. 1986. The arboreal ant fauna of Peruvian Amazon forests: A first assessment. Biotropica 19(3):245- 251; ZARZAR, ALONSO. 1987. Radiografia de un contacto: Los Nahua y la sociedad nacional. Amazonia Peruana 8(14):91- 114. Journal of Ethnobiology 21(1): 39-52 Summer 2001 THE FUNCTION OF GUACHIPILIN, Diphysa robinioides, IN THE LENCA LANDSCAPE SCOTT BRADY Department of Geography California State University-Chico Chico, CA 95929 ABSTRACT.— Guajiquiro Municipio in the forested highlands of southern Honduras is home to the Lenca. The Lenca subsist in the municipio’s mountainous 350 square kilometers on a combination of swidden agriculture, transhumance cattle husbandry, cash crop production, local commercial forestry, and emigrant remittances. Recent designation of almost 20% of the municipio as a cloud forest biological reserve has engendered land use conflicts. Field research of changing patterns of Lenca land use demonstrated the ubiquity of trees in the Lenca’s settlement landscape. One particular f fabaceous tree, guachipilin, Papnyse robinioides, Fam. Leguminosae, Subfamil is af feature. The tree serves three purposes for the Lenca that manifest themselves i in the Lenca landscape. The Lenca intercrop the tree in their milpas for nitrogen- fixation. They harvest it to construct corner posts for their bajareque houses. The Lenca also craft guachipilin crucifixes for gravesites because they believe the durable wood is an appropriate, and lasting, symbol of a lost loved one’s enduring spirit. Keywords: Lenca, landscape, ethnobotany, Middle America. RESUMEN.— Guajiquiro Municipio en forested montanas de Honduras meridional es casero al Lenca. El Lenca subsiste en el municipio que los 350 kil6metros cuadrados montafiosos en una combinacién de swidden agricultura, la agricultura de los ganados del transhumance, la produccién vegetal del efectivo, la silvicultura comercial local, y remiesas ae ne. La designacién cma _ de ss ac delh Ao] 2 4 : 1 abt lat ny 1791 10n del suelo. Lai j iond am d + cambiantecada la utilizacién del suelo de Lenca demostré la ubicuidad de Arboles en el paisaje del establecimiento de Lenca. Un arbol fabaceous determinado, guachipilin, Diphysa robinioides, Fam. Leguminosae, Subfamily Papilionoideae, es una caracteristica prominente del paisaje. El arbol responde a tres propésitos para el Lenca que se manifiesten en el paisaje de Lenca. El intercrop de Lenca el arbol en sus milpas para la nitrégeno-fijacion. La cosechan para construir los postes de la esquina para sus casas del bajareque. El Lenca también hace los crucifixes del guachipilin a mano para los gravesites porque creen que la madera durable es una apropiada, y durando, el simbolo de un perdido amé su espiritu que aguantaba. RESUME.— Guajiquiro Municipio dans forested des montagnes du Honduras méridional est 4 la maison au Lenca. Le Lenca subsistent dans le municipio les 350 kilométres carrés que montagneux sur une combinaison de swidden Vagriculture, l’agriculture de bétail de transhumance, la production végétale BRADY Vol. 21, No. 1 d’argent comptant, la sylviculture commerciale locale, et les remises d’émigrant. La designation récente pee He Salts du municipio comme réserve biologique de f dré nflits d'utilisation de la terre. La recherche de zone des caractéres chegveane de l’utilisation de la terre de Lenca a démontré l’ubiquité des arbres dans l’horizontal de réglement de Lenca. Un arbre fabaceous particulier, sunchipiies, whe ie elaonngsid Fam. greet ORs, sega ‘horizontal. | pour le Lenca qui se manifestent dans l’horizontal de Lenca. L’intercrop de Lenca l’arbre dans leurs milpas pour I’azote-fixation. Ils la moissonnent pour construire les poteaux faisants le coin pour leurs maisons de bajareque. Le Lenca ouvrent également des crucifixes de guachipilin pour des gravesites parce qu’ils croient que le bois durable est un approprié, et durant, le symbole d’un perdu a aimé son esprit durable. FIGURE 1.— Guajiquiro Municipio, Honduras. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 41 INTRODUCTION Guajiquiro Municipio is a remote forested district in the highlands of south- ern Honduras in the department of La Paz (Figure 1). More than 16,000 Lenca, Honduras’ largest indigenous group, comprise the overwhelming majority of the municipio’s population. Although having lost their native language by the 1950s (West 1998), persistent land use practices, handicraft, and local market traditions mark the Lenca as a distinctive ethnic group. The Lenca of Guajiquiro currently subsist within a mountainous 350 square kilometers on a combination of swidden agriculture, transhumance cattle husbandry, cash crop production, local commer- cial forestry, and emigrant remittances. In 1987 the Honduran government passed a decree that designated highland cloud forests throughout the country as protected areas (Republic of Honduras 1987). Almost 20% of Guajiquiro Municipio became protected as the Guajiquiro Cloud Forest Biological Reserve. Aerial photos demonstrate that the Lenca have occupied the decreed protected area for more than 45 years. Forests within the protected area occupy small, ten to fifteen-acre islands on the steepest slopes and are surrounded by settlements, agricultural fields, and roads. Certain protected area land use restrictions of the Guajiquiro Cloud Forest Bio- logical Reserve conflict with traditional Lenca land use. Field research of the conflict between protected area sosien. apreines and traditional Lenca land use led toa periph- eral, yet related, discovery. T: that, although they have cleared much of the forest belatedly targeted for protection, the Lenca integrate forests and trees into their cultural landscape. Trees, live and har- vested, are ubiquitous in the Lenca settlement landscape. Managed pine, mixed pinie-oak, and broadicat cloud forests garland milpas (e.g., a swidden plot, or an agri- cultural plot cultivated 2-10 years). Legions of burnt stumps retain topsoil i ina sloped swidden plot. Sturdy manual sawmills made of pine logs occupy small, sunny forest clearings. Pine, oak, and sweet gum galleries shade footpaths that lead through cultivated areas. Narrow forest corridors line the ditches that demarcate milpa boundaries. Large broadleaf trees that punctuate these ditch borders attest to the longevity of some boundaries. Multiple strands of barb-wire nailed to tree trunk posts, or log rail fences separate some agricultural plots. Closer to Lenca dwellings, apple and peach trees cast shade on kitchen gardens, or compete for sunlight in a milpa. In the municipio’s lowlands, guama trees (Inga oerstediana, Fam. Leguminosae, Subfamily Mimosoideae) veil small coffee fincas. Anotable member of the forests and trees that the Lenca include in their land- scape is a fabaceous tree called guachipilin (Diphysa robinioides, Fam. Leguminosae, Subfamily Papilionoideae). The tree has become a cultural feature that links Lenca agriculture, folk-housing, and religion. The Lenca encourage the tree’s growth in their milpas to improve soil fertility. They harvest the tree from their fields to craft corner posts to support their houses. They carve guachipilin trunks into cemetery crucifixes that symbolize their faith in the immortality of the human spirit. Their multiple uses of the guachipilin manifest themselves in the Lenca’s forested: cul- tural landscape. This article examines the general distribution and use of the guachipilin in mainland Middle America and explores the specific functions of the tree in the Lenca landscape. Vol. 21, No. 1 GUACHIPILIN Other researchers have noted the utility of guachipilin in mainland Middle America. Budowski (1987) found that farmers in Costa Rica commonly use guachipilin as a living fence post. Floras of El Salvador (Flora Salvadorena 1926) and Chiapas (Miranda 1953) report that the guachipilin’s durability and ease of use make it a popular material for tool handles and, surprisingly considering its shape, railroad ties. Throughout the region people also use the tree for firewood. FIGURE 2.— Diphysa robinioides intercropped throughout a harvested Lenca milpa (photo by Scott Brady). Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 43 Guachipilin trees found in milpas and fallow patches range from 6-10 m in height (Figure 2 and 3). Their branches form an umbelliform crown. The tree’s yellowish, fibrous heartwood is cloaked by 2-3 cm thick grayish-brown bark that is marked by an anastomosing network of deep fissures. Its heartwood yields a yellow dye. Guachipilin’s leaflets are borne on 12-14 cm stems in an odd-pinnate arrangement. Stems carry 10-17 small leaflets, 1 - 1.2 X 2.5 - 3 cm, that are oblong, pointed at the base and rounded at the top (Paquet 1981). Guachipilin produces short, up to 2 cm long, clusters of yellow flowers and inflated, flattened, oblong seed pods that are 8-10 cm long (Record and Hess 1943). FIGURE 3.— Guachipilin leaves (photo by Scott Brady). 44 BRADY Vol. 21, No. 1 The tree’s serpentine shaped trunk supports the widely accepted definition of the name guachipilin. Santamaria (1959) explains the word as a contraction of the Nahuatl cuahuitl, which means ‘tree’, and chipilin, a Nahuatl word for the ‘twisted shell of a small marine organism’. Examination of regional gazetteers (Defense Mapping Agency U.S. 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1984, 1985, 1992; U.S. Army Topographic Command 1969; Office of Geography 1956) demonstrates that past cultures have acknowledged the cultural character of the plant by naming settlements after it. This circumstance does not make the gauchipilin exceptional. Large-scale, topo- graphic maps of Latin America commonly include myriad toponyms derived from plant names. Figure 4 shows the geographical distribution of the toponym “Guachipilin,” or “El Guachipilin,” in mainland Middle America. Most of the 36 occurrences of the toponym are clustered in an east-west zone that occupies the southern half of the Central American isthmus in southwestern Honduras, El Salvador, and south- eastern Guatemala. More than half of the toponyms are west of Kirchoff’s (1943) southern boundary of Meso-America, the pre-Colombian “high culture” area where Nahuatl-speakers lived and Nahuatl was the lingua franca. Rather than a distinct dividing line, 2006 scholars consider ie 8 Southeastern a broad mar- gin an and non-Meso-American teracted (Stone 1959; Sharer 1974; Fox ir Eleven of the remaining twelve Guachipilin toponyms are to the east of Kirchoff’s boundary and lie within the region occupied by the Lenca at A. D. 1500 (Newson 1986). This distribution corresponds to the transitional char- acter of Meso-America’s southeastern periphery. NN GaAene —_ mo ~~ Limits of high Meso-American culture, A. D. 1500 lw Lenca Region, A.D. 1500 vee sab 9/99 FIGURE 4.— Geographical distribution of the toponym “Guachipilin” in mainland Middle America. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 45 Field observation has demonstrated that within Guajiquiro Municipio the guachipilin occupies a nasrow habitat within the fertile slopes between 1700 m and 1900 m of elevation. Set ts in Hond that bear the name “Guachipilin” are found at elevati ing from 690 m to 1500 m (Instituto Geografico Nacional 1990). The geographical distribution of the toponym suggests that the tree’s habi- tat extends beyond this 200 m zone. Another possible explanation is that the toponym’s wide dispersal reflects guachipilin’s cultural importance rather than its favored habitat. GUAJIQUIRO MUNICIPIO Most of Guajiquiro’s population resides in loosely-bound hamlets, called aldeas and caserios, that are scattered throughout the northern third of the municipio at elevations between 1700 m and 2100 m. The aldea and caserio are indigenous settle- ment forms that persist throughout Central America’s highlands, distinct from the agglomerated-grid settlement model that the Spanish imposed throughout much of Latin America (West and Augelli 1989). The dispersed nature of these settlements creates a landscape in which Lenca communities are closely embed- ded within the systems of soil, water and forest resources that they depend upon for their subsistence. The Lenca refer to this upland zone as the tierra fresca, ‘cool land’, or tierra arriba, ‘upland’ (Figure 1). Settlements located below approximately 1700 m are in, what the Lenca call, tierra calida, ‘warm land’. Both the uplands and lowlands are occupied by milpas, some teetering on steep 40% slopes, fallow patches of briars and ferns called guamil, moist, grassy clearings for cattle grazing sometimes called chaguites, and a variety of forest patches present in varying stages of manipulated succession. Forest types include broadleaf cloudforest, generally found above 2000 m on slopes with a northeast aspect. These forests are the primary targets of govern- ment protection. They contain towering, buttressed trees (12 m-40 m high) and the rich epiphytic growth common in moist, tropical lowland environments. Mixed pine-broadleaf forests prevail between 1800 m and 2000 m. Several species of pines form this forest’s patchy canopy and support masses of epiphytes. Interspersed evergreen oaks and a broadleaf tree /shrub understory complement the pine cover. Pine forests cloak soil-poor slopes below 1700 m. This description of elevational zones is misleading, especially above 1700 m, because of the patchwork nature of temporal patterns of forest clearance. One slope may support several forest types representing several different stages of succession. MILPAS Tierra fresca contains the municipio’s thickest, most fertile topsoils, known lo- cally as suelo franco. The Lenca employ shifting cultivation on these clay loams and produce the traditional maize, beans, and squash crop trio found throughout much of highland Middle America. Annually, the Lenca clear forest or guamil for new milpas in February and March. They prepare and plant their milpas during 46 BRADY Vol. 21, No. 1 April and May, the last two months of the dry season and harvest in October and November, the final months of the wet season. The Lenca rotate their arable land through up to three vegetative stages, milpa, guamil, and forest, for periods of varying duration (Figure 5). Traditionally, the duration of each stage depends on factors including slope angle, soil quality, and a family’s caloric demand. To determine the timing of guamil or forest clearance the Lenca also consider the mix of plants present. For example, a guamil patch in which frijolillo plants (Acacia angustissima, Fam. Leguminosae, Subfamily Caesalpinioideae) are dominant is considered suitable for clearance. A guamil patch where blackberries, Rubus are dominant is not yet ready for clearance. FIGURE 5.— Milpa, guaymil, and pine forest cloak a gentle grade in tierra arriba (photo by Scott Brady). Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 47 Milpa stages customarily ranged from 2-10 years, as did the guamil and forest fallow period. Protected area land use restrictions intended to allow forest regen- eration have shortened the duration of the fallow cycle. By prohibiting the clearance of forested land and land where forest is regenerating, protected area restrictions force farmers to clear guamil patches earlier than usual. Agricultural extension agents in the municipio work to reduce forest clearance by promoting the cultiva- tion of tree crops, like apples and peaches, as a means to allow permanent cultivation rather than shifting cultivation. Protected area restrictions have only recently begun to be enforced. The fines meted out have only penalized forest clearance. They have not yet prevented it. Similarly, the lack of a dependable mar- ket for apple and peaches has prevented farmers from abandoning shifting cultivation. Lenca milpas support the full range of vegetation lifeforms. Verdant, herba- ceous, food plants, like maize and several varieties of beans, sprout up through the dark ash, stumps and skeletons of burnt forest. Their milpas also include inter- cropped living trees. Lenca traditionally have practiced de facto agroforestry by encouraging the growth of fabaceous tree species for soil fertility and erosion pre- vention in their milpas (Figure 2). Frijolillo, and guachipilin, are the two predominant milpa tree species. Rather than planting guachipilin, the Lenca manage for the plant’s presence in their milpas. They refrain from clearing the plant when clearing guamil or forest patches for milpa preparation. This is similar to the practice of the Huastec Maya of Veracruz State in Mexico who also manage for the plant, which they call chicath (Alcorn 1984). Like the Lenca, Huastec farmers consider the tree an indicator of milpa yields. An abundance of Diphysa pods portends abundant bean and maize ields. : Alcorn (1984) also found that the Huastec care for the tree because of its mul- tiple uses. They use leaves, shoots, and bark from the chicath to ameliorate conditions that Tange from diarrhea to boils. Recent research by Guatemalan confirmed Diphysa’s medicinal qualities (Caceres et al. 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1995). Various preparations of Diphysa bark acted against dermato- phytic infections, gastrointestinal disorders, and strains of gonorrhea. The high costs and lack of information about chemical fertilizers have limited the adoption of these by the Lenca of Guajiquiro. They continue to depend on fallowing for restoration of fertility; and, make room in their milpas for two faba- ceous trees, the guachipilin and frijolillo, that, in symbiosis with Rhizobium, fix nitrogen (Budowski 1987). Enforcement of protected area land use restrictions and the efforts of agricultural extension agents probably will not diminish the func- tion of guachipilin in the Lenca agricultural landscape. The Lenca will continue to rely on the tree for soil improvement. The tree’s monetary value beyond the milpa will further persuade farmers to include it in their plots. HOUSES Similar to the Huastecs, the Lenca also value the multiple uses of guachipilin. The tree’s durable trunk is an essential construction material for their houses. The 48 BRADY Vol. 21, No. 1 FIGURE 6.— Twisted guachipilin horcones support a bahareque dwelling (photo by Scott Brady). Lenca primarily construct two different types of houses: the indigenous bajareque and white-washed Spanish adobe. Bajareques are the more traditional house type (Figure 6), although the Lenca have adopted Spanish architectural components. Bajareques have wattle and daub walls framed by corner posts, horcones. Prior to the Lenca’s adoption of clay tiles and hipped roofs, their bajareques were covered with steep thatch roofs. n adobe house’s mud-brick walls stand without the support of corner posts. Both house types are usually two-room, rectangular structures primarily covered by hipped or gabled clay-tile roofs. In Guajiquiro, both house types are constructed by locals with local materials. Adobe walls, tile roofs, and the two-room rectangu- lar floor plan represent Lenca adoption of colonial Spanish architectural features (West 1998). However, the adobe bricks and the clay tiles, even the white wash that the Lenca use to fashion an exterior veneer, are derived from local deposits from within the municipio. In response to questions about the respective values of the two house types, the Lenca of Guajiquiro commonly report that adobe houses are easier to decorate while bajareque houses are sturdier. The Lenca attribute a bajareque’s durability to the twisted guachipilin corner posts that support them. While they also use tatascan (Tecoma stans, Fam. Bignoniaceae) for horcones, they consider the guachiplin’s con- torted trunk the best wood for the corner posts. Throughout the municipio, informants claim that guachipilin corner posts cut during the first phase of the moon will endure 100 years, the lifetimes of three houses. Indeed, Guajiquiro Lenca Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 49 salvage guachipilin corner posts from abandoned house sites when constructing new bajareque houses. Bajareques with guachipilin corner posts dot the hills throughout Guajiquiro municipio. Guachipilin trees, however, do not grow throughout Guajiquiro’s up- lands. The distribution shown on Figure 4 notwithstanding, in Guajiquiro guachipilin trees primarily grow in milpas, guamil, and secondary forests found on the clay loam slopes located between 1700 m and 1900 m of elevation. Lencas farming in this zone profit by selling the guachipilines that they have tended in their milpas. The cost of one guachipilin corner post is 100 Lempiras ($7 US). A typical bajareque house includes eight corner posts. This makes gauchipilin corner posts the second most valuable component of a bajareque house, after the 3,000 roof tiles that cost 1 Lempira each. A regional authority previously predicted that the Lenca’s acculturation would include the wholesale adoption of the Spanish adobe house at the expense of the bajareque (West 1998). Recent interviews and field observation suggest that the transition is proceeding only slowly. However, should Lenca throughout Guajiquiro exclusively adopt adobe or substitute the recently introduced cinder blocks for the walls of their houses, the architectural function of guachipilin will decrease and, similar to the thatch roof, the distinctive contorted horcones will recede from the Lenca landscape. A third function of the guachipilin appears to be less vulner- able to substitution, and figures to remain. SPIRIT A final purpose of the guachipilin tree links Lenca milpa agriculture to Lenca folk housing, and to their faith in the immortality of the human spirit. The tree functions in Lenca religious ritual. Many Lenca of Guajiquiro craft guachipilin crucifixes for gravesites. They believe the durable wood is an appropriate, and lasting, symbol of a lost loved one’s enduring spirit (Figure 7). In this context a reciprocal relationship has developed between the Lenca and the guachipilin. They sanctify the tree by transforming its wood into crosses that embody the human spirit. Conversely, the Lenca bestow a natural characteristic of the tree, its durabil- ity, on the human spirit. Masses of guachipilin crosses stand in formation in the municipio’s cemetery bearing witness to this man-plant relationship. The Lenca have endowed the tree with meaning that figures to allow it to persist in their landscape CONCLUSION Despite the guachipilin’s utility to the Lenca, development agents in the municipio who promote agro-forestry and prevention of soil erosion ignore the tree, and the potential benefits of incorporating the plant into their projects. A local tree nursery, sponsored by an extension agency to supply seedlings for refor- estation and erosion prevention projects, provides some endemic Pinus seedlings, but concentrates on introduced trees like Eucalyptus and Casuarina. Felker and Bandurski (1979) reported similar disinterest in tropical fabaceous trees twenty years ago. Agronomists ignore trees like guachipilin because they do not produce Vol. 21, No. 1 BRADY Ye 4 ie fe oF y Ar nt Ne OT 1 at A ida FIGURE 7.— Guachipilin crucifixes in Guajiquiro’s cemetery (photo by Scott Brady). edible fruit. Silviculturalists ignore them because they cannot be managed as a forest crop. Honduras’ national forestry school omitted guachipilin from its list of one hundred useful tree species (Benitez Ramos and Montesinos Lagos 1988). Should the guachipilin’s utility remain unnoticed by outsiders working in Guajiquiro Municipio, the tree will persist in the Lenca landscape because of the interrelated purposes it serves. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 5t ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Andy Maxwell kindly reviewed an early draft of this article. LITERATURE CITED ALCORN, JANIS B. 1984. Huastec Mayan thnobotany. University of Texas Press, Austin. BENITEZ RAMOS, RENE F. and J. L. MONTESINOS LAGOS. 1988. Catalogo de Cien Especies Forestales Honduras: Distribucion, Propiedades y Usos. Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Forestales, Siguatepeque, Honduras. BUDOWSKI, GERARDO. 1987. Living fences in tropical America, a ps aoe agroforestry practice. Pp. 169-178 in fi : Realities, ee and Potentials, H.L. Gho (editor). Martinus mize DORE The Netherlan CACERES, A., 0. CANO, B. SAMAYOA, and L. AGUILAR. 1990. Plants used in Guatemala for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. 1. Screening of 84 plants against enterobacteria. Journal of pee eters! 30:55-73. , B. LOPEZ, X. JUAREZ, J. DEL ~~ AGUILA, and S. ARCIA 1993. Plants used 1 in Guatemala for the treatment of Evaluation of antifungal activity of seven American plants. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 40:207-13 . FLETES, L. AGUILAR, O. RAMIREZ, L. FIGUEROA, A.M. TARACENA, and B. SAMAYOA. 1993. Plants used in Guatemala for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. 3. Confirmation of activity against enterobacteria of 16 eek Journal of apogee 38: seme NENDEZ, z. MENDEZ, E. COHOBON, B.E. SAMAYOA, E. JAUREGUI, E. PERALTA, and G. CARRILLO. 1995. Antigonorrhoeal activity of plants used in Guatemala for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 48:85-8 ee DEFENSE MAPPING ee pide Gazetteer of El Salv ame Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names. Defens nePPag Agency, Washington, D.C. 983. Gazetteer of Costa Rica: Names aerial by the United States Board on Geographic Names, 2nd edition. Defense Mapping Agency, Washington, D.C. —____—. 1983. Gazetteer of Honduras: Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names, 2nd edition. Defense Mapping Agency, ee ___. 1984. Gazetteer of Guatemala: Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names, 2nd edition. Defense Mapping Agency, 1985. Gazetteer of Nicaragua: Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names, 3rd edition. Defense Mapping Agency, pracy Sone D.C. . 1992. Gazetteer of Mexico: Names praia by the ay States Board on Geographic Names, 3rd edition. Defense Mapping pata Washington, De. FELKER, PETER. and ROBERT S. i ANDURSKI. 1979. Uses and potential es of leguminous trees for minimal pneecy v(m ei Economic Botany 33:1 Flora eioadarene Tomo IV. 1926. Ministerio de Instruccién Publica de la Republica de kes Pegg weni El Salvador. FOX, JOHN 1. The late cepa eastern peste of Mes soamer ica Current Anthropology 22:321-346. INSTITUTO GEOGRAFICO NACIONAL. 1990. Nombres Geograficos de Honduras. Instituto Geografico Nacional, Tegucigalpa. KIRCHOFF, PAUL. 1943. Mesoamérica. Acta Americana 1:92-107. 52 BRADY MIRANDA, FAUSTINO. 1953. La vegetacién de Chiapas, Vol. 2. Secci6n Autografica, Departmento de Prensa y Turismo, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Mexico: NEWSON, LINDA. 1986. The Cost of Conquest. Westview Press, Boulder and ondon. OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHY. 1956. British Honduras; Official Standard Names Approved by the United States. Office of Geography, Board on Geographic Names, Washington, D.C. PAQUET, JEAN. 1981. Manual de Dendrologia de Algunas Especies de Honduras. COHDEFOR, Siguatepeque, Honduras. RECORD, SAMUEL J. and ROBERT W. HESS. 1943. Timbers of the New World. Yale University Press, New Haven. REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS. 1987. Decreto Number 87-87. Diario Oficial La Gaceta, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. SANTAMARIA, FRANCISCO J, 1959. Diccionario de Mejicanismos. Editorial Porrua, Mexico. Vol. 21, No. 1 SHARER, ROBERT J. 1974. The prehistory of the southeastern Maya periphery. Current gin 15:165-197. STONE, DORIS Z. 1959. The eastern frontier of Mesoamerica. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum fiir Volkerkunde im Hamburg. 25:118-121 U.S. ARMY TOPOGRAPHIC COMMAND. 1969. Gazetteer No. 110: Panama and the Canal Zone. Geographic Names Division, U.S. Army Topographic Command, Washington D WEST, ROBERT C. 1998. The Lenca of onduras: an ethnogeography. Pp. 67- 76 in Latin American Geography: Historical-Geographical Essays, 1941- 1998, Miles E. Richardson (editor). Geoscience and Man, Baton Rouge. . and JOHN P. AUGELLI. 1989. Middle America, Its Lands and Peoples 3rd edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 53 Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas. David L. Lentz, Editor. Columbia University Press, New York. 2000. $65.00 (cloth), $30.00 (paper). Pp. xxi, 547. ISBN: 0-231-11156-8 (cloth) 0-231-11157- 6 (paper). A long-running debate concerns the ecological management abilities of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. gical idealists like Donald Hughes (1983), who see Native Americans as natural conservationists maintain- ing some form of harmony with their environments. On the other are extreme critics like Paul Martin (Martin and Klein 1984) and Charles Redman (1999), who see them as wanton, reckless destroyers. Most anthropologists would probably find themselves somewhere in the middle, but tl d is vast and poorly defined (see e.g. Krech 1999 and my review of that work in Anderson 2000). Until now, there was no one source to which one could turn for eo summa- ries of the actual evidence for pre-Columbian resource managem This book changes all that. David Lentz has brought veeneing a formidable array of experts. They have produced long, detailed, objective, and comprehen- sive accounts of Native American environmental management throughout the pre-Columbian Americas. The book includes a number of general chapters as well as many specific case studies. The general chapters include one on Holocene climate changes by David Hodell, Mark Brenner and Jason Curtis; introductions to the vegetation of each region (North and Central America, Andean South America, lowland South America); and Lentz’ introduction, conclusions, and work on anthropocentric food webs. The case studies comprise nine chapters on topic areas of special impor- tance and interest. These are all authoritative summaries of large, important landscapes, written by major authorities: Emily McClung de Tapia on the Basin of Mexico, Charles Spencer on Mexico and Venezuela, Nicholas Dunning and Timo- thy Beach on the Maya, Charles Peters on Neotropical forests, Gayle Fritz on the Mississippi Valley, Suzanne Fish on the Hohokam, Clark Erickson on the Titicaca Basin, Terence D’Altroy on the Andes, Anna Roosevelt on the Lower Amazon. Many or all of these names will be familiar to readers of Journal of Ethnobiology. All provide superb and detailed coverage of vast amounts of information, much of it new and hard to find. This book thus presents, in a single volume, a unique intro- duction to a vast, scattered, often obscure, but vitally important literature. As such, it defies summary here. There are dramatic new discoveries such as the enormous size and great age of the Purron Dam in the Tehuacan Valley in Mexico (Spencer’s chapter). There are sharp challenges to conventional wisdom, such as Anna Roosevelt's critique of the “Pleistocene refugia” theory of Amazon forests. We are introduced to mind-bending new landscapes such as the vast sea- sonal wetlands, dry forests, and montane bare-rock fell-fields of tropical South America (James Luteyn and Steven Churchill’s chapter on South American veg- etation). More important is to say something about the implications of the book for the broad and facile theories noted above. This book proves, in overwhelming detail, that America’s pre-Columbian inhabitants were neither harmonious naturalists nor wanton wreckers. They were expert, thorough, and pertinent landscape man- 54 BOOK REVIEWS Vol. 21, No. 1 agers. They changed whole ecosystems. They carried out major engineering works including canals, dams, ridged field ayers, and terracing of mountain Ran ees. They delil tely and p diy affected th and abundance un- dreds (if not thousands) of plant and animal s species. They domesticated many of these, developing an incredible wealth of crop varieties. Unsurprisingly, it was the high civilizations that did the most extensive land- scape manipulation. They were perhaps especially industrious in drier habitats, where building irrigation works was vital. Yet, many simpler societies, and many groups in wet and favorable climates, also created major works. In some cases, notably in and near the Eastern Andes, we remain in profound ignorance of these creators — we do not even know whether they had a “civilization” or not. It seems clear that the Native peoples were, in the main, good managers. The got what they wanted: food, fiber, shelter, and security. They did this through careful, fine-tuned control of a large array of resources. They conserved; what- ever their ancestors may have done to the Pleistocene megafauna, the peoples described in this book exterminated few if any species. They did not ruin their environments. The highly colored scenarios of writers such as Redman (2000) do not hold up. Redman argued that the Hohokam fell because they allowed their irrigation systems to salt up and silt up, but Fish presents a more complex picture, allowing for long-term Hohokam survival and the possibility that the “fall” was late and somewhat mysterious. Redman also alleged that the Classic Maya civili- zation declined through overuse of land, but evidence presented in the present book implicates drought at least as strongly. Very possibly, drought was particu- larly devastating to a system already thinly stretched. These scholarly consequences have real-world consequences. A debate in Conservation Biology (Schwartzman et al. 2000, Leckie isp 2000, and following com- ments) shows what the stakes are Native Americans as good managers, and thus a to leave them in charge of their traditional lands. Terborgh sees much worse management, and, though he sees indigenous land tenure as a moral imperative, he also feels that large and inviolate sanctuaries must be created if biocomplexity:# is to be conserved. Both sides cana vidence for their positions, but neither can make a really convincing case. Lentz’ collection provides the necessary base on which to build, if we are to seek evidence adequate to permit informed planning. The saddest lack in this book is the voice of the long-dead managers. Current evidence suggests that these farmers, engineers, and rulers needed, and had, a moral and religious shell around their ecological and technical applications. Oth- erwise, they would have succumbed to the perennial problem of collective action: they could not have motivated their people to work together for the good We have historic and ethnographic evidence bearing on the point in a few cases — notably the Andes, as reviewed by Erickson and D’Altroy. But how can we look into the minds of the Hohokam or Cahokians, let alone those of the nameless and mysterious managers of the sabanas of Bolivia? Left with their anonymous works, we can only reflect on the words of Ecclesiasticus: “Let us now praise famous men.... Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 55 “And some there be, which h who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as Snes they: had never been born; and their children after them. “But these were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgot- TEDL “Their seed shall remain for ever, and their glory shall not be blotted out.” (Ecclesiasticus 44:1, 9-10, 13) E. N. Anderson, Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside LITERATURE CITED ANDERSON, E. N. 2000. Review of Shepard Krech: The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. Journal of Ethnobiology 20(1): 37-42. KRECH, SHEPARD, III. 2000. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. W. W. Norton, New York. MARTIN, PAUL S. and RICHARD KLEIN (eds.). oe, ooo Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, REDMAN, ceca w ee Human Impact on Ant Pe ichmhents, University of Arizona Press, Tuc SCHWARTZMAN, STEPHAN, ADRIANA MOREIRA, and DANIEL NEPSTAD. 2000. Rethinking tropical Forest conservation: perils in parks. Biological Conservation 14(5):1351-1357. TERBORGH, JOHN. 2000. The fate of tropical forests: a matter of stewardship. Biological Conservation 14(5): 1358-1361. Sen are ie ab Journal of Ethnobiology 21(1): 57-88 Summer 2001 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE te MEXICAN CONTINENTAL ALGA JOSE LUIS GODINEZ AND MARTHA M. ORTEGA Instituto de Biologia, UN. Apdo. Postal 70-233, 04510 México, D.F. GLORIA GARDUNO, MARIA GUADALUPE OLIVA AND GLORIA ILACLARA Escuela Nacional de Estudios Profesionales ampus Iztacala, Apdo. Postal 314, 54000 Tlalnepantla, Estado de México ABSTRACT -— A catalog of the Roan eter and uses einer, nutritional, soil tria al agricultt Mexican continental algae i is eee Two of the 56 eae groups fepietondd ih in Mexico, the Nahuatl (State of Mexico) and the Maya (Yucatan) are the ones with the most uses and information about this resource. The taxonomic groups most used are the following classes: Cyanophyceae (8 spp.), Chlorophyceae (9 spp.), Bacillariophyceae (2 spp.), Xanthophyceae (1 sp.), Charophyceae (2 spp.) and Rhodophyceae (1 sp.). Key words: freshwater algae, Mexico, etymology, uses. RESUME: Se presenta un catélogo s sobre el Sopncsiento y aprovechamiento alimentacién, medicina Beysicloge. de mejoramiento del suelo y pecuario y éxico, son el ndhuatl (Estado de México) y maya (Yucatan) los que » presentan un mayor conocimiento y utilizaci6n del recurso. Las clases taxonémicas encontradas fueron las Cyanophyceae (8 spp.), Chlorophyceae (9 spp.), Bacillariophyceae (2 spp.), Xanthophyceae (1 sp.), Charophyceae (2 spp.) y Rhodophyceae (1 sp.). RESUME.— Nous présentons un panorama général de l’emploi éthnobotanique ee 1 1: ei * : . . ] tli t dans la nutrition la pharmaceutique, l’‘amélioration du sol, phytopathologie et l'industrie. Des cinquante-six cultures connues au Mexique, ce sont les Maya et le Nahuatl qui présentent la plus grande tradition dans l’usage de cette resource. Les groupes taxonomiques avec le plus grand nombre de régistres sont les Cyanophyceae (8 spp.), suivies des Chlorophyceae (9 sop.), Bacillariophyceae (2 spp.), Xanthophyceae (1 sp.), Charophyceae (2 spp.) et Rhodophyceae (1 sp.). INTRODUCTION Several ancient Mexican cultures developed in close relation to water. Examples 58 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 of these cultures are the Nahua from the Valley of Mexico, the Purepechas from Patzcuaro, Michoacan and the Maya from the Yucatan Peninsula. These cultures valued the natural wealth of their homelands and knew how to use it. But not only did the Mexican indigenous ancestors appreciate the natural resources, the Spanish conquerors who arrived later left testimonies of the many virtues they found on the land of Anahuac! and other regions. The objective of this research is to provide information related to the uses and names of the continental algae from pre-hispanic and neon saes times to the present day. The autochthonous and vernacular vas our first source of information about the uses of continental algae. This ok written as a cata- log, is a guide to the understanding of the vernacular nomenclature of algae as well as their geographical distribution, habitat, and uses. Such concepts, includ- ing etymology, have been well documented. This article registers the different vernacular names in Nahuatl and Maya languages; it includes ancient and mod- ern Spanish, scientific names, and some recent research on some of the algae. METHODOLOGY AND FORMAT The information about algae found in this research and reflected in the bibli- ography was obtained by reviewing historical sources: ancient manuscripts, dictionaries, and recent publications. The data herein reported also include the authors’ direct observations. Additional information from some herbariums was included. The catalog’s structure consists of six sections for each name. The first section consists of information related to autochthonous and vernacular (common) no- menclature, etymology, and other names. The second section documents the chronology of available information from the 16th century to the present; textual paragraphs taken from facsimiles or recent re-editions can be found in this sec- tion. Taxonomic information, generally down to species, is included, although in some cases only an interpretation of its taxonomic identity is given. The updating of biological nomenclature (shown between brackets [...]) is presented according to Ortega (1984) and Silva et al. (1996), except for the Cyanophyceae which fol- lows Komarek and Anagnostidis (1989) and Anagnostidis and KomArek (1988). The third section indicates Mexican distribution: state, in alphabetical order, fol- lowed by a colon, then the municipality [Mpio.:] and localities. Where possible, we include a voucher number of a herbarium specimen with the name of the col- lector or collectors, the number of the collection, the date and herbarium’s official registration number with its acronym or initial, according to the Index Herbariorum (Holmgren et al. 1990). The fourth section indicates the habitat according to the type of environment, substrate or biological relationship. If no information exists, we specify ‘not provided’. The fifth section provides the uses of the algae, or the existing research regarding these uses (in human or animal nutritional, medicine, industry, soil improvement, and so on), and the nature of the finished product. The sixth section, or notes, has been included in many of the paragraphs as a means of explain problems regarding taxonomy, nomenclature or uses. We append a lit- erature list on algae. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 59 CATALOGUE Common name: Algafil. Etymology: Spanish. Commercial name. Chronology: Mendoza and Pino (1964) did research with algafil and identified it as Chlorella sp. Distribution: Not provided. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Increases the pigmentation in egg yolks of Leghorn hens. Note: Byproduct of fermentation. Commercially prepared by Abbot de Mexico, S.A. laboratories. Not produced in Mexico anymore. Common name: Amoxtli (Figure 1). Etymology: Nahuatl, amox-tli, writing book (Karttunen 1992:11). Other names: amomoxtli, amoxtle, gelatina de agua ‘water jelly’. Chronology: Sahagtin in 1571 (1971:221, fo. 220) writes: “There are urronas? float- ing in the water, called tecuitlatl or acuitlatl or agoquitl or amomoxtli, of a light blue color; when thick, you spread it on ashes on the floor and make ‘cakes’. You can toast it and eat it.” (“Hay unas urronas, que se crian sobre el agua, que se llaman tecuitlatl 0, acuitlatl, 0 agoquitl, 0 amomoxtli, son de color azul claro, después que esta bien espeso, y grueso, cgenlo, tiendenlo en el suelo sobre ceniza y después hacen unas tortas de ello y tostadas las comen.”) Ortega (1972:93, 95) claims that, “Someone from that place [Zumpango Lake] told us it was called gelatina de agua ‘water jelly’ or amoxtle.” Ortega named it Nostoc commune Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahuault. Castello Yturbide et al. (1986:73, 190), quoting Mrs. Guadalupe Sanchez, from Tlahuac, D.E.: “Diega, my grandmother, had a canoe, she would row among the chinampas ‘floating gardens’ to collect amoxtle: she was the only one who knew how to prepare it. She died in 1966.” (“Mi abuelita Diega tenia su canoa, se iba remando entre las chinampas a recoger el amoxtle; sdlo ella lo sabia preparar. Muri6é en 1966.”) Distribution: State of Mexico: Laguna de Zumpango, M.M. Ortega 65, 12 Oct. 1970 (MEXU 86). Habitat: Floating on the lagoon. Uses: Edible. Note: It is no longer eaten by the people of Zumpango. It is still used in Bolivia (Halperin 1967) and Perti (Aldave-Pajares 1969). The Zumpango lake was dried out and re-filled with recycled water. Common name: Chilacaxtli (Figure 2). Etymology: The original Mexican term for it is not known; nevertheless, Karttunen (1992:3, 51, 52) mentions the terms: chilach-tli, seed of the chili pepper plant; ach-tli, possessive of -achyo, seed.; chil-li, chili pepper. Possibly, seed of the chili pepper. Other names: Chilacastle, chilacascle. Chronology: Robelo (chilacascle, 1941:384) and Santamaria (chilacastle, 1978:491) consider it to be a plant that grows on the surface of acequias ‘causeways’ and stagnant water: Azolla caroliniana Willdenow [Azolla filiculoides Lamouroux]. 60 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 FIGURE 1.— Amoxtle [Nosctoc commune Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahault] water jelly floating on the Zumpango Lake Espinoza Abarca et al. (1985:61-62) collected this plant in Mixquic, D.F. in Decem- ber, eae was used as green manure and was identified as Azolla filiculoides Willden mbiotic association with Anabaena azollae Strasburger esi pee! (Strasburger) Komarek et Anagnostidis]. Distribution: Federal District: causeways near the town of Mixquic. Michoacan: Mpio. Morelia: Morelia, G. Arsene 3177, 4 Oct. 1909 (MEXU 185015, 186276, as chilacaxtli). Habitat: Gutters, causeways. Uses: Green manure. ote: There is confusion between the terms chilacastle and chichicastle. Bravo Hollis (1930:7) indicates that the first term is used both for Azolla and for Lemna, and it is used as duck food. But Lot et al. (1999:37) attribute the term only to Lemna gibba Linnaeus whose vernacular name is: chilacastle, lenteja and lentejilla, terms used in the Federal District, and used as duck food and as manure on the chinampas. Martinez (1979:284) says the term chichicastle referes to L. gibba. For Espinoza Abarca et al. (1985), Azolla filiculoides is a plant that captures atmospheric Nitrogen through its symbiosis with Anabaena oldest reference to chilacaxtli is found on a herbarium sample collected by G. Arsene (a priest) in 1909 and identified as Azolla caroliniana, a synonym of Azolla filiculoides. Surely, the chilacaxtli or chilacastle is used as green ma- nure [Azolla] and chichicastle [Lemna] as duck food. It is easy to be confused because Azolla and Lemna frequently grow together and tend to intertwine (Bravo 1930:7). Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 61 ae re ee =: a < and seasoned with herbs [Chenopodium ambrosoides Linnaeus] or parsley [Petroselinum hortense Hoffman], slices of green chili pepper [Capsicum annum L. var. acuminatum Fing] or guajillo chili [C. annum L. longum Sendt.] and animal fat; . » finally steam cooked and covered with corn leaves. This dish, when st ish red, has a strong smell and a “damp” taste. It is eaten with tortillas ‘flat corn cakes’ and mole’®, and it is quite nice.” Note: Castell6 Yturbide et al. (1986:74) wrote that the tamales can still be found in Tonatitla, and added: “During the 70’s it was still possible to buy these tama- les with the fishmongers in markets in Cuautitlan, Xochimilco and Texcoco.” During a trip near the Texcoco canals and markets (November 17, 1984), J.L. Godinez found no traces of this product. It is very possible that they no longer exist, just as Ortega (1972) indicated: “In Xochimilco (November 15, 1970), an old lady and some vendors told us that the cocol has not been seen for ap- proximately eight years, that it is quickly pre aaa due to water pollution [by sewage] and because the lake is now d Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 63 FIGURE 3.— Cocolin poo biecenty tenue (Meneghini) cont) collected from the Sosa Texcoco canals (October, 1 FIGURE 4.— Tamal made of cocolin. 64 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 Common name: Conferva. Etymology: Linnean name, meaning, “made of free filaments” (Stearn 1992:389). Chronology: Ponce de Le6én (1909:20) named it Conferva chantransia Linnaeus [Lemanea fluviatilis (Linnaeus) C. Agardh]. Distribution: Sinaloa. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Chonak. Etymology: Chonak, very damp thing, ovas ‘algae’ (a very fine filamentous aquatic plant) of the lake, freshwater filamentous slime, filamentous substance grow- ing in stagnant water (Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980:107). Other names: Choonakil, ucho”nakilha, water ovas (Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980:107). Chronology: Ortega et al. (1995:xvii) interpret these names as Chlorophyceae al- ae. Distribution: Yucatan Peninsula. Habitat: Freshwater. Uses: Not provided. Note: The Diccionario de la Lengua Espafiola (1970:954) indicates that ova, from the Latin ulva, refers to unicellular [pluricellular] green algae, which can consist of simple or branched filaments, or large and leafy blades, or narrow, like bands, growing in the sea, rivers or ponds, floating on the water or fixed to the bottom by rootlike appendixes. “Ova de rio” refers, therefore, to freshwater algae [possibly filamentous Chlorophyceae, Cladophoraceae] and “ova ma- rina” to algae with laminar expansions or tubular hollow bands, almost always branched, found in sea and brackish water [possibly Ulvales such as Enteromorpha and Ulva]. Common name: Diatoma de copos ‘diatoms tufted’. Etymology: Spanish. Diatoma refers to diatom, common name for an algae of the class Bacillariophyceae; copos refer to tuft or clot. Chronology: Martinez Gracida (1891:24) named it Conserva [Conferva] pectinalis O.F. Miller [Fragilaria diophthalma (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg]. Distribution: Oaxaca. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Diatoma erguida ‘stiff diatom’. Etymology: Spanish. Diatoma refers to diatom, common name for an alga of the class Bacillariophyceae; erguida means stiff. Chronology: Martinez Gracida (1891:24) named it Conserva [Conferva] striathum [striatula] J.E. Smith [Fragilaria striatula (J.E. Smith?) Lyngbye]. Distribution: Oaxaca. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Espirulina ‘Spirulina’ (Figure 5). Etymology: Spanish. From the Latin spira, each of the turns of a spiral. Common name for a member of the class Cyanophyceae or blue-green algae. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 65 Chronology: Since 1967, after the recognition of the existence of Spirulina geitleri De Toni in lake Texcoco, Sosa Texcoco Company, in collaboration with the French Institute of Petroleum, studied and cultivated Spirulina for twenty years (Sosa Texcoco 1976:6). Research on Mexican Spirulina during the 1970s and 1980s was extensive. The bibliography can be consulted in Ortega (1987). FIGURE 5.— Products made of Spirulina. 66 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 Distribution: State of Mexico: Mpio. Texcoco: Evaporador Solar El Caracol.” Habitat: It is found in water plankton in canals from “El Caracol.” Uses: Human and animal dietary supplement. High content of proteins, minerals and vitamins. Santillan (1982:42) indicates that more than 50 products were elaborated with spirulina (capsules, tablets and powdered Spirulina). Ortega (1987:175) states that they reached a production of almost 1000 tons per year. The algae were exploited, by semi-natural cultivation, by Sosa Texcoco until 80’s. During the 1990 this company gradually ceased its production. For more information see Santillan (1982) and Ortega et al. (1995:186-190). Common name: Iximha. Etymology: Maya language. Ixim, corn; ha, water: water corn (Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980:275). Chronology: Doctor Roman Sabas Flores (in Brioso Vasconcelos 1923:544) describes it as follows: “The plant known in the peninsula as Ixinha [Iximha] is Chara gymnopus A. Braun [Chara zeylanica Klein ex Wildenow].” Distribution: Yucatan: Izamal. Veracruz. Habitat: In deep natural ponds and other natural deposits of permanent water. Uses: Research on harmful insects (Hoffman and Sdmano-Bishop 1938a, 1938b; Peldez 1947) has found a relationship between some algae and the larvae of organisms such as Anopheles pseudopunctipenis and A. albimanus Wied., which are malaria vectors in regions of Oaxaca, Veracruz and Yucatan. The effect of the algae on these larvae was first observed by medial doctor Lisandro Dorantes (in Brioso Vasconcelos, 1923:544) in cenotes ‘doline’, deep natural ponds in Yucatan. Brioso Vasconcelos (1923:546) tried the lethal effect of the algae on larvae of five species of Chara [Ch. fragilis, Ch. foetida, Ch. contraria, Ch. hispida], including Chara gymnopus. He cultivated the algae in order to control the spread of malaria (by Aedes calopus and Culex sp. mosquitoes) during the anti-malaria campaigns in Veracruz and Yucatan. Dr. Connor (in Brioso Vasconcelos 1923:546) underlines the presence of an active ingredient in C. gymnopus which destroys the mosquitoes’ larvae in barrels and tanks. Common name: Lama ‘slime’. Etymology: Spanish. From the Latin lama, soft, loose and sticky slime, of a dark color, found at the bottom of the sea or rivers, or at the bottom of places where there is, or has been, water for a long time. Algae or “ova” of slimy places or puddles (Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola 1970:784). Chronology: Gonzalez Coss (1872:314) called it Conferva fontinalis Linnaeus [Vaucheria fontinalis (Linnaeus) Christensen] and Conferva rivularis Linnaeus [Cladophora rivularis (Linnaeus) van den Hoek]. Gonzalez (1876:32) called it Byssus flos-aquae Linnaeus [Anab flos-aquae Brébi ex Bornet et Flahault]; Conferva bullosa Linnaeus [Cladophora glomerata (Linnaeus) Kiitzing var. crassior (C. Agardh) van den Hoek] and Conferva rivularis Linnaeus [Cladophora rivularis (Linnaeus) van den Hoek]. Martinez Gracida (1891:24) called it Conserva [Conferva] bullosa Linnaeus [Cladophora glomerata (Linnaeus) Kiitzing var. crassior (C. Agardh) van den Hoek], Conserva [Conferva] flosaguae [flos-aquae] (Linnaeus) Roth [Anabaena flos-aquae Brébisson ex Bornet et Flahault], Conserva [Conferva] pectinalis O.F. Miller [Fragilaria diaphthalma (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg], Conserva [Conferva] rivalaris [rivularis] Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 67 Linnaeus [Cladophora rivularis (Linnaeus) van den Hoek] y Conserva [Conferva] striathum [striatula] [Fragilaria striatula (J.E. Smith?) Lyngbye]. Castaneda (1933:142) called it Spirogyra, and Bravo Hollis (1936:219) called it Spiro- gyra flavescens (Hassall) Kiitzing. The Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada (tomo 29:359) describes this slime as a: “Plant growing in Michoacan that seems to be Microspora fontinalis De Toni [Rhizoclonium hieroglyphicum (C. Agardh) Kiitzing], freshwater green algae.” Distribution: Guanajuato: Silao. Hidalgo: Mpio. Actopan: La Penia. Jalisco. Michoacan. Nuevo Leén: Monterrey. Oaxaca. Habitat: Freshwater. Uses: Not provided. Note: Lama or slime is a name given to many species of algae. Common name: Lama de Comanjilla. Etymology: Spanish. Toponym, see lama. Chronology: Gonzalez Coss (1872:314) called it Ulva lal tiformis [labyrinthiformis] Gmelin [Spirulina labyrinthiformis (Linnaeus) Gomont]. Distribution: Guanajuato: Silao. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Lama del topo ‘mole a Etymology: Spanish. Toponimic, see lam Chronology: Gonzalez (1876:32) called it Pe claporis say . Agardh) Gonzalez [Phormidium calidum (C. Agardh) Gomont ex Gomon Distribution: Nuevo Le6én: Monterrey: El Topo Ranch. Habitat: In 40° C water source. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Lama larga ‘long slime’. Etymology: Spanish, see lama. Chronology: Martinez Gracida (1891: 24) called it Conserva ee. lutescens (Vaucher) De Candole [Zygnema lutescens (Vaucher) C. Agardh Distribution: Oaxaca. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Mancha de la hoja ‘leaf spot’. Etymology: Spanish. Chronology: Martin (1947:156) called it Cephaleuros virescens Kunze. Distribution: Chiapas: on the riverbanks of the Grijalba River. Tabasco-Chiapas. Veracruz: Mpio. Tezonapa: near Tezonapa in El Palmar. Habitat: Parasite of Hevea brasiliensis. Uses: Not provided. Note: aoe (1984:238) indicates that this alga lives on leaves of old trees and ung plants. She also states that the “leaf spot” produced by the alga causes ahs little harm. Common name: Nitla (Figure 6). Etymology: Possibly of Nahua origin. Nitla, indefinite pronoun which refers to things (Siméon, 1988:549). 68 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 Chronology: Ortega et al. (1995:190) considers it to be Prasiola mexicana J. Agardh. Distribution: State of Mexico: Mpio. Ocuilan de Arteaga: la Canada river, G. Gardufio, 4 Feb. 1981 (IZTA 106), Aug. 1982 (IZTA 68), Nov. 1983 (IZTA 67), 7 Nov. 1983 (IZTA 120), 24 Oct. 1986 (IZTA 84). Habitat: Grows on river rocks. Uses: Medicinal (used as cough suppressant and to stop nose bleed). Preparation of the product: As cough suppressant, a liter of water with some bits of algae. To stop nosebleed, it is put directly on the forehead. Common name: Salivazo de la Luna ‘moon spit’. Etymology: Spanish. Salivazo ‘large spit’, amount of saliva that is expelled from the mouth all at once. Ponce de Leén (1909:20) named it Nostoc commune Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahault. Distribution: Sinaloa. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Surrupa. Etymology: Unknown meaning FIGURE 6.— Nitla or Prasiola mexicana J. Agardh collected from the Ocuilan River, State of Mexico (December 18, 1981). Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 69 Chronology: Ponce de Leén (1909:20) named it Conferva chantransia? [Lemanea fluviatilis (Linnaeus) C. Agardh]. Distribution: Sinaloa. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Not provided. Note: Ortega (1984:62) states that its identification is doubtful. Common name: Tacha Etymology: Maya language. Ta” chak, lama ‘slime’, green and slippery thing. It appears over the soil after much rain (Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980:751). Chronology: Ortega (1984:36) and Ortega et al. (1995:xvii) refer to it as Nostoc verrucosum Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahault. Distribution: Yucatan: Mpio. Izamal: Aguada Chulumbay, 9 miles W. of Izamal. Habitat: On land Uses: Not provided. Common name: Tecuitlatl (Figures 7-9). Etymology: Nahua language. Siméon (1988:453) tions that the suffix tet! means “stone” and cuitlatl “excrement”: excrement of stones. Karttunen (1992:73) speaks of te-tl, stone or gem; cuitlatl, excrement, excrescence, residue: “ex- crescence or residue of stones.” In relation to the names of towns such as Tlahuac, Cuitlahuac [or Cuitlahuatzin, Aztec king], Cuitlahuacan and Tecuitlatongo, Ortega (1972:87) writes that they are all toponyms of the term “algae.” There seems to be doubt about the suffixes tetl and teotl; if the latter one is joined to other words, it acquires the meaning “sacred,” “marvelous,” “strange,” and “surprising.” Robelo (1941:245) wrote, “Their name for gold was costicteocuitla or yellow excrement of the gods,” and for silver, iztac- teocuitlak or “white excrement of gods.” Robelo includes the name Tecuitlapan, teocui-tla-a-pan: teocuitla, gold; atl, water and river; pan, in “The river of gold.” If the termination teotl was thought to be tetl, the meaning of tecuitaltl is completely different; it might mean “sacred excrement” and this could lead us to surmise that the ancient Mexicans considered this product to be a valu- able mineral, just as did Hernandez (1959). Other names: Tecuitate. Chronology: Tezozomoc in 1598 (Alvarado Tezozémoc, 1944:62) states: “On some days Mexican women would go to the market to sell fish, frogs, axayactatl, seawater flies, izcahuitle, tecuitlatl and other things which came from the lake, and all kinds of ducks.” (“Donde otros dias las mujeres de los mexicanos iban al mercado de Xochimilco a vender pescado, ranas, axaydctatl, moscas del agua salada, izcahuitle, tecuitlatl y otras cosas salidas de la laguna y patos de todo género.”) Benavente in 1541 (Benavente, 1903) states: “On the water of the Mexican lake grows a kind of powdered slime, and at certain times of the year, when it becomes thicker, the Indians fish it out of the water with very fine nets until their canoes are full of it; then the slime is put over sand to dry. They then prepare a sort of cake, thick as a finger. Afterwards it is cut in pieces like thick bricks and the Indians eat much of it and enjoy it. It is sold by many vendors in markets. It tastes like salt.” (“Crianse sobre el agua de la laguna de México unos como limos muy molidos, y a cierto tiempo del aho que estan mas GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 cuajados, cégenlos los indios con unos redejoncillos de malla muy menuda, hasta que hinchen los acales 6 barcos de ellos, y 4 la ribera hacen sobre la tierra 6 sobre arena unas eras muy llanas con su borde de dos 6 tres brazas en largo y poco menos de ancho, y échanlos alli 4 secar; echan hasta que se hace una torta de gordor de dos dedos y en pocos dias se seca hasta quedar de un gordor de un ducado escaso; y cortada aquella torta como ladrillos anchos, comenlo mucho los indios y tiene se bueno anda esta mercaduria por todos los mercaderes de la tierra, como entre nosotros los que son de la salsa de los indios es bien sabroso, tiene un saborcillo de sal.”) Lopez de Gomara in 1552 (1988:115-116) writes: “With very fine nets they periodi- cally sweep the lake and collect a powdered thing which grows in the lakes of Mexico; this thing becomes thicker, but it is not a grass, nor is it dirt. Rather, it is something resembling slime. There is a lot of this slime, and they collect much of it. They make cakes like bricks with it, the way they do bricks of salt, and they take it to markets, near and far, and sell it. They eat this thing as if it were cheese. It tastes like salt, and with chilmolli® it tastes quite good. They say that birds are so attracted to this slime that sometimes in winter the lake is completely covered by it...” (“Con redes de malla muy menuda barren en cierto tiempo del afo una cosa molida que se cria sobre el agua de las lagunas de México, y se cuaja, que ni es yerba, ni tierra, sino como cieno. Hay de ello mucho y cogen mucho; y en eras, como quien hace sal, lo vacian y alli se cuaja y seca. Hacenlo tortas como ladrillos, y no sla las venden en el mercado, mas llevanlas también a otros fuera de la cuidad y lejos. Comen esto como nosotros el queso, y asi tienen un saborcillo de sal, que con chilmolli es sabroso. Y dicen que a este cebo vienen tantas aves a la laguna, que muchas veces por invierno la cubren por algunas partes.. Santa Cruz c. 1555 (Apenes 1947, pl. 2) did the plan of the City and Valley of Mexico, also known as the Upsala Map (Figure 7). Ortega (1972:89) analyzed this map, and wrote, in relation to the algae: The Upsala map is interesting not only as a geographical document but also for its many references to the human activi- ties near the lakes and Valley of Mexico in general. Many traditions and activities continue to exist just as they did many years ago, but many others, such as the gathering of tecuitlatl, tend to disappear... Fishermen collecting a kind of foam from the water can still be seen (Figure 7). Someone pulls a net to the shore of the lake. They still collect ahuauhtle and cocol from the borders of the lake. Other aspects such as bird hunting are more evident. To the right, the isle of Xaltocan can be seen, with a bear in the middle. Today, Xaltocan is a small town located on saltpeter soil, where the lake is only a memory. Never- theless, they still prepare tamales made of small fish and of cocol de agua or water cocoles. Fishermen bring this pencuct to peexcte in Mexico City. Cocoles can be found in water puddles, canals in T Zumpango Diaz del Castillo in 1568 (1964:159) wrote: “There were fish vendors (women) sell- ing small loaves of bread made from a kind a slimy substance they collect from that large lake and when it thickens they 1 make bread that tastes a little like cheese...” (“Pues pescaderas y otros que vendian uno llos que hacen de una como lama que cogen de aquella gran laguna, que se cuaja y hacen panes de ello que tienen un sabor a manera de queso...”) Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 71 FIGURE 7.— Detail of the Upsala Map (16th century). In the upper left hand corner, people collecting algae can be seen. Sahagun in 1571 (1971:221, fo. 220) wrote: “There are some urronas growing on the water which are called tecuitlatl (Figure 8) or acuitlatl or agoguitl or amomoxtli, they are light blue, and when they are thick enough, the people spread this thing over ashes and afterwards they make “cakes” which are toasted and eaten (Figure 9).” (“Hay unas urronas, que se crian sobre el agua, que se llaman tecuitlatl 0, acuitlatl, 0 agoquitl, 0 amomoxtli, son de color azul claro, después que esta bien espeso, y grueso, cogenlo, tiendenlo en el suelo sobre ceniza y después hacen unas tortas de ello y tostadas las comen.”) Hernandez between 1571-1575 (Hernandez 1649, 1959:408-409) wrote: “The tecuitlat, a substance much like mud growing in some places of the Mexican lake, floats to the surface from where it is collected with nets or shovels. Once out of the water, the Indians make small ‘cakes’ which are put to dry on fresh herbs until completely dry and afterwards these cakes are kept for about a year as if it were cheese. These cakes are eaten when needed, with roasted corn or with the popular tortillas. Each area were this slime is collected pro- vides the owner with good profits. It tastes like cheese, and this is how the Spaniards call it, although it is not as good as cheese, it smells a little like mud, it is of a green color which turns black, it can be eaten only in small quantities and only instead of salt or to give some flavor to corn. Tortillas made of this slime are not good: Spaniards, who eat almost anything, especially in these lands, do not eat these tortillas.” (“Brota el tecuitlat, que es muy parecido al limo, en algunos sitios del lago mexicano, y gana el punto la superficie de las aguas de donde se saca 0 barre con redes 0 se apila con palas. Una vez extraido y secado un poco al sol, le dan los indios forma de pequenas tortas; se ponen entonces otra vez al sol y sobre yerbas frescas hasta que se seca perfectamente, y se guarda luego como el queso por sdlo un afio. Se come cuando es necesario 72 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 FIGURE 8.— Images from the Florentine Codex interpreted by Ortega (1972:87). Tenate or basket made of woven ixtle and palm leaves, with small loaves of bread made of ixcahuitl. Below, filaments of the alga tecuitlatl; also, the fish spear used by fishermen to collect the foamy substance or tecuitlatl may be seen. FIGURE 9.— Images from the Florentine Codex interpreted by Ortega (1972:87) and Dibble and Anderson (1963:fig. 227). Two blue-green plates (in the original) prepared with tecuitlatl. con maiz tostado o con las comunes tortillas de los indios. Cada venero de este limo tiene su dueno particular, a quien rinde a veces una ganancia de mil escudos de oro anuales. Tiene sabor de queso, y asi lo llaman los espanoles, pero menos agradable y con cierto olor a cieno; cuando reciente es azul 0 verde; ya viejo es de color de limo, verde tirando a negro, comestible sélo en pequena cantidad, y esto en vez de sal o condimento del maiz. En cuanto a las tortillas que hacen de él, son alimento malo y rustico, de lo cual es buena prueba el hecho de que los espafioles, que nada desprovechan de lo que sirve al regalo del paladar, sobre todo en estas tierras, jamas han Ilegado a comerlas”). Pomar in 1582 (Pomar and Zurita, 1941) wrote: “...neither fish nor birds reproduce here, and those birds which come from Florida in winter eat a small fish which can be found almost all year round, and a kind of food called tecuitlatl made Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 73 of green slime that grows in the lake. Cakes are made of this, they are dark green, and the Spanish call them dirt cheese.” (“...no se crian peces ni aves y las que vienen de Florida durante el invierno toman un pescadillo que se mantiene casi todo el ano y un género de comida llamado tecuitlatl que hacen de unas lamas verdes que cria [la laguna] lo cual hecho tortas y cocido, queda con un color verde oscuro, que llaman los espafioles queso de tierra.”) Clavijero between 1780-1781 (1945:354) wrote: “They not only ate living things, they also ate a slimy substance which floated on the water; they would collect it and make some cakes which would be dried and kept and would be used instead of cheese. They would call this substance tecuitlatl.” (“Comian no solamente de las cosas vivientes, sino aun de cierta substancia limosa que sobrenadaba en el lago, la cual recogian, secaban un poco al sol y hacian de ella unas tortas que volvian a secar y guardaban para que les sirviese de queso, cuyo sabor remeda. Daban a esta substancia el nombre de tecuitlatl.”) Ehrenberg (1854:373, 374) analyzed several ancient Mexican documents. In a chap- ter of The Edible and Medicinal Soils in Mexico (“Las tierras comestibles y medicinales de México”) he wrote, “In descriptions of Mexico we find news about mineral substances, some of which are eaten there for their taste, or for their medicinal properties.” Research on the composition and structure of these substances might be very interesting and we might learn more about them. After analyz- ing the meaning of the tecuitlatl in the writings of Bernal Diaz del Castillo and Hernandez, the author wrote that cakes made from this substance were bad food, which is evident because the Spaniards ate everything with good flavor, but they had not eaten any of this. The description could refer to Oscillarias? and polygastric!® with a silica shell which emerge (in small clots) to the surface —in springtime—, from the bottom of stagnant water. One has to imagine isolated puddles in a swamp. Ancona (1933:55) writes: “Floating on the lake, but preferably on puddles and canals which are still found during the dry season, green slimy masses of Vaucheria and Cyanophycea of the genuses Oscillaria and Nostoc can be found; the slimy secretion of the latter ones is favored by the Gyrinus flies and even by the corixids (water bugs), a fact we could appreciate when we dissected their stomachs.” This might be what Clavijero referred to when he wrote about a foamy substance which was collected and eaten by ancient Mexicans, be- cause we have never found eggs of the ahuautle'! which stick to the Cyanophytes. Ortega (1972:86) wrote: “It is evident that the tecuitate is an important nutritious element for the poor peoples of the Anahuac.” Several authors mention this product as part of a simple tradition practiced on a daily basis. Distribution: Valley of Mexico [Texcoco and Zumpango]. Habitat: Lakes. Massive algae growth. Uses: Edible. Note: In Chad Lake, Africa, the French Petroleum Institute studied Spirulina platensis that had been consumed by local population (Léonard 1966:127). While, in Mexico, some authors (Prieto 1985:263; Castellé Yturbide et al. 1986:73) sur- mised that the tecuitlatl was Spirulina maxima, a blue-green algae, present in highly alkaline waters, such as those of Lake Texcoco. Nevertheless, Ehrenberg GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 (1854) was the first scientist who discovered that algae (Oscillarias and dia- toms) were the main component in this Mexican product. Ortega (1987:174) wrote that the vulgar name of tecuitlatl, which had been directly recorded from various informants in the Valley of Mexico, actually belongs to blue- green freshwater algae, which includes the Phormidium tenue or cuculito del agua ‘water cuculito’. Farrar (1966:341) writes, based on historical facts, that the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan ate large amounts of blue-green algae [Cyano- phyceae] of unknown species. He also states that, today, there are large quantities of Cyanophyceae closely related to toxic algae such as Microcystis and Anabaena. In spite of all this, it appears 4 that pecutiatt 3 is being eaten with no harm to human health. It is possible that c caused by urban growth have radically altered he Spee habitat of the Valley of Mexico, and edible species have been substituted by toxic ones. Common name: Tizatl ‘white dirt’ (Figures 10, 11). Etymology: Nahua language. Tiza-tl, a type of varnish or white dirt (Molina 1944:113; Siméon 1988:546; Karttunen 1992:241). Robelo (1902:167) wrote, “Spanish for tiza or tizar, an Aztec word composed of tizatl (white dirt) a mixture of fossil microorganisms.” Corominas and Pascual (1983:512) included the definition, “some white powder that silver craftsmen and other persons use to clean gold and silver jewelry.” The word tiza is absent from the dictio- naries of the classic period as well as from ancient editions. It can be found in the 1843 edition, but the definition says, “ashes of a deers’ antlers, to which in 1869, is added white dust used as marker, which can be used to clean metals.” Today, the word tiza is very well known in places where Spanish is spoken, especially as a name for limestone and chalk, and it is used to write on waxed surfaces, on cloth, etc. The terms ticatl, varnish or white dust, can be found in the Nahuatl Dictionary by Molina in 1571 [Molina 1966:508], together with the word ticayoa, ‘to be full of varnish’ or ‘of white dirt,’ and tigauia, ‘to varnish with white varnish,’ from where the Mexican name Tizapan comes. In Mexico, the word tiza is used, and also tizar, which is a more refined word... and tizate is used in other places. The sound of this last word is like that of many Aztec words (tomate, petate, metate, achiote, etc.) although sometimes the original accentuation is kept and the ending tl is eliminated. Ximénez in 1615 (1888:282) describes in detail the shape and elaboration of the Mexican ticatlialli (of the term tlalli, dirt). If we had not had this information we would have believed that, given that coal can be used in the same way, its name would have been used for white chalk, and we would have supposed that the term came form fizo, tizon, which comes form the Latin titio, -onis: chalk burnt al- most completely...these terms undoubtedly come form titio, as well as atizar, but we have renounced the use of this etymology. In Asturias, the term “tiz” is used for tiza, white natural or artificial stone, which is a combination of the Mexican term tiza and the local synonym xiz [gis], from gypsum. Other names: Tetizatl (tetl, rock; tizatl, white dirt), tizatlalli (tlalli, clay), tisar, tizate, tiza, tierra blanca ‘white dirt’, tierra de diatomeas ‘diatomaceous dirt’, diatomita ‘diatomite’, ‘diatom dust’. Chimaltizatl (chimalli, escudo: specular stone). Atizatl (a-tl, water: agua-tizatl). The verb “entizar,” to paint with the or chalk. Robelo (1941:37) writes: Tiza- -a-pan (tiza, tizatl; atl, water; pan, in Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 75 in water of tiza). The Diccionario Porrtia (1995:3503-3504) includes Tizatlan (tiza, tizatl; tlalli, clay: over on clay). It is an archeological place, its population belonged to the Cholultec [Tlaxcala] culture. In other parts of the world, the term “tripoli” referred to siliceous deposit formed mainly of frustules of dia- toms. Today it means “diatomite” (Diaz Lozano 1917:9; Hernddez Velasco 1955:36). Chronology: Hernandez between 1571-1575 (1959:408) and Ximénez in 1615 (1888:282-283) wrote: “The tetizatl or tizatl stone is a white stone used by painters, which is burnt to ashes until it turns white. It is, nevertheless, less white and shiny than the chimaltizatl.” (“El tetizatl o piedra tizatl es una piedra blanca que usan los pintores, calcinada, para dar el color blanco. Es sin embargo de blancura menos luminosa que el llamado chimaltizatl.”) Hernandez (1959:410) also wrote: “The tizatlalli or white dirt is extracted from deposits in the lake...it is kneaded like potter’s clay to form small round ob- jects which become white when in contact with fire. It looks much like our mineral albayalde ‘white lead’ but ours is made from lead and vinegar; this one is produced spontaneously and is extremely white in some places of New Spain. It is cold, dry and clean but it does not irritate the skin, and it cures skin rashes. It is also useful for curing ulcers on sexual parts of the body, and can be used to paint things white. It is so soft, that Mexican women put it on cot- ton threads to make weaving easier.” (“Se saca también de mina lacustre el tizatlalli o tierra blanca, se amasa como barro, se hacen de él bolas pequenias, y puesto al fuego adquiere poco a poco color blanco. Es tan semejante a nuestro albayalde, que podria llamarse con raz6n albayalde mineral, pues en tanto que el nuestro suele hacerse de plomo suspendido sobre vinagre, éste se pro- duce espontaneamente y de un color blanquisimo en algunos lugares de esta Nueva Espania. Es de naturaleza fria, secante y detersiva sin ninguna irritaci6n, y, como aquél, cura espolvoreado las rozaduras de los ninos. Sana también admirablemente las tilceras de las partes sexuales, y sirve para tenir de blanco cualesquiera cosas. Es de tal suavidad, que las mujeres mexicanas, untando con él sus dedos, les dan la tersura apropiada para hilar mas facilmente el algod6n. Sahatits in 1571 (1971:372, fo. 221) wrote: “Women use this clay to weave, and it is sold in markets...there are stones in this land, from which varnish is made, they are called tetizatl (Figures 10, 11): stones that come from streams near Tulan [Tula, state of Hidalgo]; they use these stones to varnish the “jicaras” (small drinking cup). There is also another called chimaltizatl, which is found near Uastepec (Oaxtepec, state of Morelos). They pull them out as if they were stones, then they cook them. These stones are similar to “yeso de Castilla” or chalk. They are sold in the tianguis.!*” (“Hay greda usanla mucho, las mujeres para hilar y venderse en los tianguis llamarse tizatl... Hay piedras en esta tierra, de que se hace el barniz, llamanias tetizatl: son piedras que se hacen en los arroyos hacia Tulan, usan mucho: de las piedras f barnizar las jicaras. Hay también, otra de las que se llama chimaltizatl, hacense hacia Uastepec [Oaxtepec, state of Morelos], scanlas, como de pedrova [stones], para labrar: estas piedras cuécenlas primero, son como yeso de Castilla, véndansen en los tianguis.”) 76 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 FIGURE 10.— Image from the Florentine Codex interpreted by Dibble and Anderson (1963:fig. 820). Preparation of tizatl. FIGURE 11.— Image from the Florentine Codex interpreted by Dibble and Anderson (1963:fig. 821). Preparation of tetizatl. Clavijero between 1780-1781 (1945:315) states: “The white part of the mineral stone called chimaltizatl, once it is burnt to ashes, or of the tizatlalli, which is a mineral soil found in the lake, which is kneaded with mud and made into balls; when cooked, it becomes white just as the “albayalde” from Spain.” (“El blanco de la piedra mineral chimaltizatl después de calcinada, o del tizatlalli, que es una tierra mineral que se halla en la laguna la cual amasada como lodo y reducida a pelotas, recibe con la accién del fuego un color blanco semejantisimo al del albayalde de Espafia.”) Del Barco in XVIII century (1973:156-157) writes: “The Cerro Colorado of Mulegé is famous because it has gold; there is a deposit of fossil matter which is called tiza in New Spain. It is a very fine dust, very soft, just like flour. It is whiter than chalk, and it is used to paint churches and houses. But its white color is Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 77 so intense that it is mixed with dark agua-cola' to make it less white so it will not be painful to the eyes. It is used in New Spain to clean silver, because it leaves it as if it were new.” (“En el cerro Colorado de Mulegé, de que dejamos dicho, que tiene fama de mineral de oro, se halla una veta de aquel fésil que en Nueva Espana llaman tiza. Y es una especie de finisimo polvo, que se saca en pequenos terrones de la veta, los cuales, tomandolos con los dedos, facilmente se deshacen en un sutilisimo polvo, que excede en la suavidad auna la harina floreada, segtin lo percibe el tacto. Es mas blanco que el yeso, y en lugar de este se valen en algunas partes de la tiza para blanquear las casas e iglesias. Mas su blancura es tanta que, para mitigarla y que no ofenda a la vista, se procura que el agua-cola, con que se mezcla para este efecto, sea de color obscuro. Los plateros usan en la Nueva Espana de la tiza para limpiar la plata; y aun en las casas particulares se valen de ella para lo mismo. Porque con gran facilidad la limpian dejandola como nueva.”) Ehrenberg (1854:372, 373) wrote that tisar of Mexico is a white sandy mixture, it is made almost entirely of shells of diatoms, and the predominant forms are Eunotia gibberula and E. zebrina, Synedra capitata and Biblarium emarginatum. Diaz Lozano (1917:10) wrote that the tizate or tizar used in Mexico comes from Ixtlahuaca and in lesser amounts from Tlalnepantla and Texcoco, and it is made of fossil diatoms. Epifania Cortés, from “Rancho Cuauhtendhuatl,” Huautla, Hidalgo, mentioned, in 1992, that this product is sold in markets of the state of Hidalgo, as round stones to be eaten by those with stomach cramps, vomits and by pregnant women who want to eat chalk (Figure 12). Roberto Rico Montiel (August 27, 1996, pers. com.) said that the inhabitants of Tizatlan still use the name tizar when referring to diatoms. Distribution: Baja California Sur: Mpio. Mulegé: Cerro Colorado de Mulegé. Hidalgo: Huautla: Rancho Cuauhtendhuatl. State of Mexico: Ixtlahuaca, be- tween the valleys of Toluca and Lerma; Cerro de Sultepec, Texcoco lake. Tlaxcala: Tizatlan. Habitat: Fossil matter, possibly from ancient aquatic environments. Uses: Medicinal (colic, vomiting, and for pregnant women who have the urge to eat chalk). Diaz Lozano (1917:10) writes that the quality of the tizate improves when it is repeatedly washed and burnt. It is used to polish metals, wood- work, ivory, marble, etc. It is also used in the manufacture of toothpaste, music records, and as absorbent material in filters and varnishes previously dissolved in soda (see Hernandez Velasco 1955). In 1985, the Mexican industry produced 45,781 tons of diatomite, mainly used by sugar mills, beer factories and in the building industry; some of it was also exported (Enciclopedia de México 1987). Note: There have been controversies about the origin of the term tizal (is it a min- eral or does it come from deposits of diatoms?). Prieto’s (1985:261, 262, 263) interpretation was that there was a mineral origin for the term tizal and other similar names, which were included in F. Hernandez’s work. From chimaltizatl or specular stone,'4 he writes that it could be the anhydrite or common chalk used as building material. The tetizatl could refer to chalky stone or calcium carbonate, which today is the source chalk and a white material which, when hydrated, is used to paint the facades of houses in some regions. It could also 78 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 FIGURE 12.— Epifania Cortés, from “Rancho Cuauhtenahuatl”, Huautla, Hidalgo (1992), eating tizatl. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 79 mean chalk, or hydrate anhydrite, or hydrate calcium sulfate. The tizatlalli, or white soil or dirt, is similar to the albayalde, or to basic lead carbonates called “cerusita” or “ceruse” and has been used as the base in white paint. Preto (1985) is doubtful of the medicinal uses, stating that it might be talcum powder, a very common mineral which cannot melt, is of leafy texture, and is very soft. Also, Dibble and Anderson (1963:243-244) did a similar interpreta- tion of these names, which were included in Florentine Codex. Nevertheless, Ehrenberg (1854, 1869, the original quotes are in German) was the first scien- tist who demonstrated that the tizatl is made of diatoms, although he too, just as Prieto (1985), had doubts about its medicinal uses. Ehrenberg (1854:374) also did a translation of Hernandez’ work which he analyzed in his 1869 re- search (pp. 2, 4, 5, 6): “There is a kind of clay called atizal, white or whitish, it is mixed with clay and turned into adobes ‘building material’, it is not good for anything else.” He also writes: “I had to inform about the elements con- forming this dirt, white as snow, but without knowing where it came from or where it had been extracted from. It was formed by polygastric, mostly Bacillariophytes [Bacillariophyceae], of 38 recognizable species. After more experiments and research on this white powdery substance (like flour), pub- lished in Microgeologie (Ehrenberg 1854), the number of forms found in this Mexican substance called tisar went up to 115 organic species, their drawings can be found on table 33, figures 7-17. Workers for Mr. Castillo told him that the Indians around the Ixtlahuaca area, between the Valley of Toluca and Lerma, sell this type of clay for different purposes. According to Dr. Buckhart, Dr. Castillo says that the Indians use the tisar, which they call tizate, for different things, but especially as polish for metals, cutlery, etc. They wash the tisar, and make round things with it, which are then taken to the market. In Europe, they use the polishing schist (black-blue rock) for the same purposes. Painters also use it to paint walls in rooms, to prepare the walls before applying the color...the tiza is formed by very fine and fragile particles, like dust, but with sharp edges ...it forms flat white deposits which the indians collect and wash. But there are some layers of tiza, which are so pure that do not need to be washed...of what can be seen from Dr. Castillo’s information, the Indians wash the dirt that is going to be sold, they make white balls with it. It can also be thought that they make ornaments with these balls, which they sell. And as the stone that was sent to me is natural and not artificial, and has no adhesive material. I am sure the natives do not make the balls with loose dirt but with stones, just as they find it. They sculpture, and they sell it. If the stone is turned to powder, it is impossible to shape it without using something like clay to join the particles. Besides, the name fiza is an old name, while the idea that white dirt is organic is new. Tizatl and tizatlalli mineral dirt which gave an- cient Mexicans their white pain when they added clay and kneaded it.” It is possible that there was a mix-up with the term at the beginnings of the 20th century or even before that. When C. Ehrenberg received a sample from Anto- nio del Castillo (a Mexican geologist) (Eherenberg 1876:119), there was doubt about the nametag on the sample. The tag said “tiza from Toluca,” yet was it porous stone or microorganisms? Today, several authors have reconfirmed that the origin is from diatoms (Rico-Montiel et al. 1993). 80 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 On the other hand, Castellé Yturbide et al. (1986:104) wrote about the tradition of eating dirt, which is religious in origin. Sahagun (1971:appendix of book II, p. 175) claimed: “They would touch the dirt with one finger which they would then put in their mouth, or they would touch their tongue with it; they would say they were eating dirt, as a gesture of reverence to their gods...” (“Tocaban la tierra con el dedo y luego lo llevaban a la boca, 0 a la lengua; a esto llamaban comer tierra, hacianlo con reverencia de sus dioses...”) Castell6 Yturbide et al. (1986:104) confirmed that even though this custom was forbidden in 1625, it was currently still possible to buy bread made from dirt in several places in Mexico (Jalisco and Michoacan). Bread made from dirt is used as a cure for diseases or sadness or to satisfy the whimsical appetite of pregnant women who feel the urge to eat dirt. It has been said that if they eat common dirt, they would deliver a “dirt eating child.” Common name: Tripilla. Etymology: Spanish. Refers to guts. Chronology: Ortega (1984:294) gives this name to Nitella sp. Distribution: Michoacan: Mpio. Patzcuaro: Patzcuaro Lake. Habitat: Bentic in lakes. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Tsil. Etymology: Maya language. Ts”il, water slime (Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980:885). Other names: Luk and mum, mud, slime found at the bottom of lakes and puddles (Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980:464, 540). Chronology: Ortega et al. (1995:xvii) gives this name to several algae. Distribution: Yucatan Peninsula. Habitat: Freshwater. Uses: Not provided. Note: It could possibly be a reference to algae of the Cyanophyceae and Chlorophyceae classes. Common name: Tzau. Etymology: Maya language. Tzau, slimy (freshwater) place or freshwater excre- ment? (“mojonera de agua dulce”) (Ortega, 1984:36). Chronology: Ortega (1984:36) and Ortega et al. (1995:xvii) named it Nostoc verrucosum Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahault. Distribution: Yucatan: Mpio. Izamal: Aguada Chulumbay, 9 miles W. of Izamal. Habitat: In water puddles. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Undina. Etymology: Spanish. Refers to undicola, something that lives on these water waves (Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada 1929, tomo 65:997). Chronology: Ponce de Leén (1909:20) called it Nostoc commune Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahault. Distribution: Sinaloa. Habitat: Not provided. Uses: Not provided. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 81 Common name: Verdin. Etymology: Spanish. The first green color acquired by grasses or plants that have not reached maturity. Green layer of cryptogamous plants that grow in fresh- water, especially in stagnant water... (Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada 1929, tomo 67:1448). Chronology: Ponce de Le6én (1909:20) called it Conferva chantransia? [Lemanea fluviatilis (Linnaeus) C. Agardh]. The Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada (1929, tomo 67:1448) states that the common name refers to Conferva rivularis Linnaeus [Cladophora rivularis (Linnaeus) van den Hoek] and to other green algae. Distribution: Sinaloa. Habitat: On damp soil and stones. Uses: Not provided. Note: Verdin is a name, which refers to green algae (Chlorophyceae). There is doubt about the identity of Conferva chantransia. Common name: Xkomha. Etymology: Maya language. “Short thing in the water” (Ortega 1984:232). The Diccionario Maya Cordemex (1980:165, 334) states: kom, valley or cliff, to sink; ha, water; possibly something sunken in the water or thing found at the bot- tom of the water. Chronology: J.E. Tilden (in Millspaugh 1896:286; Standley 1930:192) named it Microspora amoena (Kiitzing) Rabenhorst. Distribution: Yucatan: Izamal, in (water) deposit tanks, G.F. Gaumer 571, Jan.-Dec. 1895 (US, BM, fide Millspaugh 1896:286). Habitat: In (water) deposit tanks. Uses: Not provided. Common name: Yaxkoxmal. Etymology: Maya language, Ya”xk”oxmal, “Threads of the lake” (“ovas de la- guna”), a genus of aquatic plant (Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980:973). It also refers to lama ‘slime’ or moho verde ‘green mold’ which grows on damp and shady soil, “into which the feet slide easily” (Alvarez 1980:228). Chronology: Ortega et al. (1995:xvii) consider it an algae belonging to the Cyano- phyceae class. Distribution: Yucatan Peninsula. Habitat: On land. Uses: Not provided. Note: The Diccionario de la Lengua Espariola (1970:954) indicates that ova, from the Latin ulva, refers to any unicellular [pluricellular] green algae, with simple or branched filaments, or with large and foliaceous, or narrow and bandlike blades, which grow in the sea, rivers or ponds, floating on the water or fixed to the bottom by radicular appendixes. “Ova de rio” refers, therefore, to fresh- water algae [possibly filamentous Chlorophyceae] and “ova marina” to algae with laminar expansions or hollow tubular bands, almost always branched, found in sea and brackish water [possibly Ulvales such as Enteromorpha y Ulva]. TABLE 1.— Knowledge of Mexican freshwater algae.! Taxa Mexican distribution (State) Common names Century Uses CYANOPHYCEAE oe Colne (Strasburger) Komarek et Distrito Federal, Michoacan is? Anagno haste ‘fie a Brébisson ex Bornet et Flahault Nostoc commune Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahault Nostoc verrucosum Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahault Phormidium calidum (C. Agardh) Gomont ex Gomont Phormidium tenue (Meneghini) Gomont* Spirulina geitleri De Toni Spirulina labyrinthiformis (Linnaeus) omont Oscillatoriales (“Oscillarias”), Cyanophyceae Cyanophyceae RHODOPHYCEAE Lemanea fluviatilis (Linnaeus) C. Agardh BACILLARIOPHYCEAE Fragilaria diophthalma (Ehrenberg) renber. Fragilaria striatula (J.E. Smith?) Lyngbye Nuevo Leén, Oaxaca State of Mexico, Sinaloa Yucatan Nuevo Le6n. State of Mexico State of Mexico Guanajuato Valley of Mexico Yucatan Peninsula Sinaloa Oaxaca Oaxaca Chilacaxtli, Chilacastle, chilacascle 20‘ Lama ‘slime’ Amoxtli, amoxtle, amomoxtli, gelatina de agua ‘water jelly’ salivazo de la luna ‘moon spit’, undina Tachak (slime, green and slippery thing), tzau (fre Lama del topo ‘mole slime’ Cuculin (water viscosity), a del agua ‘water cuculito’, cocol, coca cocol de agua wate cocol’ Espirulina ‘spirulina’ Lama de comanjilla Tecuitlatl, tecuitate (stone residue) Tsil ‘water slime’, yaxkoxmal (threats of lake) Conferva, surrupa Diatoma de copos ‘diatom tufted’, lama sh water excrement? 1 gth 16th, 20% 20th ygth 16th, 1gth, 20th 20th ygth 16th, 18th, ygth 20th 90th Qoth ygth Lama ‘slime’, diatoma erguida ‘stiff 19" diatom’ Soil improvement Food Food, min sig cuant ‘Ca and Fe) Food, human and animal protein supplement Food Bacillariophyceae (fossil diatome) Baja California Sur, State of Tizatl (white dirt), tizatlalli, tetizatl, 16th -20" Paints, medicinal, cotton Mexico, Hidalgo, Tlaxcala tl, chimaltizatl, tizar, tizate, spinning, filters, polishing tiza, tierra blanca ‘white dirt’, and industrial uses diatomita ‘diatomite’, tierra de diatomeas iiatotnaceous dirt’ XANTHOPHYCEAE Vaucheria fontinalis (Linnaeus) Christensen Guanajuato Lama ‘slime’ 19%, 29% CHLOROPHYCEAE Cephaleuros virescens Kunze Chiapas, Tabasco, Veracruz Mancha de la hoja ‘leaf spot’ pA Phytopathology Chlorella sp. Algafil 20th Gives color to eggs’ yolk Cladophora glomerata (Linnaeus) Kiitzing |= Nuevo Leén, Oaxaca Lama ‘slime’ 19th var. crassior (C. Agardh) van den Hoek Cladophora rivularis (Linnaeus) van den Guanajuato, Nuevo Leon, Lama ‘slime’, verdin 19th 20th Hoek Oaxaca, Sin Microspora amoena (Kiitzing) Rabenhorst Yucatan Xkomha iene found at the bottom 19% of the water) Prasiola mexicana J. Agardh State of Mexico Nitla 20" Cough suppressant, nasal hemorrhages Rhizoclonium hieroglyphicum (C. Agardh) Michoacan Lama ‘slime’ 20th Kitzin, Spirogyra flavescens (Hassall) Kiitzing Jalisco Lama 20th Zygnema lutescens (Vaucher) C. Agardh Oaxaca Lama larga ‘long slime’ 19th Chlorophyceae [filamentous] Yucatan Peninsula Chonak 20th CHAROPH Chara zeylanica Klein ex Willdenow Veracruz, Yucatan Iximha (water corn) 20th Control of mosquito larvae* Nitella sp. Michoacan Tripilla (small guts /innards) 20th 1 The taxa (class) sequence in Table 1004G\ es ee organization of the “classes” ae the “divisions” can be treated in different ? With its symbiont Azolla filiculoides Lamouroux [fern]. 3 +} Otk ter Pv 4 Associated with Chroococcus turgidus (Kiitzing) Nageli. The “division” category is omitted, as the 1: Chara contraria A. Braun ex Kiitzing , C. hispida Linnaeus, C. foetida A. Braun [C. vulgaris Linnaeus] and C. fragilis Desvaux [C. globularis Thuillier]. 84 GODINEZ et al. Vol. 21, No. 1 CONCLUSION Results are given in Table 1. We registered 23 species. The families with the highest diversity were Cyanophyceae (8 spp.) and Chlorophyceae (9 spp.). On the other hand Bacillariophyceae (2 spp.), Xanthophyceae (1 sp.), Charophyceae (2 spp.) and Rhodophyceae (1 sp.) were the families with the lowest diversity. Spe- cies of tizatl are not included in the Bacillariophyceae class, as there are many and with many variations depending on the locality of origin. People from the fifteen states in Mexico know about algae. This knowledge is reflected in the many common names (48) and uses (5) given to these organisms. Algae are used for human and animal consumption (nutritional), for medicinal and health purposes, in agriculture (soil improvement and phytopathology) and cattle ranching activities; they are also used for industrial purposes. The fact that many of the common names could not be related to a particular use could be a reflection of the loss of the resource. Of the 56 ethnic groups (Instituto Nacional Indigenista 1990) in 32 states in Mexico, the Nahua (State of Mexico) and the Maya (Yucatan) are the ones that reflect the most knowledge and uses of continental algae. People in Oaxaca, Sinaloa and Yucatan also posses information regarding algae. Research related to the re- covery of continental Mexican algae and their uses will be crucial in the future. NOTES 1 Andhuac: From the Nahua term Atl: water, and nahuac: near to: near the water. It desig- nates the Valley of Mexico where there used to be large lakes (Macazaga Ordonio 1979:27). 2 Urrona: Small animals that thrive on the water’s surface. The origin of the word is un- known (Santamaria 1959:1101). 3 Tamal: From the Aztec term tamalli. Dough made of corn meal and porks’ fat, of a thick consistency, which is wrapped in corn or banana leaves, sometimes with meat. The dough of the algae tamal is made of algae and is wrapped in corn leaves (Santamaria 1959:1000). 4 Tequesquite: From the Nahua term tequizquitl: efflorescent stone, and tetl: stone and quizquitl: to spontaneously emerge. It is natural salt made of caustic soda “sesquicarbon- ates” and sodium chloride. It is an effervescent residue appearing when water evaporates from brackish lakes (Cabrera 1984:134). 5 Molcajete: From the Aztec term molli: salsa ‘sauce’, and caxitl: small box. Small stone mortar with three small “feet,” used to crush and prepare sp such as chile, to prepare sauces, etc. Used to crush the tejolote (Santamaria 1959:732). ® Mole: From the Aztec term molli: salsa ‘sauce’ or cooked meal. Famous and special meal prepared with chile sauce and sesame seeds, with turkey meat (Santamaria 1959:733). ? Evaporador Solar El Caracol ‘Solar Vaporizer’: Spiral shaped water canals in Texcoco (State of Mexico), with a diameter of 3200 m and a surface of 850 hectares. El Caracol is a large “evaporation machine” which uses solar energy and, due to its particular location, - 2240 m above sea level — solar radiation and evaporation are extremely efficient. Spirulina algae grow naturally in the external canals of El Caracol. Cultivation of Spirulina in Mexico Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 85 was successful due to factors such as: solar radiation, adequate temperature and availabil- ity of alkaline waters. The industrial growth of the algae has been optimized by the Sosa Texcoco Company. 8 Chilmolli: From the Nahua term chilli: chile and molli: salsa ‘sauce’: meal made of chile peppers, meat and vegetables (Cabrera 1984:70). ° Oscillarias: In the 19" Century, the Oscillarias belonged to the group of the green algae; today they belong to the Cyanophyceae (Oscillatoriales) or blue-green algae (Ortega 1987: 174). 10 Poligastric: These microscopic algae belonged to the diatoms. Today it belongs to the Bacillariophyceae group (Ortega 1987:174). 1! Ahuautle: From the Nahua term: atl: water; huautli: “mijo” seed: water seeds. It is a sort of caviar or tiny eggs deposited by small flies (Coriza mercenaria, C. femorata) on plants which grow near lakes. When dried and turned into pulp, they are edible (Cabrera 1984:30). 12 Tianguis: From the Aztec term tianquiztli: market; market square or market in general. By extension, it means the selling and buying which took place in the past, on a certain day of the week, in several towns and which still takes place in some small towns in Mexico (Santamaria 1959:1042). 13 Agua-cola: Strong, transparent and sticky paste obtained by boiling pieces of animal skin, and which, when dissolved in hot water, is used as glue (Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola 1970:319). 14 Specular stone (“piedra especular”): Diaphanous or transparent stone with mirror like qualities. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Jennifer H. Bain for the English translation of this paper. LITERATURE CITED ALDAVE-PAJARES, AUGUSTO. 1969. ANAGNOSTIDIS, KONSTANTINOS and Cus uro: algas azul- verdes utilizadas JIRI KOMAREK. 1988. Modern Botanica de La Libertad 1:5-43, 3 lams. ALY. ZOZOM FERNAN 1944. Crénica Mexicana. Editorial Leyenda, México, D.F. ALVAREZ, CRISTINA. Spor — Etnolingiiistico del I a Maya Yucateco Colonial. Coie Fisico. Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de México, México, D.F. approach to the classification system of Cyanophytes 3- Oscillatoriales. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, Suppl. 80:327- 472. ANCONA, LEOPOLDO. 1933. El ahuautle APENES, OLA. 1947. Mapas Antiguos del Valle de México. Instituto de Historia, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de México, México BENAVENTE, TORIBIO DE (also known as Motolinia). 1903. Memoriales. México. 86 GODINEZ et al. BRAVO HOLLIS, HELIA. 880 Las lemnaceas del valle de México. Anales del Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de México 1:7-32. 6. Observaciones pecipticas y geobotinicas en el Valle de Actopan. s del Instituto de Biologia, ateuniaad Nacional Aut6noma de México 7:169-233. BRIOSO-VASCONCELOS, ANGEL. 1923. The algae of the genus Chara and mosquito larvae. Journal of Public Health Nation’s Health 13:543-546. CABRERA, LUIS. 1984. Diccionario de Aztequismos. Ediciones Oasis, México. CASTANEDA, ALFONSO MANUEL. 1933. a Flora del Estado de Jalisco. WAY Sots Jaime. Guadalajara, Jalisco, exic CASTELLOYTUR RBIDE, TERESA, MICHEL ZABE, and IGNACIO PINA LUJAN. 1986. Presencia de la Comida Lipa ome eas Cultural Banamex, A.C., ico, CLAVIJERO, FRANCISCO JAVIER. 1945, Historia Antigua de México. Tomo IL. Editorial Porrtia, México, D.F. COROMINAS, JOAN and JOSE A. PASCUAL. 1983. Diccionario Critico Etimolégico Castellano e Hispanico. Vol. V. Editorial Gredos, Madrid. DEL BARCO, MIGUEL. 1973. Historia Natural y Cronica de la Antigua California. Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México, México, D.F. DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL. 1964. Historia Verdadera de la Conquista de a Nueva Espana. Thrid edition. Editorial Porria, México, D.F. DIAZ LOZANO, ENRIQUE. ae es del Instituto Geolégico de Mexico 1: 1, DIBBLE, CHARLES E. and ARTHUR J.O. ANDERSON. 1963. Florentine Codex. Book 11 - Earthly things. Translated from the Aztec into English, with notes and illustrations. The School of American Research and the University Utah oO : DICCIONARIO DE LA LENGUA yialeiveiae a she 19" edition. Real Academia Espafola, Madrid. DICCIONARIO peava COnDRa IR 1980. aya-espanol, espafiol-maya. Ediciones Cordemex, Mérida. Vol. 21, No. 1 DICCIONARIO PORRUA DE HISTORIA, BIOGRAFIA Y GEOGRAFIA DE MEXICO. 1995. Sixth edition. Editorial Porrtia, México, D.F. EHRENBERG, CHRISTIAN G. 1854. Mikrogeologie. Verlag von Leopold Voss, ser Pn 869, Uber Machtige Gebirgs- i ceieen Vorherrschend Mikroskopischen Bacillarien unter und bei der Stadt Mexiko. K6nigl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin . 1876. De la toba fitolitaria del ee de Toluca. La Naturaleza (1°. serie) 132. ENCICLOPEDIA DE MEXICO. 1987. be 4. AMERICANA. n.d. Tomo a Hijos de j, i eet Barcelon —_——_—_ 9. Tomo 65, 67. PanaiaCals, Madri ESPINOSA. ABARCA, A. SERGIO, SERGIO PALACIOS MAYORGA and MARTHA M. ORTEGA. 1985. Estudio sobre el crecimiento de Azolla filiculoides en medios de cultivo en suelos de arrozal del Edo. de Morelos, México, bajo condiciones de invernadero. Revista Latinoamericana de Microbiologia 27:61-69. FARRAR, W.V. 1966. Tecuitlatl: a glimpse of Aztec food technology. Nature 34 5047(211):341-342. GODINEZ, JOSE LUIS, MARTHA M. ORTEGA and GUADALUPE DE LA LANZA. 1984. Study of the edible algae of the Valley of Mexico. IV. Analysis of rts GONZALEZ, ELEUTERIO. 1876. Apuntes que pueden servir de base para la formaci6n de la flérula de la Ciudad de Monterrey y sus inmediaciones. La otra Lose aed ) 3:31-35. GONZALEZ COSS, JESUS. 1872. Flérula de la sien? y partido de Silao. Boletin de la nike oe d de Peon coy y Estadistica, da época 4: 316. HALPERIN, DELIA. R. DE. 1967. poe de Santa Argentina Darwiniana 14:273-338. [+14 pls. ‘eg Summer 2001 eae pea Se 1649. Rerum Novae Medic Hispaniae Medasuda’ sev reaches ee Mineralium Mexi m Historia. Extypographio Nasir accom “ys 1959, oria Natural de la Nueva =f Pp. 408-410 in Obras mpletas, tomo III, German Somolinos rye en (editor). Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, México, D.F. HERNADEZ VELASCO, ARIEL J. 1955. Las diatomitas mexicanas y su empleo industrial. Boletin th rs oo Geolégica de rege HOFFMANN, CARLOS C pene AMELIA SAMANO BISHOP. 1938a. Nota acerca Anat Cin alk s 1 » | Anonh < albimanus Wied., en los pantanos de Veracruz. Anales del Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México 9:193-199. and . 1938b. Los invernales pseudopunctipenis en el estado de Oaxaca 1 > ye ae Bee dim at gi > Universidad Nacional Aut6énoma de México 9:181-192. HOLMGREN, PATRICIA K., NOEL H. HOLMGREN and LISA C. BARNETT. 1990. Index Herbariorum. Part I: The Herbaria of the World. Eighth edition. New York Botanical Garden, New York. mash ah O NACIONAL INDIGENISTA. Mana be i ae ‘én del id Instituto Nacional ia ge México. KARTTUNEN, FRANCES. 1992. An Analytical meson of Nahuatl. University of ress, Norman KOMAREK, J. and = "ANAGNOSTIDIS. 1989. Modern approach to the classification system of Cyanophytes 4- Nostocales. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 82:247-345. LOPEZ DE GOMARA, FRANCISCO. 1988. Historia de la Conquista de México. Editorial Porria, México, D.F. pags J. 1966. The 1964-65 Belgian ns-Saharan expedition. Nature 209 (5019). 126-128. JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 87 LOT, ag ey ALEJANDRO NOVELO RETANA, MARTHA OLVERA GARCIA and PEDRO RAMIREZ GARCIA. 1999. aciaAticac ats “ ee Ly: PTH ae . sumergidas y flotantes. Cuadernos de! Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de México 33:7-161. MACAZAGA ORDONO, CESAR. 1979. Nombres sett ats de México. Editorial Cosmos, México, D.F. MARTIN, W.J. 1947. Ditabis of the Heve rubbertree in Mexico 1943-1946. Plant Disease Reporter 31:155-158. MARTINEZ, MAXIMINO. 1979. Catdlogo de Nombres Vulgares y Cientificos de Plantas apr ae Fondo de Cultura Econémica, México, D.F. MARTINEZ GRACIDA, M. 1891. Laccig y fauna del Estado Libre y Oaxaca. Imprenta del Estado de Géiecs, Oaxaca. MENDOZA DE FLORES, CARMEN and O PINO. 1964. Efecto pang re de 3 fuentes de xantofilas e la yema de huevo. Técnica ctl 3: 0.23. MILLSPAUGH, CHARLES F. 1896. Contribution II to the coastal and plain flora of Yucatan. Publication Field Columbian Museum, Botanical Series 1:277-339. ecu ALONSO DE. 1944. petonmien en Lengua Castellana y Mexic Editorial Cultura Hispanica, Madrid. 96 Saree a Castellano, Castellano-Nahuatl edition. Ediciones bs saat DE. OROZCO ¥ moe bocie Phaketan 1798. Aal Valle de México. Edicion facsimilar del arquitecto Juan Cortina Portilla, México. ORTEGA, MARTHA M. 1972. Estudio de las algas comestibles del Valle de México. Revista Latinoamericana de care 14:85-97. Catélogo de Algas Recientes Continentales de México. peaks re Nacional Auténoma de México, PURSUE | 7 Docs ahios de ficologia en México. Pp. 155-186 in Contribuciones en Hidrobiologia, Samuel Gomez and Virgilio Arenas (editors). Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México, México, D.F. 88 GODINEZ et al. ____—, JOSE LUIS GODINEZ, GLORIA GARDUNO and MARIA GUADALUPE OLIVA. 1995. Ficologia de México. Algas Peennennye AGT Editor, México, PELAEZ, DIONISIO. 1947. Estudios de la nel paludismo Boletin Raideeielanes de México 11:71-88. ee — BAUTISTA and ALONSO RITA. 1941. Relaciones de Texoone y de la Nueva Espana. Editorial —— Talleres Tipograficos de Julio G. e, Culiacan. ae CARLOS. 1985. Los minerales de la Nueva Espana. Pp. 259-264 in Comentarios a la Obra de Francisco Hernandez. Univesidad Nacional Auténoma de México, México, D.F. RICO-MONTIEL, ROBERTO, GLORIA ARA, ROGER CASTILLO and MARCO ANTONIO ZENTENO. 1993. Methodologic proposal for lacustrine sediment analyses applied to Tlaxcala diatomite, Mexico. Verhandlungen der internationalen Vereinigung fiir angewandte Limnologie 25:1072-1074. ROBELO, CECILIO A. 1902. Nombres Geograficos Mexicanos del Estado de Veracruz. Estudio Critico Etimoldégico. L.G. Miranda Imp., Cuernavaca, México. Diccionario Aztequismos 0 sea Jardin de las Raices Aztecas. ba py del Idioma Nahuatl, Azteca exicano, Introducidas al Idioma pr I bajo Diversas Formas. Third edition, Ediciones Fuente Cultural, México, D.F. SAHAGUN, BERNARDINO, DE. 1971. Cédice Florentino. Gobierno de la Republica, México, D.F. [facsimil de 1571]. SALCEDO-OLAVARRIETA, NATALIA, THA M. ORTEGA, MARIA E. MARIN -GARCIA and CONCEPCION ZAVALA-MORENO. 1978a. Estudio de las algas comestibles del Valle de México Analisis quimico comparativo. Revista Latinoamericana de Microbiologia 20:211-214. Vol. 21, No. 1 ile ; jen ee ; Estudio de las algas comestibles del Valle de México. III. Aniélisis comparativo de aminoacidos. Revista Latinoamericana de Microbiologia 20:215-217. SANTAMARIA, FRANCISCO SAMAER. scr mine Porrtia, pee Sa sree 785; Dieci Sota Third aden "Editorial orrua, México, D.F. SANTILLAN, CLAUDIO. 1982. Mass production of Spirulina. Experientia 40-43. SILVA, PAUL C., PHILIP W. BASSON and RICHARD L. MOE. 1996. Catalogue of the Benthic Marine Algae of the Indian one University of California Press, keley. | fae ree REMI. 1988. Diccionario ae la Lengua Nahuatl o Mexicana nth — paele Veintiuno Se erooain México, D.F. SOSA TEXCOCO, S.A. 1976. Sosa Texcoco, Departamento de Espirulina, Proteinas y Derivados. Folleto i oe ituto oe de Comercio Exterior, are. STANDLEY, PAUL C. 1930. Flora of Yucatan. Field Museum of Natural istory, Botanical Series 3:157-492. STEARN, WILLIAM T. ae Pgpanical Latin: History, Grammar, Synt Terminology and eae Timber on O. 1888. Cuatro Libros de la Naturaleza y Virtudes Medicinales de las Plantas y Animales de la Nueva Espafia (extracto de las obras del Dr. Francisco Hernandez). Imprenta y Litografia en la Escuela de Artes, Morelia, México. Journal of Ethnobiology 21(1): 89-104 Summer 2001 EVALUATION OF THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WILD FOOD BOTANICALS TRADITIONALLY CONSUMED IN NORTHWESTERN TUSCANY, ITALY ANDREA PIERONI Centre for Pharmacognosy and ey. The School of Pharmacy, University of Lond 29-39 Brunswick Square, London WCIN 1AX, United sasccinea ABSTRACT.—A quantitative method to calculate the cult ifi f wild food plants used in traditional contexts was oe and applied to an ethnobotanical barony: ee sade in sa eedeatibecapse Tuscany, Italy. Ninety-five form. nce g fga athered wild tibia Jolerariane data luated through 1 | t of fp lindex: the Cultural Food Significance Index (CFSI). This index t akes into account a wide variety of factors in the evaluation of a specific plant including: quotation frequency, naan typology of ihe ge: Thad frequency *, use, kind and number of the food uses, d perceived d-medicine. Very high CFSI ose were identified for eal wild “greens,” whereas wild fruits seemed to play a subordinate role. a use of this index allows for the quantitative comparison of etl ta in an int g analysis. Key words: ethnobotany, anthropology, food aii Tuscany, Italy. RESUMEN.—En el contexto d tudio et llevado a cabo en nordeste de La Toscana (italia), = oe rau sea aa 7 spiked un nmétodo cuantitativo para calcular en alimentacién. Noventa y cinco informantes han sido entrevistados en relacion al posible significado cultural de las plantas comestibles recolectadas. La evaluacién de los datos obtenidos se realizé mediante la aplicacién un indice especial: el indice de significado cultural alimentario (CFSI), que toma en consideracién una amplia variedad de factores como: frecuencia de citacién de la especie, disponibilidad o facilidad para conseguirla, tipologia de las partes de la planta utilizadas, frecuencia de uso, tipos de empleo alimentario, apreciacién del sabor y, por ultimo, papel que se le asigna como alimento medicinal. Valores elevados de CFSI se obtuvieron para varias “hortilizas” silvestres, mientras que los frutos silvestres parecen jugar un papel subordinado. En definitiva, el uso de este indice permite una comparaci6n cuantitativa de datos etnobotanicos en un andlisis etnobioldgico intercultural. RESUME.—Une méthod i calculer la ti plantes sauvages comestibles utilisées dans des contextes tratitionnels a été mis au point et appliquée a une étude réalisée dans le nord-ouest de la Toscane en Italie. Quatre-vingt-quinze personnes ont été interrogées sur la signification culturelle que revét la récolte des végétaux sauvages dans un but alimentaire. Les données recueillies ont été évaluées au moyen d’un index spécial, l’Index de Signification Alimentaire Culturelle (CFSI). Cet index prend en considération un grand nombre de facteurs en vue de l’évaluation d’une plante spécifique: fréquence 1s ll4oa 90 PIERONI Vol. 21, No. 1 avec laquelle elle est mentionnée, disponibilité, typologie des parties utilisées, fréquence des utilisations, types et nombre d’usages alimentaires, appréciation du goiit et perception du réle médicinal en méme temps qu’alimentaire. De trés hautes valeurs de CFSI ont été mises en évidence pour plusieurs légumes sauvages, tandis que les fruits sauvages semblent jouer un réle secondaire. L’emploi de cet index permet de faire des comparaisons quantitatives entre les données ethnobotaniques dans le cadre d’une analyse ethnobiologique interculturelle. INTRODUCTION Several ethnobotanical surveys in Southern Europe have focused over the last few decades on the use of botanicals in folk medical practices. Nevertheless, in the whole Mediterranean area, only a few field studies have focused exhaustively on gathered wild plant edibles (Corsi and Pagni 1979; Corsi, Gaspari, and Pagni 1981; Guarrera 1994; Paoletti, Dreon, and Lorenzoni 1995; Pieroni 1999; Ertu_, 2000). Furthermore, only two pharmaco-botanical field studies quantitatively evaluated the use consensus within a specific area (Friedman et al. 1986; Bruni, Ballero, and Poli 1997). The evaluation of different botanicals used inside a particular geographical and cultural context is important in order to facilitate an intercultural compara- tive analysis of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Such an evaluation is also necessary in order to discuss cultural components related to food acceptance and even to find insights for investigating phytochemical constituents that could in- fluence popular appreciation of edibles. Food botanicals have often been used in traditional systems multi-contextu- ally and are commonly ingested as food-medicines. The physiological aspects of nutrition overlap with the bio-pharmacology of non-nutritional plant metabolites (Etkin and Ross 1982; Etkin 1993, 1994, 1996; Johns and Chapman 1995; Johns 1996; Moerman 1996; Ross, Etkin, and Muazzamu 1996; Chapman, Johns, and Mahunnah 1997; Pieroni 2000). The aim of this study, focused on food plant edibles, is to develop a method for evaluating the cultural significance of biological taxa, defined as the impor- tance of the role that a plant plays within a particular culture. Theoretically, such evaluation should be done by native people themselves living in that given tradi- tional culture (Turner 1988). The problem concerning the evaluation of the cultural significance of biological taxa has been addressed by a few previous works (Berlin et al. 1973; Lee 1979; Hunn 1982). Berlin in particular used a scale of four values in order to classify the vegetable resources of the Tzeltal-Tzotzil society: “cultivated,” “protected,” “wild but useful,” “culturally insignificant,” while Lee later classi- fied !Kung San plants in six classes: “primary,” “major,” “minor,” “supplementary,” “rare,” and “problematic.” These scales represented a first simple attempt to mea- sure the cultural significance of plants. These scales, however, did not consider any special variables involved in the complex issue of the evaluation of cultural meanings of biological resources. In the present study, we elaborated a specific Cultural Food Significance In- dex (CFSI) by modifying the methods developed by Turner (1988) for the Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish people (British Columbia, Canada). Turner’s index (In- Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 91 dex of Cultural Significance, ICS) considered three criteria: the quality of use (plants were placed on a five-point scale, according to their utilisation as primary or sec- ondary food, as medicines, or as rituals), the intensity of use (how frequently the plant was used on a daily, seasonal or annual basis), and the exclusivity of use (how a particular plant has precedence over others in a given cultural role). Stoffle et al. (1990) modified the Turner’s ICS in their quantitative analysis of the Paiute and Shoshone ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain (Nevada, USA) and developed an Ethnic Index of Cultural Importance (EICS), which eliminated the quality-of-use criteria and added a contemporary use variable category. Moreover, a Cumulative Index of Cultural Significance (CICS) was also formed by adding the plant’s EICS scores for each ethnic group involved in that study. Both indexes (ICS and EICS) have been developed to facilitate the evaluation of every plant used or known in a given ethnic context and not specifically as species used for food. These indexes fail, however, to take into account the factors of “taste appreciation” and the “perceived” food-medicinal multifunction of in- gested botanicals, which represent important anthropological aspects in the phenomenon of ingestion of herbs and other plant dietary supplements (Johns 1990). Moreover, Tuner’s index assigned arbitrary values to the “quality-of-use” category (for example medicinal or ritual plants were considered much less “im- portant” than staples), while both indexes don’t consider the “perceived availability” of the species, but rather include an indirect “ecological availability” index in the “frequency-of-use” parameter. METHODS Field work.— The study site is situated in Northwestern Tuscany, central Italy, and represents the upper part of the Serchio Valley, also called Garfagnana. Qualita- tive ethnobotanical surveys on the traditional medicinal and food species were carried out only recently in this territory (Uncini, Elisabetia, and Tomei 1999a, 1999b; Pieroni 1999, 2000). The traditional culture of this region has developed in an agricultural and partially pastoral context. Cultivated species, which have played a central role in the local food economy are represented by Castanea sativa L., Zea mays L., Triticum dicoccum SCHUBLER, Pani- cum miliaceum L. and Secale cereale L. together with Solanum tuberosum L., Phaseolus Iunatus L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. These species have long represented the princi- pal vegetable food sources used by locals. In the winter season, chestnut flour based dishes (mostly polenta) make up the main meal, substituted in the summer- time by corn meal polenta. The traditional food culture of the Serchio Valley includes a wide variety of botanicals collected from the wild. The physical geography of the study area is defined inside 16 small munici- palities (Figure 1). This area is a mountainous territory, delimited by the Apuan Alps in the western part and the Apennines in the eastern, respectively facing the Tyrrhenian coast and the region Emilia-Romagna. Ethnobotanical information was obtained through structured interviews with 95 persons (age range of 67 to 96 years) having extensive knowledge of the food culture and living in small villages (50-500 inhabitants). Informants were asked to 92 PIERONI Vol. 21, No. 1 GARFAGNANA w LUCCA e TUSCANY PISA FLORENCE SIENA FIGURE 1.—Location of the studied area. spontaneously quote the names of wild edibles that are gathered and consumed today and those that were gathered and consumed at least 30 years ago. Further- more, the informants were asked to specify the following information for each quoted taxa including: which part of the plant was used, how the plant part was used, the perception of its availability, the frequency of use of the species at the present time and in the past (taking as reference about 30 years ago), the taste appreciation, and an eventual medicinal purpose attributed to its ingestion. Con- versations were carried out in the local dialect, which is known by the author. All of the quoted botanicals were identified during a previous project (Pieroni 1999), and the adopted nomenclature follows Pignatti (1997) for the vascular taxa, and Gerhardt (1997) for the mushroom species. In this study only wild botanicals native in the region were considered. Species with food value that were long naturalised or domesticated in the region, such as Robinia pseudoacacia (Fabaceae) or Prunus laurocerasus (Rosaceae) were excluded. According to the principles of ethnobiological taxonomy (Berlin 1992), tradi- tional cultures identify diverse botanicals in the same “generic” taxa. In the studied region, different botanical species were locally grouped within a unique classifica- tion unit by use their use (and according to the so-called “utilitarian factor” described by Hunn 1982). Plants were therefore listed and ordered within the study following these vernacular taxa and not the modern botanical taxa. Cultural food significance index (CFSI).— The Cultural Food Significance Index, spe- cifically elaborated to evaluate the cultural significance of wild edibles, was calculated as: CFSI = QI x AI x FUI x PUI x MFFI x TSAI x FMRI x 10° The formula takes in account seven indexes which express the frequency of Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 93 quotation (QI), the availability (ALI), the frequency of utilisation (FUI), the plant parts used (PUI), the multifunctional food use (MFFI), taste score appreciation (TSAI), and the food-medicinal role (FMRI) Similarly, as for the ICS and EICS of Turner (1988) and Stoffle et al. (1990), the components of the index are multiplied. Yet, differently from those indexes, the total number of uses and/or plant parts is not taken into account by adding the multiplied factors, but by specific independent indexes (PUI and MFRI). This method was chosen in order to avoid an overestimation of plants which do not present a unique useful morphological part. In contrast to medicinal taxa, diverse parts of food herbs are in fact commonly used for food. e seven indexes were then multiplied and not added, in order to amplify eventual variations. They are calculated as described below; TSAI and FMRI were calculated for each taxa considering the raw average value of those provided by the informants. Quotation Index (QI).— The quotation index (QI) expresses the number of all the positive responses given by the informants about a particular plant, while an- swering a request to spontaneously mention all the known and used wild edibles. Taxa with less than two responses were not considered. ray Availability Index (AI).— This index (Table 1) expresses th ilability of the plants, perceived by locals and corrected by a factor that considers if the use of the plant is ubiquitous or localised within the studied area. In this last case Al is diminished by half or a whole unit. In this way, AI does not represent a “determined” avail- ability index as in the work of LEporaky, Turner, and Kuhniem eee). but rather a “perceived” availability index. In cult ecological factors such as relative abundance in the natural milieu cannot be directly consid- ered as criteria because they are not culturally dependent. On the contrary, the perception of the availability of a given species, which only indirectly expresses its availability in the natural context, also represents a factor which influences the cultural meanings of that species within a given cultural group and a given natu- ral context. Frequency of Use Index (FUI).— This index (Table 2) represents the frequency of the utilisation of each plant. As a reference, we use the average value between the quoted frequency “once” (corresponding at about 30 years ago) and that men- tioned by the informants for the present times. TABLE 1.—Availability Index (AI) categories. Availability Index value Very common 4 Common 3.0 Middle 2.0 Rare 1.0 Localisation of the use Index value Ubiquitary = Localised -0.5 Very localised -1.0 94 PIERONI Vol. 21, No. 1 TABLE 2.—Utilisation Frequency Index (UFI) categories Utilisation Frequency Index value > Once/wee Once/week 4.0 Once/mo 3.0 > Once/year but < once/month 2.0 Once/year 1.0 No longer used during the past 30 years 0.5 Part Used Index (PUI).— This value (Table 3) expresses the multiple use of Civ etse parts of the same plant. It takes into I | t parts are collected and eaten instead of single parts. The contemporary use oo multiple plant parts for different food aims is evaluated higher than the use of young tissues of the whole plant. TABLE 3.—Part Used Index (PUI) categories Part used Index value ark roots or rootstocks 15 roots, only younger parts 1.0 bulbs 13 stems 1.0 leaves 15 leaves stalks 1.0 young whorls of leaves 1.0 leaves with a few stems 2.0 shoots 12 shoots, only younger parts 0.75 uds 0.75 flowers 0.75 receptacles 0.75 i j Bs) seeds 1.0 whole aerial parts 3.0 whole aerial parts of very young plants 2.0 A; whole fruiting body (mushrooms) 2.0 Multi-Functional Food Use Index (MFFI).— This index (Table 4) considers the pos- sible food uses of each single vernacular taxa. Values were assigned to traditional food preparations, excluding new “imported” or “creative” utilisation. In the case of species which are boiled and then further processed (stewed, stuffing for di- verse preparations), the value attributed to the boiling process is increased by a half unit. If the plant is generally used in mixtures of more than three species, the index value is diminished by a half unit. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 95 TABLE 4.—Multi-Functional Food Use Index (MFFI) categories Usage Index value Raw, as snack 0.5 Raw, in salads 15 Fried in fat, without or with beaten eggs (“Frittata”) 1.0 Boiled 1.0 Boiled, then stewed of fried 1.5 Boiled, than as stuffing for diverse preparations (pies, “tortelli”...) 15 Soups (mixtures) 0.75 Stewed 1.0 Roasted 1.0 Condim 1.0 Condiment for restricted purposes 0.75 Jams or Jellies 1 yrups 1 (Usage in mixtures) (-0.5) Taste Score Appreciation Index (TSAI).— This index (Table 5) represents the scores by which locals expressed their taste appreciation for each plant. Scores are based on a possible range of values between 4 and 10 (4: lowest, terrible taste; 10: high- est, best taste). Similarly, Kuhnlein, Turnep, and Kluckner (1982) used a five-step-scale (1: very poor; 2: poor; 3: fair; 4: good; 5: very good) in a previous work dealing with the taste acceptability of roots used by native people on the coast of British Columbia. A range of values between 4 and 10 was specifically adopted in the present study in order to make it easier for the informants to make their personal evaluation. This range was more applicable because the same val- ues were and still are the values used as marks in the Italian school system, and this mechanism is very familiar to Italians of all ages. TABLE 5.—Taste Score Appreciation Index (TSAI) categories Taste Appreciation Index value Best 10 Very good 9 ood vo Fair 6.5 Poor 5.5 Terrible 4 Food-Medicinal Role Index (FMRI).— A few species had “special” significance be- cause of their supposed health properties. This index (Table 6) reflects the perceived properties as food-medicine for each quoted species. Supposed ritual or magical “health” aspects related to the ingestion of some particular species were consid- ered in the evaluation of these values. Higher values are attributed in cases of well-defined medicinal properties ascribed to the ingested plants. For the more general assessment of a plant as “healthy,” without any specifications, minor FMRI values were assigned. 96 PIERONI Vol. 21, No. 1 TABLE 6.—Food-Medicinal Role Index (FMRI) categories Role as Food-Medicine Index value Very high (“that food is a medicine!”) 5.0 High (“that food is quite a medicine”, with clear specification of the treated affections) 4.0 Middle-high (“that food is very healthy”) 3.0 Middle-low (“that food is healthy”, no specification of a particular therapeutic action) 2.0 Not recognised 1.0 RESULTS CFSI values were calculated following the aforementioned formula (see Table 7 for an example of how the scores for a few vernacular taxa were determined are reported). CFSI values of each recognised wild food botanical are listed in Table 8. Plants are ordered according to decreasing ICS values and are listed by their vernacular name. ICS values varied between 0.1 and 662, and it was possible to classify the cited botanicals into six groups: ge with very high significance (ICS = 300 and over), with high significance (ICS = 100-299), moderate significance (ICS = 20-99), low significance (ICS = 5-19), very low oa (ICS = 1-4) and negligible significance (ICS< 4). Food species with very high cultural significance values.— The group with very high significance (ICS = 300+) was mainly comprised of wild “greens” which are used in different preparations (Borago, Urtica, Taraxacum, Cichorium, Campanula spp.), and also two species (Rosa canina and Rubus ulmifolius) which are well known in the local gastronomy for both their fruits and green aerial parts (shoots). All the species included in this first category represent the most frequently quoted edibles. Rose shoots are eaten as snacks and their petals had ritual significance in the past for bringing good omens during St. Rita’s day. The taste score of these plants is generally never very high, but they do play a central role in the daily traditional diet. Food botanicals with high cultural significance values.— The species included in this group typically play a role as the main vegetable source, especially in the spring. The most commonly gathered species are usually eaten raw in mixed salads and are viewed as having a “cleansing” property. The group also includes the two most commonly used wild aromatic species: wild fennel (Feoniculum vulgare spp.vulgare) and calamint (Calamintha nepeta). The first is actually only used to aromatise typical seasonal preparations such as boiled chestnuts or roasted pig liver, but it’s “magical” properties against evil-eye when applied inside a closed piece of red cloth ("breo") are also well-known. The high val ies (Clematis vitalba) whose young shoots represent the basic ingredient of a kind of traditional spring pancake called “frittata di vezzadri” are also interesting. Studies about the toxic component's in- take and evaluation of the efficacy of detoxification processing (cooking) for this species could represent an interesting step toward developing risk assessment re- search (Uiso and Johns, 1995). TABLE 7.—Example of derivation of the CFSI for three vernacular taxa gathered in the studied area. Vernacular taxa Botanical taxa Values of the partial indexes Details of (QI/ AI/UFI/PUI/MFFI/TSAI/FMRI) calculation of the CFSI CFSI Borago officinalis and Boragine or _—Echium vulgare Buragine (both Boraginaceae); Sambuco Sambucus nigra (Caprifoliaceae) Coccora or Bovista nigrescens Cocco Amanitaceae) Qk 35 Al: common, ubiquitary = 3.0; UFIL: < once/week; > once/week = 3.5; PUI: whole aerial parts = 3.0; MFFI: boiled, and stewed and as stuffing for 35 x 3.0 x 3.0 x 3.0 x 8.0 x diverse preparations; fried in fat: 2.5 = 1.0+0.5+0.5+1.0 = 3.0 TSAI: = 8.0; FMRI: < “that food is ise healthy”; > “that food is healthy” = 2.5 I: 13; Ak: common, ubiquitary = 3.0; UFI: < once/month; > once/ year = 2.0; PUI: fruits = 1.5; 13 x 3.0x2.0x 1.5x 1.0x MFFI: syrups =1.0 75x30%10" = FMRI: “that i is very healthy” = 3.0; rE 5; AI: rare, localised = 1.0-0.5 = 0.5; UFI: once/year = 1.0; 5x0.5x 1.0 x 3.0x 2.0 x PUI: whole fruiting body = 2.0; 95x1x10*= MFFI: raw, salads; fried in fat: 1.0+1.0 = 2.0; Bs FMRI: not recognised: 1; 662 26.3 1.19 L007 JoUTUUINS XDOTIOISONHLA JO TVNUNOL £6 Vernacular Names Scientific Names Botanical Family Boragine or Buragine Ortica Piscialletto Scepe or Scepon or Rovo or Mora Pittellenga or Pettellenga or Peterlenga or Rosa selvatica Radicchio di campo or Radicchio selvatico Raponzolo Ingrassaporci or Grassaporci or Piattello Nipitella or Nepitella or Empitella Cicerbita or Riccino or Ricciolo or Riccetto Crescione Veronica beccabunga L. Pancagiolo or Pancagiotto or ella Gallin Finocchio selvatico or Anacini Vezzadro Erba striscia or Strisciola or Cucina Tassellora or Casellora or Tassella or Cassella Bagola or Mirtillo Peporino or Pepurino Tirafilo or Tirafila or Lingua di vacca or Orecchie d’asino Pan e vino or Erba putta or Zezzora Orbaco or Alloro Sassello or Sassaiolo Pastinella or Pastineggio Pupattole or Belle bimbe Borago aca L. and Echium mL. Urtica bs a Taraxacum officinale Wes. Rubus ulmifolius Scuorr. Rosa canina L. Cichorium intybus Crepis sp.pl. and Picts sp. pl. Campanula rapunculus L. Hypochoeris radicata L. Calamintha nepeta (L.) Savi Sonchus sp. pl. Apium nodiflorum L. and Valerianella carinata LOIsEL. Foeniculum vulgare L. spp. vulgare C Iba L lematis vita Silene vulgaris (MoeNcH) GARCKE Crepis capillaris (L.) WALLR. Vaccinium myrtillus L. Thymus pulegioides L. Plantago lanceolata L. Rumex acetosa and Rumex acetosella L. Laurus nobilis L. Reichardia picroides L. Daucus carota L. Papaver rhoes L. Boraginaceae Urticaceae Asteraceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Asteraceae Campanulaceae Asteraceae Lamiaceae Asteraceae Apiaceae Valerianaceae Apiaceae Ranunculaceae Caryophyllaceae Asteraceae Ericaceae Lamiaceae Plantaginaceae Polygonaceae Apiaceae Papaveraceae QU AI UFI PUI MFFI TSAI FMRI Ics 3 35 3 8 3 8 25 662 m 2. aw 4 5°18 38° 75 2 wee 9 4-936 9s 6° 95 Gg oe 5 9 4 98 58 gh 75lUC & 44° 3 5°95 22 75 3h ee 93 #3 G8 39. 35: 75 3) ben i ee 7 #35 88-3 a6 « 38) 45 4 ee a a ee ee ee 19 5 ok 98. 75s 28 55.95 AB Le a . 2 S. S$ O38 53- 6 & a8 me 35: A eG ois 3 a°475 28) °5 415°) iy "Os ae 9 3 9 15 120 “9 ge ae os 8 se 7 $5 Beas 18 5 (1s oe meee | Oe ee ae 3 13 o 1k tee 7s | Ol Ue ee ie = ee Fake ee Cli Eee 2 9 18 ee i 38 S28 28 65 isc s[eoTUe}0q PIM parayyes Jo sanyea ([SJD) xepuy aouesyIUsis poog [emyng—g FIAVL Vernacular Names Scientific Names Botanical Family QU Al. CUE «6POL MFP TSAI FMRI KS Romicia or Rombicia or Romice — Rumex crispus L. AND Polygonaceae 6 Se 2 Fis 2 8 15 $6 Rumex obtusifolium L. Porcino (Rosso or Moro or Boletus sp. pl. Boletaceae ORS ne ee 3 ~ ee) 1 43 Sangiovannnino or Estatino) enta Mentha sp. pl. Lamiaceae (ee ee: 2. 2 de 2 9 20 (ae Erba cipollina Allium schoenoprasum L. Liliaceae 18 2 2 2 1s 265 2 37 Zinepro or Ginevro or Ginepro Juniperus communis L. Cupressaceae & AS ae ote. 1 7 2 33 Prignola or Uva bocca or Prunus spinosa L. Rosaceae 32 2 S345 ie , 15: Be Palline bocche Sportavecchia,or Sporavecchia Bunias erucago L. and Cruciferae 9 ao an Se 2 8 15 aa Lapsana communis L. Sambuco Sambucus nigra L Caprifoliaceae 13 3 a0 he 1 eS 3 26 Lampone Rubus idaeus L Rosaceae 9 2 boa. 28 2 ao ae Lupporo or Lopporo or Luppolo = Humulus lupulus L. Cannabaceae 10 3 a ie. ES 4 LS Melissa or Menta limona Melissa officinlis L. Labiate 12 2 at ae z 9 1 23 Orecchietta or Boccon di pecora _ Silene alba (MILLER) KRAUSE Caryophyllaceae i Ss book 2 no 6 6L Se Salvastrella or Pimpinella Sanguisorba minor L. osaceae 9 3 a ao 1 eS 1 16 Galletto Cantharellus cibarius FR.:FR. Cantharellaceae ci Be ie 2 7 1 12 Nocella Corylus avellana L. Betulaceae 12 yi 3 1 1.5 8 1 8.6 Mazza di tamburo Macrolepiota procera Agaricaceae Mm 15 io 5 2 ? 1 8.5 (Scop.: FR.) SINGER Aglio selvatico Allium vineale L. Liliaceae 2 15 2 3 15 8 2.0 te Spinacio che fa in montagna Chenopodium bonus-henricus L. Chenopodiaceae 9 0.5 2 2 2 OO cae ee or Bieto cacancero Fragola Fragaria vesca L. Rosaceae 7 2 20. 0 te 9 1 7.1 Nespola Mespilus germanica L. Rosaceae 6 1 Z bo oe 7S. COS ee Erbo de’ tedeschi Lepidium campestre L. Cruciferae 13 1 15.2 2 8.5 1 6.6 Zucca matta or Colacci or Bryonia dioica L. Cucurbitaceae 12 2 2 1 15 9 1 6.5 Erba de’ bisci Stioppone or Stramontano Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Asteraceae 8 2 £5 ks 2 8 1 5.8 or Perticone Morella Russula cyanoxantha (SCHAEFF) Fr. Russulaceae 7 2 1 ho. 25 8 1 4.2 Lattuccio Lactuca serriola L. Asteraceae 6 1 1 2 1.5 9 25° 4% Malva or Malvia Malva sylvestris L. Malvaceae 6 | - 2S 1 (eM oR Timo Satureja montana L. Lamiaceae id” ok ho: to. 15 8 1 4.1 Prugnolo Thricoloma georgii KUHN. ET ROMAGN. Tricholomataceae 9 1 1 4 m 9.5 1 3.9 Origano Origanum vulgare L. Lamiaceae 9 Be Se ea 8 15.2: 3.6 ‘(penuyuod) g FqIAVL Vernacular Names Scientific Names Botanical Family Asparago selvatico Cimballo Loffa Barba di becco Castracani or Centocoglioni Gramolaccio or Fiore di San Pietro Viola Coccora or Cocco Pioppino Corniolo or Crognolo Cavolo di San Viano acest by Pizzicacorno or Pizzorc Rucoletta Prezzemolo selvatico Salosso Bertonica Ti asso Fiore di San Pellegrino or Carlina or Scarzoni Rangagno Zafferano selvatico or Croco aggiotto Ingannacapre or Caprifoglio Ghianda Asparagus acutifolius L. Clitocybe geotropa (BULL.: FR.) QUEL. and Clytocybe gibba (Pers.: Fr.) P. Kumo. Bovista nigrescens Pers. ET PERS. Tragopon pratensis Leontodon tuberosus L. Raphanus —_—" Li Viola odorat. Amanita cesarea (Scop. Ex FR.) Pers. Ex SCHW. — cylindracea (DC.: FR.) pS ae mas L Brassica oleraceae ssp. robertiana (Gay) Rouy E Campanula trachelium L. Diplotaxis tenuifolia (L.) DC. Oxalis acetosella L. Arbutus unedo L Gentiana kochiana PERR. ET SONGEON Agaricus campestris L.:FR Lamium album L. Oenanthe pimpinelloides L. Symphytum tuberosum L. Salvia verbenaca L. Taxus baccata L. Carlina acaulis L. Armillariella mellea (VAHL. IN FL. DAN. EX FR.) Karst. Crocus napolitanus Morb. ET LOIsEL. Fagus sylvatica L. Lonicera caprifolium L. Quercus cerris L. Liliaceae Tricholomataceae Lycoperdiaceae Cruciferae Violaceae Amanitaceae Bolbiticaeae Cornaceae Cruciferae Campanulaceae Cruciferae Oxalidaceae ricaeae Gentianaceae garicaceae Lamiaceae Apiaceae Asteraceae Tricholomataceae Liliaceae Caprifoliaceae Fagaceae QU AI UFI PUI MFFI TSAI FMRI Ics > 6 1 1 2 LS 9 15 fe ES 5 15 1 "3 2 8 1 2.4 a s 5 1 1 3 Z ia 1 2.3 ee 8 1 1 2 15 9 1 22 e 3 1 l 22 25 675 15. te 7 15 1 i> LS 8 1 13 5 2 1 >. 16 8 I 1.8 5 0.5 1 2 2a 95 1 12 6 0.5 1 2 2 9 | 11 4 0.5 ig: to Gs 8 2 1.1 5 1 1 is. 02 7 3 0.8 7 1S 1 1 1 8 1 0.8 4 1 1 bo aie 9 1 0.8 6 1.5 1 to. 05 7 1,5, bs 1 1 1.5 1 fj 1 0.5 4 1 05 a5, 3 ‘3 45. G3 2 1 1 Lo 2 8 1 0.5 6 25 cs O70. OS 9 1 0.5 a 1.5 1 1 1 8 1 0.5 a 1 1 15 1 8 1 0.5 8 ao 1 ae AS 8 1 0.4 > 1 1 i> «60S 8 1 0.3 11 0.5 1 1 05 65 05 5 1 1 1m 28: 85 1 0.2 1 2 O05, 075 06 8 1 0.1 3 2 1 1 O50. 75 O50 a8 Ss) 15 05 G75 OS 8 1 0.1 9 1 0.5 1 0.5 ‘4 th ae Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 101 Two species had very high taste appreciation scores (Silene vulgaris and Crepis capillaris) because of their very mild taste, quite different from the commonly per- ceived light bitter or neutral characteristics of the other greens. Food botanicals with moderate cultural significance values.— This heterogeneous group consists of species that have a limited role in the local kitchen. Normally they are not frequently used other than in quite specific preparations. These plants include aromatic (wild thyme, Thymus pulegioides, laurel, Laurus nobilis, wild mint, Mintha sp. pl., wild chives, Allium schoenoprasum) and a few fruit species (blueberry, Vaccinium myrtillus, elderberry Sambucus nigra), and secondary greens. The most frequently used mushroom species, Boletus sp. pl., are also placed in this group. Food botanicals with low cultural significance values.— Botanicals with sporadic food usage fell into this group. For many of these species, high taste scores were some- times reported, but their quotation index and frequency of use are generally very low. Moreover, with the exception of medlar (Mespilus germanica) fruits, a medici- nal role of such edibles was excluded. Food botanicals with very low cultural significance values.— Quite rare botanicals, or species that are very rarely used as food, are grouped in this class. Most of the mushroom species are also included here. For the major part of these species, the taste appreciation score is very high and underlines the “exceptional character” of their use. For example, a quite rare wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola) was reputed as a “cleanser” by locals with extreme conviction; its taste was considered superb. Food botanicals with negligible cultural significance values.— This class includes all of the snacks and the species that demonstrated a low frequency of use in the last 30 years. Plants reported by less than four informants are also included in this class. A few snacks t d inside “institutionalised” food frameworks, and neither nutritional, nor special medicinal and/or ritual issues were perceived for these botanicals. DISCUSSION Cultural importance indexes allows for the quantification of the role that a given biological taxa plays within a particular culture. The present study, exclu- sively focused on wild edibles, has permitted the identification of the “culturally” most important plant species gathered and consumed in Northwestern Tuscany. Cultural Food Significance Index (CFSI) values have quantified the ethnobotani- cal data collected in the studied area and are used to evaluate and classify them by their respective cultural significance. Simple qualitative ethnobotanical data, such as lists of used plants, are in fact not generally able to clarify the specific role played by a given species within a given ethnic group. Moreover, bias or personal inter- pretations, sometimes even suggestive, generally occur carrying out strictly qualitative field studies. On the other hand, consensus use indexes, which have been successfully ap- plied in inter-cultural ethnobotanical studies f ed on medicinal plants (Heinrich et al. 1998), and which have become more frequent in ethnopharmacological stud- 102 PIERONI Vol. 21, No. 1 ies, do not permit a thorough investigation of the complex phenomenon of the ingestion of edible plants. Sometimes, in fact, species present very low quotation, availability, and frequency-of-use indexes, but are nevertheless appreciated for their taste (as in our studies for example Crepis capillaris, Lactuca serriola, Reichardia picroides) or medicinal properties or are simply perceived to be “healthy” (as in the cases of Rosa canina, Foeniculum vulgare spp. vulgare, Mespilus germanica). In these cases, the application of consensus use analysis underestimates the value of these taxa. In the present survey, very high CFSI values generally occurred for several “wild greens,” while wild fruits seems to have played a subordinate role. These data support the hypothesis that non-nutritional factors could have played a cen- tral role in the choice of wild vegetal food sources and their acceptance and/or popularity. Availability, multi-functionality and the medicinal gaip 4 OF ritual char- acters ascribed by locals to specific plants accord high i which under a nutritional point of view would seem to play a iiaatnitc role. “Wild greens” represent an important diet source of phytoceuticals (Johns 1999) I need to balance the traditional diet, which in the stud- ied area, is rich in carbohydrates (from chestnut and maize flour “polenta”) and relatively poor in minerals, vitamins and phenolics. The success of this class of edibles and at the same time, the limited role played by wild fruits and aromatic plants, can also be explained with the relative low availability of the former, and the minor frequency of use of the latter. In the tradi- tional rural society of the upper Serchio Valley, the factor of “time” has certainly influenced food choices: the harvest of wild fruits took much longer than that of wild greens, which were normally collected near the house or the farm. Moreover, a few wild fruits are normally sold in the local markets today while cultivated fruits and aromatic herbs tend to substitute wild taxa and can be found in every shop. On the contrary, “wild greens” do not generally reach either of the “official” commercial channels. The traditional “know how” about wild greens seems to belong especially to the female community, while men play a minor role. Men do, however, demonstrate a specific competence in the collection of wild mushrooms and fruits. The present situation is quickly changing, however, and fewer women gather food plants in the spring and summertime today than in the past. The frequency use index values are in some cases more than 50% lower than those calculated for a few decades ago. Many of the “wild greens” are also considered to taste bitter, but their taste appreciation is never very low. Elderly people especially tend to appreciate their bitter taste, and automatically attribute it to a “medicinal” role, even if its health role is not specific. This analysis provides an interesting starting point for the further develop- ment of comparative studies with other Mediterranean areas and also with future archaeobotanical findings. Such a quantitative approach could clarify relations among foodways of the old times and more recent ones, and even provide in- sights for the studies of the mechanisms which regulate the acceptance or rejection of foods by humans (Fallon, Fallon, ok Rozin 1989). CFSI values could also be successfully evaluated in intereth studies and more complex Soaea ee could be carried out using these Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 103 indexes when coupled with multivariate and statistical methods (H6ft, Barik, and Lykke 1999). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks are due to all the people of the Garfagnana who generously shared their precious experiences about wild gathered plants and food traditions. Many thanks to John Maynard (UK), Sabrina Hardenbergh, and Cassandra Quave (USA), for their help in improving the manuscript. REFERENCES BERLIN, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. D. BREEDLOVE, R.M. ~ LAUGHLINE, and P.H. RAVEN. 1973. Cultural significance and lexical retention in Tzeltal- Tzotzil ethnobotany. Pp. 143-164 in Meaning in Mayan languages, Edmonson, M.S. (editor). Mouton, The Hague BRUNI, A., M. BALLERO, and F. POLL 1997, Quantitative ethnopharmacological study of the Campidano Valley and Urzulei district, Sardinia, Italy. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 57: 97-124. CHAPMAN, OFHINS, K.L.A. MAHUNNAK. 1997 Saponin-like in vitro characteristics of extracts from selected non-nutrient wild plant food additives used by Maasai in meat an milk based Re te Ecology of Food and Nutrition 36: 1-22. CORSI, G. a AM. PAGNI. 1979. sae sulla flora e vegetazione del Mon Plas (Toscana Nord-Occidentale). v. Af 4 me re 1 5 4 . popolare. Atti della Societa Toscana di ienze Naturali, Memorie - Serie B 86: 79-101 —_—_—_., G. GASPARI, and A.M. PAGNI. 1981. L’uso delle piante nell’economia Scienze Naturali, Memorie - Serie ~386. ERTU_, F. 2000. An ethnobotanical study in Central oa (Turkey), Economic Botany 54: 1 ETKIN, N.L. 1993. Bthnopharmacological perspectives on diet and medicine in Northern Nigeria. Curare 16: 207-210. . 1994. Eating on the Wild Side. University spies Press, Tucson 1996. Medicinal cuisines: diet and medicine and orn as ‘food: an adaptive framework for _ the ee ig? ag | L 1: 42 amMone the Hausa of northern Nigeria. Social Science and Medicine 16: 1559-1573. FALLON, A., E. FALLON, and P. ROZIN. 1983. The psychological bases of food rejections by humans. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 13: 15-26. FRIEDMAN, J., Z. YANIV, A. DAFNI, and D. PALEWITCH. 1986. A preliminary classification of the healing potential of Negev Desert, Israel. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 16: 275-287. GERHARDT, E. 1997. Der groBe. Pilzfihrer, a Verlagsgeselischat Miinchen, Ger GUARRERA, PM. 1094. Il patrimonio etnobotanico del Lazio, Regione Lazio, R oma. HEINRICH, M., A. ANKLI, B. FREI, C. ance. Social Science and Medicine 47: 1859- 1871 HOFT, M., S.K. BARIK, and A.M. LYKKE. 1999. Quantitative ethnobotany: applications of multivariate and statistical analyses in ethnobotany. Plants and People Working Paper 6, NESCO, Paris. 104 PIERONI HUNN, E.S. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological Sse’ American Anthropologist 84: 830-847. JOHNS, T. 1990. With Bitter Herbs they Shall Eat It. University Arizona Press, Tucson. iuivoc, © 1996,: Phytochemicals as evolutionary seep tors of human nutritional physiology. International Journal of Panacoeccy 34: 327-334. . 1999. Plant constituents and the nutrition and health of indigenous people. Pp. 157-174 in Ethnoecology: SituatedKknowledge, Located Lives, V. Nazarea (editor). University of Arizona Press, Tucson. ar VEEL ee SLA A: AO. Phytochemicals ingested in traditional diets and medicines as modulators of energy metabolism. Pp. 161-187 in Phytochemistry of Medicinal Plants, T. Arnason (editor). Plenum Press, New ork. KUHNLEIN, H.V., N.J. TURNEP, and P.D. KLUCKNER. | 1982. _ Nutritional joni (springbank clover and pacific silverweed) used by native people on the coast of British Columbia. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 12: 89-95. LEE, R.B. 1979. The !Kung San: Men, in a Foraging Ssociety. Cambridge University Press, London. LEPOFSKY, D., N.J. TURNER, and H.V. KUHNLEIN. 1985. Determining the availability of traditional wild plant foods: an example of Nuxalk foods, Bella Coola, British Columbia. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 16: 223-241. MOERMAN, D.E. 1996. An analysis of the food plants and drug plants of native r merica. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 52: 1-22. Vol. 21, No. 1 PAOLETTI, M.G., A.L. DREON, and G.G. LORENZONI. 1995. Pistic, traditional food from Western Friuli, N.E. Italy. Economic Botany 49: 26-30. PIERONI, A. 1999. Gathered wild food plants in the upper valley of the Serchio river (Garfagnana), Central Italy. Economic Botany 53: 327-341. . 2000. Medicinal plants and food medicines in the folk traditions of the ied Lucca Province, Italy. Journal of hnopharmacology 70: 235-273. PIGNATHL S. 1997. Flora d'Italia. Edizioni Edagricole, Bologna, Italy. KOSo, FJ. NL. EIAIN, ond. t MUAZZAMU. 1996. A changing Hausa diet. Medical Anthropology 17: 143-163. STOFFLE, R.W., D.B. HALMO, M.J. EVANS, and J.E. OLMSTED. 1990. Calculating the cultural significance of Anthropologist 92: 416-432. ag N.J. 1988. “The Importance of a “: Evaluating the Cultural Se of Plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. American ne. oe 272-290. UISO, F.C., and T. JOHNS...1995.. Risk assessment of the ppedenentiak of a pyrrolizidine alkaloid containing indigenous vegetable Crotalaria brevidens (Mitoo). Ecology of Food and Nutrition 35: 111-119. UNCINI, M., R. ELISABETTA, and P.E. TOMEI. 1999a. Documenti per la he in Toscana. Edizioni ely Lot 3 4aeo8. Ethnophatmacobotanicl studies of the Tuscan Archipelago. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 65: 181-202. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 105 Manual Etnomédico de Oxchuc: Guia Basica y Herbolaria. (Stalel Sk’op Ya’Yejal Bit’il Ta Pasel Wamal: Sk’opla Bit’il Ta Meltsanel Poxil Sok Wamaletik.) Elois Ann Berlin. 2000. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, ECOSUR, Carretera Panamericana y Periférico Sur, Barrio de Maria Auziliadora. C. P. 29290, San Cristébal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México. I purchased this book from two women, presumably Oxchuqueros, at the Sev- enth International Congress of Ethnobiology in Athens, Georgia, for the modest price of $6. Little did I know, I was purchasing one of the first works of ethnoepidemiology that (out of a broader field of ethnoscientific literature) seems to stress the ethno. Written in two languages, Spanish and Tzeltal de Oxchuc, especially for the indigenous people of Oxchuc, this book serves as both a basic guide to ethnomedicine and as an herbal guide. With the help of Brent Berlin, Juana Gnecco and Spanish and Tzeltal translation by Sergio Gomez Lopez, author Elois Ann Berlin presents public health in Oxchuc from the perspective of Oxchuqueros and discusses Maya ethnomedicine and national and local medical systems. The work is largely based upon ethnoepidemiological surveys with 99 families in 20 districts within Oxchuc in 1989. The book is broken into six chapters as follows: 1) Social characteristics and demographic relations with community health 2); atlas of ethnoanatomy; 3) the principle groups of illness; 4) some illnesses and their treatments with medicinal plants; 5) ethnoepidemiological patterns; and, 6) a dictionary of ethnomedicine. In the first chapter, “Caracteristicas socials, etnograficas y demograficas relacionades con la salud comunitaria,” the author begins with a brief description of the environment and discusses the relations and uses of health services and the infrastructure of public services. The second chapter, “Atlas de etnoanatomia,” is a series of illustrations of the human body with the names of each part in Tzeltal de Oxchuc and in Spanish. A pleasing feature included are the three to five inches of blank lines to be filled in with personal or family health notes of the Oxchugero reader or health care worker. Chapter three, “Los principales grupos de enfermedades,” presents the classification of illnesses recognized in Oxchuc and a brief description of each illness in each group. The fourth Chapter, “Algunas enfermedades y sus tratamientos con plantas medicinales,” includes the defini- tions of illnesses according to the Oxchuqueros and the description of causes, signs and symptoms and traditional medical treatments. This chapter includes illustra- tions of some plant species by botanical illustrator Nicolas Hernandez Ruiz. Chapter 5, “Patrones ee presents analysis of the most frequent causes of illness and death i in Oxc Considering that th Jemiological and demographic data are 10 years old, an updated second edition i is surely in 1 the works. What I would like to see in the next edition is a chapter devoted to diet and nutrition. In chapter five, the author lists “de las vias alimenticias” as the leading cause of death in Oxchuc and gives no dietary basis as to why this is so. The public health outlook in Oxchuc is the typical situation where, “the loss or destruction of land, reduced access to resources and economic impoverishment are often the Leal of malnutrition and disease that afflict people when their traditi ) ks down” 106 BOOK REVIEWS Vol. 21, No. 1 (Johns 1999). Diet has an undeniable place in public health care planning in an effort to maintain a level of health for a period of time. Ideally, a section of dietary recommendations based on local crops and foodstuffs that included average daily food intake values, perhaps even gender and age specific, would be useful. Berlin and Berlin (1996) have previously documented the Mayan explanatory model for gastrointestinal diseases and their food-based ethnoetiology; however, the broader dietary basis for these diseases has yet to be published. Kleinman (1978) states, “in my experience, health care professionals in non- Western societies often accept the biomedical model as their guide to practice without correcting for its ethnocentric bias. An appropriate area for applied ethnomedical teaching would be to train health professionals in non-Western so- cieties in precisely this kind of self-reflexive evaluation and rectification of the potentially negative consequences of their professional beliefs and behaviors.” It seems that Manual Etnomedico de Oxchuc is an example of a Western model of health care sf aceies toa — society, The ists (Etkin 1991) to move beyond the simple evaluations of medicinal plants to analyzing alternative contexts of plant use (e.g. diet) could be equally posed to the ethnoepidemiologist. And that is the challenge for future research to address. Manual Etnomédico de Oxchuc is a valuable resource for not only the community members, but also everyone interested in the dia- logue between ethnobiology and public health. Kevin D. Janni Botanical Research Institute of Texas LITERATURE CITED BERLIN, ELOIS ANN and BRENT BERLIN. 1996. Medical Ethnobiology in the Highland Maya = belize Mexico: The Gastrointestinal Diseases. Princeton University Press, Prince ETKIN, NINA L. 1991. Should we set a place for diet in ethnopharmacology? Journal of Ethnopharmacology 32: 25-36. JOHNS, TIMOTHY A. 1999. Plant ti ts and the Nutrition and Health of Indigenous Peoples. Pp. 158-174 in E Situated Knowledge/ Located Lives, Virginia BA Nazarea (editor). har Bate! of Arizona Press, Tucs KLEINMAN, ARTHUR. 1978. International health care Fe bEsAine from an ethnomedical perspective: critique and recommendations for change. Medical Anthropology 2: 71- 94. Journal of Ethnobiology 21(1): 107-135 Summer 2001 ETHNOZOOLOGY OF FISHING COMMUNITIES FROM ILHA GRANDE (ATLANTIC FOREST COAST, BRAZIL). CRISTIANA SIMAO SEIXAS PG-Ecologia, Instituto de Biologia Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) C.P. 6109, Campinas, S.P. 13.081-970 Brazil ALPINA BEGOSSI Niicleo de Estudos e Pesquisas Ambientais (NEPAM) Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) C.P. 6166, Campinas, S.P. 13.081-970 Brazil ABSTRACT.— In this study we cover aspects of the ethnozoology of inhabitants of Aventureiro and Proveté, communities located at Ilha Grande, Atlantic Forest coast (SE Brazil). In particular, ethnotaxonomy is approached analyzing the local nomenclature of fish, and comparing it to the scientific taxonomy. Food taboos and medicinal animals are observed among islanders. Food taboos often refer to carnivorous or to medicinal animals (especially fish), besides other morphological aspects of the tabooed animals. We conclude that for folk taxonomy, and fish and game preferences and taboos, both utilitarian and symbolist explanations are useful. We suggest that local knowledge on game and fish usefulness as well as on folk taxonomy may be an important source of information to develop ecologically sound, and socio-economically appropriate resource management lans. Key words: ethnobiology, ethnozoology, fisheries, Atlantic Forest coast, Brazil RESUMO.— Neste estudo ar t pect d iroeP idades localizad Ilha Grande, regiado de Mata Atlantica, no litoral sudeste do Brasil. Em particular, abordamos etnotaxonomia através de uma andlise da nomenclatura local dos peixes e através de uma comparacéo entre esta e a nomenclatura cientifica. Tabus alimentares e animais medicinais sao SUSCEVAGOS nas caniek aanacaaanoiee Os tabus alimentares sea » ee ] 44 dc-s hahitantes ea aspectos morfolégicos de animais a a para consumo. Concluimos que tanto consideracées utilitaristas como simbolistas s4o uteis para explicar as aeanare e os ious alimentares em ethno aos dente e aos animais de cara. assim da papules local sobre a utilidade de ‘animais de caga e peixes e sobre a etnotaxonomia de peixes, pode ser uma importante fonte de informagao para o desenvolvimento de planos de manejo ecolégico, sécio, e economicamente apropriados. RESUME.— Dans cette étude nous couvrons des aspects de l’ethnozoologie des habitants d’Aventureiro et de Proveta, deux communautés situées 4 l’ile d’Tlha 108 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 Grande, au sud-est du Brésil et appartenant a la forét de la Mata Atlantica. En particulier, l’ethnotaxonomie est approché en analysant la nomenclature locale des poissons, et en la comparant a la taxonomie scientifique. a analyse aussi les tabous alimentaires et l’usa es iliens. Les tabous alimentaires se rapportent souvent aux animaux carnivores ou aux animaux médicinaux ven spécial Me bee ye! es ey don ~ autres ASpects utilitaristes et symbolistes sont eee eniee pour reqyer les prettrences et les tabous alimentaires par rapport a Nous proposons que la connaissance locale sur I’utilité de chasse et de poissons aussi bien que sur la ethnotaxonomie des poissons est une source importante d’information pour développer des projets de gestion de ressource qui seront 4 ] ; t encialoment et 4 M 1 + ov. it af gs INTRODUCTION The study of native or local knowledge systems can contribute to the creation n alternative strategies for ecological management (Posey et al. 1984), especially are usually scarce or t Johannes 1998, Ruddle 1994). Local knowledge can be a source of information on current status of resources, local ecosystem dynamics, species diversity, species behavior, interactions among components of ecosystems, and local environment becsassunael istics among other things. Traditional natural based on local knowledge can also be a source of information on ecologically sustainable management practices. This is not to say, however, that all traditional manage- ment practices are ecologically sound. As Johannes (1978:355) pointed out, “Environmentally destructive practices coexisted, in most societies, with efforts to conserve natural resources. But the existence of the former does not diminish the significance of the latter.” Sustainable natural resource management based on lo- cal knowledge by native or local populations has been recorded in several places worldwide (Berkes 1985; Berkes et al. 1989; Feeny et al. 1990; Berkes and Kislaliogluo 1991; Gadgil et al. 1993). Several terms have been used to describe the knowledge of local ecological systems, accumulated through a long series of observations and transmitted from generation to generation (Gadgil et al. 1993; Berkes 1999), including native knowl- edge, indigenous knowledge, traditional (ecological) knowledge, and local knowledge. To avoid semantic and conceptual problems, we will use here the term local knowledge because it is the least problematic one (Ruddle 1994). e way of studying local knowledge about living organisms is to observe how the organisms are classified and what their uses are. Ethnobiological studies on the classification of living organisms, as well as on food taboos and prefer- ences, constantly show the debate between utilitarian / materialist and structuralist / symbolist (Berlin 1992; Hunn 1982; Hay 1982; Harris 1987a, 1987b; Vayda 1987a, 1987b). In the light of this debate, the purpose of this study is then to investigate (a) fish ethnotaxonomy and its relation to scientific taxonomy, (b) food prefer- ences and taboos, and (c) animals used in local medicine, in two fishing communities of Ilha Grande (R.J, Southern coast of Brazil). Understanding the Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 109 reasons behind food preferences and taboos, the use of animals in local medicine, and the diversity of fishing resources and its classification may help to elaborate more appropriate and ecologically sound management plans for these communi- ties. STUDY SITES Ilha Grande means big island in Portuguese. It is almost 190 km? and is lo- cated off the southeastern Brazilian coast (230 10' S, 4400 17' W, Gr.), in front of Angra dos Reis Bay (Angra dos Reis, Rio de Janeiro State) (Figure 1). Today the island is mainly covered by secondary tropical rainforest after being used until some decades ago for agriculture (particularly coffee and sugar-cane plantations), pastures, and tree logging. The size of the local population, known as caicaras, has been quite stable around seven to eight thousand people during the last two cen- turies (Oliveira et al. 1994). Caicaras are tillers and fishers, descendants of Indians and European settlers, mainly Portuguese (Marcilio 1986). Their subsistence is based mainly on manioc cultivation and fishing activities. However, since 1950's, a shift has occurred from agriculture to fishing due to low prices of agricultural products relative to fish (Diegues 1983; Begossi et al. 1993). Brazil Weer cstie ee ae RJ Angra dos Reis a Proveta FIGURE 1.— Map of the study site, showing Grande Island Bay and Grande Island, where Aventureiro and Proveta are located. The Bay of Ilha Grande is located in the southern coast of Rio de Janeiro State, in Brazil. 110 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 We studied two fishing communities in Ilha Grande: Proveta and Aventureiro, both situated at the southwestern side of the island. Proveta is the second biggest community of the island including around 260 houses. Its economy is based mainly on the sardine fishery. There is a clear social stratification among its population, where few boat owners employ most of the fishermen in the community. Electric power is offered only to buildings from the center of the village, including the “Assembléia de Deus” (Assembly of God) church (Pentecostal), the elementary and junior high school, the medical office, five small markets, and the most wealthy houses. Aventureiro is one of the smallest communities of the island (22 families), the most isolated, and the only one facing open sea. Although young men from Aventureiro work for the Proveta sardine fishery, small-scale artisanal fisheries and shifting cultivation are the main subsistence activities of the caicaras of Aventureiro. Inhabitants of Aventureiro depend on Proveta or on Angra do Reis (inland city) to sell their products, to buy goods, and to provide medical assis- tance. There is an elementary school in Aventureiro, and adult illiteracy level is almost the same as at Proveta (around 20%). There is no municipal electric power or water in Aventureiro. Because Aventureiro is located inside a State protected area (Reserva Biolégica Estadual da Praia do Sul - RBEPS), nobody is allowed to move in, except relatives of the inhabitants. The RBEPS was institutionalized as a top-down management by the Rio de Janeiro State government, as well as the Marine Park of Aventureiro (5 nautical square miles) situated in the ocean adjacent to the community of Aventureiro. The Aventureiro people should live according to State regulations for protect areas, which include prohibition of game hunting and fishing. However, this is not often the case, as the RBEPS staff is insufficient to monitor the entire area and enforce regulations. METHODOLOGY The field work on Ilha Grande was carried out from April 95 to September 1996. Surveys about aquatic and terrestrial animals uses were performed to iden- tify the following issues: (a) which fish were the most common, consumed, preferred, avoided, sold, or had medical importance; (b) which game were con- sumed or avoided; (c) which were the reasons for which fish and game were avoided; and (d) which animals were used for medicinal purposes. Items a, b and d investigated the use of local animal resources by this caicara population. Item a also provided information on fish diversity and folk classification of fishing re- sources. Item c focused on understanding the reasons behind food preferences and taboos. We visited all houses in Aventureiro and interviewed husband and/or wife, for a total of 30 adult caigaras. Because Proveta is a large community, we visited only 25% of its houses and interviewed 100 caicaras. The sampling methodology consisted of visiting one house, skipping the next three, and visiting the fourth house, repeating this procedure until the whole community was covered. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 111 ETHNOTAXONOMY OF FISH According to Berlin (1973, 1992) folk genera are groups of animals or plants easily recognized on the basis of a large number of gross morphological character- istics, usually described by primary names (monomials). Folk species require a more detailed observation on the basis of very few morphological characters to be distinguished and are linguistically binomials (generic name is modified by an adjective which usually describes some obvious morphological character) (Berlin 1973, 1992). During field work, 35 fish t dhipgtate were collected and identified by caigara folk names, and y accordir ig t Figueiredo (1977), Figueiredo and Menezes (1978, 1980), Menezes and eABMeInG? (1980, 1985) (Ap- pendix 1). During interviews in both ities studied at Ilha Grande (Proveta and Aventureiro), 123 fish names quoted were registered; their corresponding sci- entific names were obtained from the above literature plus Godoy (1987) and Begossi and Figueiredo (1995) (Appendix I). From 123 fishes quoted during inter- views, 97 fishes had monomial names (folk genera) and 25 had binomials (folk species). In addition, one fish, which had a monomial name (Languicha), was con- sidered a tlk Species for being a contraction of a binomial (Corcoroca-languicha). Corr t scientific names were not found in literature for 4 folk genera and 5 folk species. In the present study, the analysis of folk and scientific systems of classification had the scientific species and the folk genus as the basic taxa, as proposed by Berlin (1973). We present below four types of ee verified by Berlin, and one more type which we call “Over-differentiation Type II a) One-to-one A single folk genus corresponds to only one sci- entific species. Example: Pe (Elops saurus) (ladyfish). Over-differentiation type J: Two or more folk generic taxa refer to a single scientific species. Example: Caranx crysos is known as Manequinho, Carapau and Xerelete (bluerunner). However, in this case, and according to local fish- ermen, those names are given to different sizes of the same fish (growing phases). Another example is Trachinotus goodei known as Garabebé or Pampo- branco. In this latter case, however, folk names are not associated with growing phases. Over-differentiation type II: Two or more folk genera are used to designated two or more, although the same, scientific species. Example: Camburu and Moréia (moray) are folk names by which are recognized several species from the genus Gymnothoraxs. Under-differentiation: Refers to polytypy and can be divided into two types: Type I: A single folk genus refers to two or more scientific species from the same genus. Example: Caranha (more than one species from the Lutjanus ge- nus) (snapper). Type II: A single folk generic taxon refers to two or more species of two or more scientific genera. Example: Corcoroca (species from more than one ge- nus from Haemulidae family) (tomtate). There are also some rare cases where a folk genus refers to scientific species from more than one family. Ex: Cagdo (species from 13 families) (shark) and Arraia (species from 10 families) (rays). b — ie) eet 112 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 The correspondence between the 97 folk genera and the scientific species is presented in Table 1. Carangidae seems to be the most known fish family among caicaras from Ilha Grande. There is a high correspondence among folk genera and scientific species from the Carangidae. Moreover, from 20 folk species we identi- fied, 6 were Carangidae, 4 Haemulidae and 4 Clupeidae, which also suggest the well known importance of Carangidae. These results may indicate species from this family can be easily recognized on the basis of external morphological charac- ters; or, perhaps, local people may have some incentives to recognize Carangidae fishes. Indeed, the Carangidae represent 24% of all fish quoted by more than 10% of interviewees as being of local significance or usefulness (Tables 5 and 6), fol- lowing in second place by the Scombridae, Haemulidae, Sciaenidae, Serranidae, Sparidae and Mugilidae, which represented only 7%. Although some folk names of Sciaenidae correspond to only one scientific name, polytypy was common in this family. Polytypy was also often observed for Serranidae and Exocoetidae-Hemiramphidae, which suggests caigaras have more trouble or less incentives to differentiate fish from these families. For instance, no Sciaenidae, Serranidae or Exocoetidae-Hemiramohidae fish were quoted by more than 10% of the interviewees as fish that should be avoided (i.e., carregado — see below), and only one Sciaenidae (Corvina), among all these families, was rejected by interviewees from Ilha Grande (Table 6). It is worth noting, however, that Cor- TABLE 1.— Correspondence between folk genera and scientific species of the 97 monomial fish names (folk genera) quoted during interviews. Type of correspondence Numbers of folk | Numbers of cases found in each genera involved _ scientific famil One-to-one correspondence 31 folk genera 5 cases from Carangidae 4 cases from Sciaenidae 3 cases from Scombridae 19 cases from 16 different scientific families Over-differentiation typeI 7 cases including (Synonyms) 11 folk genera and 4 cases from Carangidae 4 folk species Over-differentiation type II 4 cases includin (Synonyms) 12 folk genera Under-differentiation typeI 13 folk genera 3 cases from Serranidae (Polytypy) 10 cases from 9 different scientific families Under-differentiation type Il 26 folk genera 4 cases from Sciaenidae (Polytypy) 3 cases from Exocoetidae- Hemiramphidae 16 cases from 15 different scientific families Plus: Arraia (ray) from 10 different families Cacao (shark) from 13 different families Linguado (flounder) (Pleuronectiform) Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 113 vina (Croaker) is a well differentiated fish, showing a one-to-one correspondence between folk genus and scientific species (Micropogonias furnieri). So, what are the incentives for local people to classify or differentiate fish? Berlin (1992) proposes and d les of general classification of plants and animals by traditional societies z as s reflecting an intellectual or cognitive pro- cess of comprehending the world (a process motivated by “interest,” first of all). On the other hand, Hunn (1982) argues that ethnoscientists interested in folk bio- logical classification have paid insufficient attention to the practical significance of such systems. The fact that Carangidae species are well differentiated and also the most rep- resented among those of useful meaning for local people, supports Hunn’s arguments. On the other hand, some useful fish are quite under-differentiated referring to species of two or more scientific genera (under-differentiation type II), including species of Clupeidae, Haemulidae, Labridae, Scaridae, Scombridae and Elasmobranchii fish (Tables 5 and 6). To contribute to this debate and to the under- standing of folk taxonomy, Clement (1995) suggests that “it is only through minute analysis of uses of plant and animal products alongside study of the classification of the same plants and animals in a taxonomic system which is ‘apparently’ mor- phological or behavioral that one can discover the relation between cognitive and utilitarian factors.” Although such “minute analysis” was not performed in this research, there are clear evidences of cognitive factors in the folk taxonomy of caigaras from Ilha Grande. Some folk species from the same folk and scientific genus are differenti- ated by their colors; examples are Pampo-branco (white) (Trachinotus goodei) and Pampo-amarelo (yellow) (Trachinotus carolinus); and Xaréu-branco (white) (Caranx hippos) and Xaréu-preto (black) (Caranx lugubris). Others are differentiated by their morphological or behavioral characteristics; for instance, Galo-testudo (“big fore- head”) (Selene vomer) and Galo-da-correicao (“one that moves in schools”) (Selene setapinnis). Interesting to note here is that Galo is not quoted among the fishes most useful or avoided; that is, cognitive factors seems to be more evident than the utilitarian principle in this case. Although all the above a i are from the Carangidae, color, morphologi- cal and behaviora commonly used adjectives that modify generic names (folk genera) in caic¢ara taxonomy. Examples from the Hemulidae, Labridae, Sciaenidae, Clupeide, include respectively Corcoroca-bicuda (“long beak”) (Haemulon plumieri), Gudido-prego-de-cobre (“old copper color”) (Halichoeres radiatus); pescada-branca (white) (Cynoscion leiarchus); and sardinha-cascuda (“hard scales”) (Harengula clupeola). Our results suggest that both cognitive and utilitarian factors are important components of the biological classification of fish among caicaras. These findings are in accordance to those presented by Begossi and Figueiredo (1995) for fishing communities in the same coastal region. These authors observed a close relation- ship between binomial folk names and important economic fish families (e.g., Carangidae, Serranidae and Sciaenidae) except for Labridae and Scaridae (folk name Gudido or Budiao). They peed that “pethaps, the conspicuousness and beautiful col f these [ g them highly noticeable and iden- I 114 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 tifiable, explains their importance in folk nomenclature” (Begossi & Figueiredo 1995: 716). That is, cognitive processes also play a role in folk taxonomy. COMPARING ETHNOTAXONOMY OF FISHES FROM THREE ISLANDS OF SOUTHEASTERN BRAZILIAN COAST Based on Berlin’s definition for folk genera and species we re-analyzed data from Begossi and Figueiredo (1995) for Buzios island and Sepetiba bay, both caicaras communities also located at the southeastern Brazilian coast. We compared those data to the ones obtained for Ilha Grande (Tables 2 and 3). In all three localities we observed synonyms among folk genera (over-differentiation) varying from 19% to 29% of all folk genera. The percentage of folk genera corresponding to only one scientific species was very low at Ilha Grande (about 1/3) if compared to data from Buzios island and Sepetiba bay (over 2/3). Moreover, 40% of folk genera from Ilha Grande were polytypic whereas polytypy appears only in less than 10% of the folk genera from the other two places (Table 2 TABLE 2.— Correspondence between folk genera and scientific species of fishes from Ilha Grande (Proveta and Aventureiro), Buzios island and Sepetiba bay. Percentage of Folk Genera eee Types IlhaGrande _—_ BuziosIsland! _Sepetiba Bay! 1e-to 19 68 Gidtbiantin: type I 11 16 26 (7 cases) (8 cases) (7 cases) Over-differentiation type II 12 3 3 (4 cases) (1 case) (1 case) Under-differentiation type I 13 1 2 Under-differentiation type II p44 1 6 Folk genera not identified 4 0 0 Total of folk genera 97 80 62 ‘Data from Begossi and Figueiredo (1995) The proportion of folk species in relation to all fish folk names were low (less than 1/3) for all localities: 20% at cole Grande, 31% at Buzios island and 16% at Sepetiba bay. The one-to folk species (binomials) and scientific species (binomials) occurs in 40% of folk species from Ilha Grande, 47% from Buzios island, and 50% from Sepetiba bay. In all localities we found cases of synonyms and cases of polytypy among folk species (i.e., one folk species corre- sponding to two or more scientific species) (Table 3). Geoghegan (1976) verified that folk systems of biological nomenclature reflect accurately natural biological diversity, despite of the strong influence of cultural factors. When analyzing folk and scientific taxa as proposed by Berlin, we verified at Ilha Grande that the folk genera directly recognized (correspondence one-to- one), under-differentiated and over-differentiated are distributed in proportions to around one third. This could suggest that classification of fish by caigara from Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 115 TABLE 3.— Correspondence between folk species and scientific species of binomial fish names from Ilha Grande (Proveté and Aventureiro), Buzios island and Sepetiba bay. Percentage of Folk Species Correspondence Types IlhaGrande — BuziosIsland' _—_Sepetiba Bay! One-to-one 40 47 50 Over-differentiation (synonyms) 16 28 42 (2 cases) (5 cases) (2 case) Under-differentiation (polytypy) 16 17 8 Total of folk species? 25 36 12 “Data from Begossi and 5 \ I e 7At Ilha Grande, 20% of the folk speci t identified and 16% were synonymous with folk genera (over-differentiation type I). At Buzios Island, 8% of the folk speci ynony with folk genera. Ilha Grande are far from reflecting natural biodiversity. However, when we sum the folk species (10) and folk genera (31) related to only one scientific species and the folk species and folk genera classified as over-differentiated type I (synonyms) (19) we verified that 49% of all fishes cited during interviews at Ilha Grande were easily recognized. Moreover, this percentage is much higher for Buzios Island and Sepetiba Bay, respectively, 91% and 93%. These results suggest that indeed caicaras have an accurate | ] dg eo a ity as proposed by Geoghegan (1976). The lower correspondence of one-to-one type between folk and scientific taxonomy, in relation to folk genera or folk species from Ilha Grande when compared to the other two localities may be the result of the methods used. All fishes from Buzios island and Sepetiba bay were collected during field work, identified by their folk names and afterwards by scientific taxonomy, whereas only 26% of the fishes cited during interviews at Ilha Grande were collected and scientifically identified. The rest of the fish names identification was done through corresponding folk to scien- tific names obtained from literature about localities from south and southeastern Brazilian coast, including Buzios island and Sepetiba bay. The fact that only 26% of all fishes in Ilha Grande were collected and scientifically identified may also explain the higher percentage of folk genera under-differentiation in Ilha Grande compared to the other two localities. FISH AND GAME CONSUMPTION, AND FOOD TABOOS’ Because of the existence of synonyms and polytypy among fish folk names, when analyzing the usefulness of fishes and the food taboos in Ilha Grande, we grouped some folk genera and folk species of fishes as presented in Table 4. We analyzed animal preference, consumption, uses and prohibition in case of illness at Aventureiro and Proveta (Tables 5 and 6). The most considered common fishes in both communities were also cited as the most consumed ones: spottail pinfish (marimba) (Diplodus argenteus), bluefish (enchova) (Pomatomus saltatrix), yellow chub (pirajica) (Kyphosus sp.) and bluerunner (xerelete) (Caranx crysos) at 116 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 Aventureiro; and bluerunner, grouper (garoupa) (Epinephelus sp.) and bluefish at Proveta. These results suggest that consumption is related to those fishes that are more available. Availability here refers to what is caught during fisheries and not to all fishing resources. Another explanation is that interviewees simply associ- ated their answers about the most common fish in their localities to what is the most common in their everyday dishes. If this is the case, this association can cre- ate a bias in the use of local knowledge about fish stocks in management design; so, further investigation is needed. TABLE 4.— Fish folk names from Ilha Grande chosen to represent their syn- onyms or folk species included within folk genera. Fish folk names Synonyms or folk species included in folk genera i (Bullet mackerel or little | Bonito-Cadelaio ce o (Shark) any folk species of Ca¢do cited Corcoroca Conkiahs) any folk species of Corcoroca cited Camburu (Moray) Moréia Galo (Atlantic moonfish) both species of Galo Garabebé Pampo-Branco Gudidao (Hogfish, Parrotfish, excepting Gudiao-Sabonete (it was collected and Wrasse) identified as being from another family) all folk species of Gudido cited Imbetara (Southern kingfish) Papa-terra and Perna-de-Moc¢ Olho-de-Cao (Bigeye) pn pei Jingolé, Padecedo anid Sambalo. Pampo (Florida pompano) mpo-Amarelo Parati-Barbudo (Mullet) ooh Peixe-Porco (File fish) Capucho Pescada (Weakfish) mirmecantte tae Gudiao-Sabon Sardinha (Sardine) Ma folk spscie = Sardinha cited Xaréu-Branco (Jack crevalle) Xar Xerelete (Bluerunner) roe or Manequinho Sardine (sardinha) (Clupeidae) is considered a very common fish in Proveta. However, it was not cited among the most consumed fishes in that community. The fact that the sardine fishery is the main source of income in Proveta explains why this fish was cited as the most common and the most sold fish by caicaras from Proveta. Bluerunner and bluefish are also frequently sold by fishermen from both communities. At caigare communities. food taboos can be observed through animal rejection anima d carregados. The term es as 1s reimoso) refers to some types of meat which are “strong” or cause ad gestion and should be avoided by ill people. Bluerunner, grouper and mackerel (cavala) (S the most preferred fishes and whitemouth croaker (corvina) (Micropogonias furnieri) among the most rejected fish in both communities we studied. Pufferfish (baiacu) (Sphoeroides sp.) and cutlass fish (espada) (Trichiurus lepturus) at Proveta and mo- ray (camburu) (Gymnothorax sp.) and mullet (parati) (Mugil sp.) at Aventureiro, 1 ranalia\ are amnno Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 17 were also rejected. According to interviewees, croaker is avoided because of its stink and bad taste. However, it is very recommended for illness at Proveta (Table 6). This result agrees to the “drugstore hypothesis” (Begossi 1992) which suggests that fish used in case of illness by relatively isolated people may be considered taboo in order to be available for folk medicine. Accordingly, croaker avoidance in Ilha Grande seems to have a conservation purpose since croaker is one of the most consumed and commercialized fishes along the Brazilian southeastern coast (Menezes and Figuereido 1980). In fact, Colding (1997), who studied several ta- boos found in indigenous societies, verified that 60% of those taboos had some effect on conservation. According to caicaras, pufferfish is rejected because it is venomous. Indeed, pufferfish poisoning has been reported since the seventeenth century (Piso 1658). Cutlass fish is avoided because it is a scaleless fish (peixe de couro), and some times it possesses worms in its flesh. Scaleless fishes are also avoided in Amazon area (Pereira 1974). Moray is rejected because of its snake-shape. Besides its appear- ance, Begossi (1992) observed that the aggressive behavior, bad smell and conspicuous teeth of moray also contribute to is avoidance at Buzios island. Mullet (parati) is avoided because it is a carregado fish. Actually, mullet, bullet mackerel or little tunny (bonito) (Scombridae) and jack (xaréu-preto) (Caranx lugubris) were considered carregado fish. An association between carregado and car- nivorous species (peixes de dentes) is suggested by interviewees. This association was proposed by Begossi (1992) and Begossi and Braga (1992). According to these authors, the fish position at the food chain can influence its preference as food item. Fishes at a high trophic level have a higher probability of acquiring toxins and being considered venomous fishes (carregados). Indeed, 63% of carregado fishes in both communities are piscivorous (Table 7), which reinforces their hypothesis. Fishes recommended in case of diseases or after childbirth are known as mansos. The fishes most cited as mansos during interviews were bluerunner and southern kingfish (imbetara) (Menticirrhus sp.) at Aventureiro, and tomtate (corcoroca) (Haemulidae), croaker and grouper (mira) (Mycteroperca sp.) at Proveta. Begossi (1992), Begossi and Braga (1992) and Hanazaki et al. (1996) verified that manso fish are usually plankton eaters or feed on small invertebrates or are detritivorous. Thi lati I ip among mansos fishes and predators of the beginning or the middle of the food chain is also verified here: 71% of those fishes cited as mansos in Aventureiro or in Provetd are detritivorous or feed on small invertebrates or small fishes (Table 7). Our results demonstrate that caicgara taboos on fish consumption may be re- lated to both utilitarian and cognitive factors. Avoidance of a fish due to its toxicity or indigestibility (e.g., pufferfish and carregado fishes) and due to conservation purposes (“drugstore hypothesis”) has strong useful meaning (utilitarian perspec- tive), as well as knowledge on manso fishes. On the other hand, avoidance of fish due to its appearance and behavior (e.g., moray) is clearly based on cognitive fac- tors (symbolist perspective). As it occurs among fish resources, some game animals are more preferred or more avoided than others. At both communities, we observed that paca (paca) (Agouti paca), agouti (cutia) (Dasyprocta azarae), lizard (lagarto) (Tupinambis merianne), opossum (gambd) (Didelphis marsupialis) and nine-banded armadillo 118 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 TABLE 5.— Fishes cited as common, consumed, preferred and sold, according to at least 10 % of interviewees from Aventureiro (Av) and Proveta (Pr), Ilha Grande: AERED ARE of citations of each species related to (per) the number of interviewee FISHES Percentages of Citations Folk and Scientific Common Consume Preferred Sold English Names Names Aa Behe Ot. - Ries PR A onito Several species 20 Bullet mackerel from Scombridae or little tunny Cavala Scomberomorus 20 43 32 13 be Mackerel cavalla Cacao Several species 13 Shark Corvina periis hie 10 14 Whitemouth furnier croaker Enchova Pomatomus saltatrix 53 Bee cae 90280 Bluefish Garabebe Trachinotus goodei 13 Garoupa Epinephelus sp. Bo oe De eg 2her 188 32 de os 22 eon. rimba Diplodus argenteus 57 11 #50 13 Spi pinfish Olho de Boi Seriola dumerili 13 Great amberjack Olho de Cao Priacanthus sp. 10 Bigeye Olhudo Caranx latus 17 18 62 Horse-eye jack Pampo Trachinotus carolinus 13 10 Florida pompano Pirajica Kyphosus sp. 40 13. Al io 2 ia ag Yellow chub Sardinha Several species oe 11 13 Se Sardine from Clupeidae Sargo Anisotremus 32 Black margate — surinamensis Tainha Mugil platanus 13 17 Mullet Tinitina Abudefduf saxatilis 23 Sargeant Xaréu-Branco _—__Caranx hippos 25 Jack crevalle Xaréu-Preto Caranx lugubris 13 13 ack Xerelete Caranx crysos 50 69 50 66 i 29 75 33 Bluerunner Total of folk names 6. Wo a ie es a2 17 Interviewees 0 9 me 30. 99 8 27 Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 119 TABLE 6.— Fishes cited as rejected, avoided, and recommended for consump- tion during illness, according to at least 10 % of interviewees from Aventureiro (Av) and Proveta (Pr), Ilha Grande: Percentage of citations of each species related to (per) the number of interviewees. FISHES Percentages of Citations Folk and Scientific Rejected Avoided Recommended English Names Names (carregados) (mansos) Av Fe ee er CA r Baiacu Sphoeroides sp. 15 Pufferfish Bonito Several species 1 Gf! GS Bullet mackerel from Scombridae or Little tunny Camburu Gymunothorax sp. 19 Moray Cavala Scomberomorus cavalla 14 Mackerel Corcoroca Several species from is, = To Haemulidae Corvin Whitemouth — Micropogonias i ee 2 21 42 croaker furnieri Enchova Pomatomus saltatrix i Ses | eg Bluefish Espada Trichiurus lepturus io AY 14 ie fish rade Pomacanthus paru 14 pis Garabebe Trachinotus goodei 11 Garoupa Epinephelus sp. a6 4b Grouper Gudiao Hogfish, Wrasse, Species from Labridae e 10 Parrotfish Scaridae Imbetara Menticirrhus sp. 39 23 Southern kingfish Marimba Diplodus argenteus 15 18 Spottail pinfish Mira Mycteroperca acutirostris 36 Grouper Olho de Boi Seriola dumerili 10 22 Great amberjack Olho de Cao Priacanthus sp. 18 12 Bigeye Trachinotus carolinus 32 Florida pompano Dinalicn é Kyphosus sp. 10 3220 Yellow chub ati Mugil sp. » we. SS Mullet 120 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 TABLE 6 (continued). FISHES Percentages of Citations Folk and Scientific Rejected Avoided Recommended English Names Names (carregados) (mansos) Atco Pe kc... Bewokv. Pr Sardinha Several species of Clupeidae 10 se ee Sardine Tainha Mugil platanus 21 Mullet Xaréu-Preto Caranx lugubris 26 46 Jack Xerelete Caranx crysos 43 13 Bluerunner Total of folk names 14 40 ees 24 Interviewees 21 78 fag 96 28 90 TABLE 7.— Feeding habits of fish avoided and recommended during illness according to at least 10% of interviewees from both Aventureiro and Proveta (A + P), only from Aventureiro (A) and only from Proveta (P). Folk Names! English Names Communities Feeding Habits* Avoided (carregado) Bonito Bullet Souk orl A+P fishes and squid Little tunny Enchova Bech A+P fishes Espada Cutlass fish A+P fishes Marimba Spottail pinfish A crustacea, molluscs and algae Olho de Boi Amberjack A fishes and invertebrates Parati Mullet A+P vegetal detritus Sardinha Sardine A+P plankton Xaréu-Preto Jack A+P fishes and invertebrates Allowed (manso) Cavala Mackerel A fishes and squid Corcoroca Tomtate A+P invertebrates Corvina Croaker A+P small fishes, annelids and benthonic crustacea Enchova Bluefish A fishes Garabebe A small invertebrates Garoupa Grouper A+P fishes and crustacea Imbetara Southern Kingfish A+P worms and benthonic crustacea Marimba Spottail pinfish A crustacea, molluscs and algae Mira roupe ¥ fishes and crustacea Olho de Cao Bigeye A+P small fishes, crustacea, molluscs Pampo Florida pompano A small fishes, — crustacea and polychea Pirajica Yellow chub At? vegetal matter rend small invertebrat Tainha Mullet A vegetal ictitils Xerelete juerunner A+P small fishes and invertebrates 1Scientific names are found on Table 4. ae He (1978, 1980), M a. Jo (1980, 1985) and Moyle and Cech (1982) Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 121 TABLE 8.— The most preferred and rejected game animals by interviewees from Aventureiro and Proveté: Names and percent of citations in relation to total number of interviewees. ANIMALS Percentages of Citations Folk and Scientific Names! Preferred Rejected English Names Aventureiro Proveta Aventureiro Proveta Cutia Dayprocta azarae 68 57 12 2 Agouti Rodentia Gamba Didelphis marsupialis 59 28 29 20 Opossum Marsupialia Lagarto Tupinambis merianae Lizard Saura 62 22 21 40 Macaco or Mico Alouatta fuscus or 6 ea 8 Howler monkey Cebus apella or Capuchin Primates nke ri¢o Coendou sp. 6 10 62 32 Porcupine Rodentia Paca Agouti paca 91 72 3 2 Paca Rodentia Prea Cavia aperea 38 11 24 . Cavy odentia se koieesninhe Eebimyidee 12 3 _— tia Tatu Dasypus nes 56 31 24 19 Nine-banded Xenarthra armadillo None 9 12 21 18 All 7 Total of folk names 13 14 14 19 Interviewees 34 97 34 7 | Say f ] btained from N: k (1991) and Emmons and Feer (1990) (tatu) (Dasypus novemcinctus) are the most preferred game (Table 8). Nevertheless, Opossum also appears among the three most rejected games in both communities, and lizard is the most avoided at Proveta. Porcupine (ourigo) (Coedon sp.) is also very avoided in both communities, and monkey (macaco or mico) (Alouatta fusca or Cebus apella) is the third most rejected game at Aventureiro. __ Folk oak et gee for these taboos are based especially in appearance and in ty): lizard is carregado and has snake and/or alli- gator shape. Monkey, when has its skin and tail taken off it, looks like a child. Porcupine (ouri¢o) is carregado, stinks, and during certain season of the year its thorns fall down and wounds appears on its body. Opossum is carregado and has a bad smell. also found scientific explanations to these taboos. The “drugstore hypoth- esis” (Begossi 1992) cited above is enough to explain why lizard and opossum are avoided: both animals are placed among the most cited ones as medicinal animals (Table 9). This explanation is based on the cost-benefit relationship (utilitarian / 122 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 materialist view). On the other hand, Sahlins (1976), who considered symbolic criteria for analyzing human behavior, has proposed that not-consumed animals are close to humanity, and consumed animals are different from human life. This symbolist view seems to be very appropriate and in close accord with the folk explanation for monkey avoidance. As in the case of fish, taboos on game con- sumption in Ilha Grande seem to related to both utilitarian and cognitive factors. MEDICINAL ANIMALS Zootherapy is an important aspect of ethnozoology and deals with animals used as medicine (Freire and Marques 1996). Recently, medicinal animals used by local populations have been recorded in Brazil (Begossi 1992, 1998; Begossi and Braga 1992; Marques 1995; Freire and Marques 1996; Souto 1996; Silva and Marques 1996). Caicara knowledge about the use of medicinal animals from both Aventureiro and Proveta is listed in Table 9. Lizard (lagarto) and chicken (galinha) (Gallus domesticus) are the most used animals for medicinal purposes. The importance of lizard fat as medicine-therapy has been recorded in several Brazilian regions such as Paraiba (Souto 1996), Varzea do Marituba - Alagoas (Marques 1995), and Buzios island - Sao Paulo coast (Begossi 1992). At these last two places, chicken fat used for medicinal purpose was also recorded. In fact, fat (banha) is the body part cited as the most used from most of the animals cited at Ilha Grande; it is usually uti- lized for curing respiratory diseases, skin thorns, wounds and rheumatism at both studied communities (Table 9). Bronchitis is usually cured through simpatia (beliefs). Simpatia, in caicara terms, means that an ill person eats or drinks a processed part of an animal without know- ing what she/he is taking. The part of animal (skin, heart, stings, etc) is toasted, ground and mixed in the meal or drinking water. The fact that simpatia raw mate- rial is characteristically burned (what eliminates the possible decomposition of organic materials), probably guarantees it does not harm the person (usually chil- dren) taking it. The use of animals as medicine could be related to the facilities of (after the animal is killed) keeping at home its useful parts during long periods. Fat, cited as the most used part of several animals, is easily extracted and conserved at daily temperatures. All other animal parts, except eggs and milk, are processed through dehydration/sterilization (toasted), ground and can be conserved as powder un- til administration. This means that when some caicara get sick, they do not have to leave their house to hunt medicinal animals; they already have at home animal- based medicines for use whenever it is necessary. Recently, diversity indices have been used in studies on plant utilization, as a measure of folk knowledge, at several Atlantic forest communities (Figuereido et al. 1993, 1997; Hanazaki et al. 1996; Rossato 1996; Begossi 1996). Because caigaras from Proveta have more medical assistance and are closer to Angra dos Reis (geo- graphically, and also because they have much more boats to access the city) than people from Aventureiro, one could expect that Proveté people may lose their knowledge of native animals used as medicine. However, this expectation was not verified in our study. Although we have interviewed three times more people TABLE 9.— Medicinal animals cited during interviews: From 29 people interviewed at Aventureiro, 4 men and 3 women knew no medicinal animal; and from 100 interviewees from Proveta , 13 men and 23 women knew none. MEDICINAL ANIMALS Percentage of Citations Folk and Scie — English Names me Aventureiro Proveta Diseases Utilization bag Fiymenaptera 3 cough Drink orange leaf tea with honey Besourinho do Mar ? 1 bronchitis Toasted, ground and drunk as tea Ray egg Caramujo Molluscs 3 bronchitis ? Snail Capivara Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris 3 rheumatism The fat is applied on the affected area. Capybara liver pain ? bronchitis tio a is toasted, ground and drunk Cavalinho do Mar* Hyppocamus reidi 7 9 bronchitis ea or sun dried, ground and drunk as tea or eaten with meals by children — Micropogonias furnieri 2 bronchitis The otolith is toasted, ground and drunk as taker gua Equus caballus 3 cough Drink the milk Female horse Galinha caipira Gallus domesticus 55 21 __ bronchitis and other The fat is drunk with water or massaged on Chicken Gamba Oposs Didelphis marsupialis 31 6 tae: diseases heu rheumatism skin thorns and wounds earaches bronchitis r tis — ‘hora and wounds aches ches The fat is applied on the affected area. The fat is applied on the poaicn area. e fat is put inside the The yolk of an egg is eaten et cooked orange leaves The fat is applied on the affected area. The fat is applied on the magia area. e fat is put inside the ea The eas runk with abe or massaged on ASOTOISONHLA JO TVNUNOL TO0¢ JouruINs €cl MEDICINAL ANIMALS Percentage of Citations Folk and Scientific English Names Names Aventureiro Proveta Diseases Utilization Guaiamu* Cardisoma guanhumi(?) 3 1 bronchitis The nails are toasted and eaten. Lagarto Tupinambis merianae 51 37 skin thorns and wounds The fat is applied on the affected area. Lizard rheumatism The fat is applied on the affected area. respiratory diseases The fat is ct we with water or massaged on chest or on the n sore throat e fat is eae on the throat snake bites The fat is drunk with warm water Lula* Loligo sp. 8 bronchitis The pena! is toasted, ground and drink as tea. Squid Macaco Alouatta fuscus 3 any disease The pedra-da-goela? is toasted and eaten. Howler monkey Marimbondo Hymenoptera 1 bronchitis Its house is cooked in water. The water is Hornet filtered and drunk by children. ri¢o Coendou sp. 3 bronchitis whe stings are toasted and drunk with Porcupine a Agouti paca 1 wound in the breast The “fat is melted and applied on the breast. Paca caused by suckling Peixe Porco = Balistes capriscus 3 11 bronchitis The skin is toasted or sun dried, ground and Capucho* drunk as tea or eaten with meals by children. File fish Peixe-boi Trichechus manatus 3 3 rheumatism The fat is applied on the affected area. Manatee skin thorns ies fat is applied on the affected area. bronchitis Porco Sus scrofa 1 skin thorns . bacon is fastened on skin thorns Pi Porco-do-Mato Tayassu tajacu 1 bronchitis ? Collared peccary Ra* Leptodactylidae 3 1 bronchitis and other The skin is toasted, Frog respiratory diseases ground and drunk as tea or eaten with meals vCL ‘(panuyuod) 6 FIAVL ISSODHd PUP SVXIFS TON ‘TZ ‘TOA MEDICINAL ANIMALS Percentage of Citations Folk and Scientific English Names Names Aventureiro Proveta Diseases Utilization Tartaruga* Cheloniidae 14 8 bronchitis The heart or liver is toasted or sun dried, Turtle ae and drunk with water or eaten with eals rheumatism The fat is applied on the affected area. skin thorns The fat is applied on the affected area. Qualquer peixe ? 1 pain Se by skin Any part of the fish should be put on the Any fish fish-thor affected area to release the pain Qualquer animal ? 1 women afte childbirth The spine or any bone is toasted, ground and Any animal who got sick after eating drunk as tea * Beliefs (Simpatias): People should eat any ora fish o animal lp, ton Ml Boe 43] 4 rs a | co i 1 - 4h ion be Witat ICY are LARS. 1 Pert iS Ule ?Pedra da goela is the hyoid of the Alouatta fusca (Howler monkey) o Le Ved - ‘(penuyuod) 6 FTGVL ADOTOISONHLA JO TYWNANOL L00z tours SCI 126 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 at Proveta compared to Aventureiro, the richness of medicinal animals cited (17 animals at Proveta and 14 at Aventureiro) and the diversity of citation of these animals (Table 10) were not significantly different between the two communities. This fact could be explained as these two communities are located on the same island, exploit the same animal resources, and their inhabitants are associated in similar fishing activities (the sardine fishery) or related through marriages. TABLE 10.— Diversity indices (Richness and Shannon-Wiener (H’)) based on citations of medicinal animals (folk names) during interviews. Communities Interviewees Citations Richness Shannon-Wiener* Aventureiro 29 57 14 2,o4"* Proveta 100 112 17 3,188** *Formula used: H’= -S pi log pi (base 2) here: pi = interviews’ number in which an i animal was cited divided by the total number of quotations. “The diversity parision bet bott munities, following Mag (1988), was not significant (p>0.05) CONCLUSIONS Throughout this paper, we presented data that supports Clement’s arguments (1995) on the studies of folk classification of animals and plants: both cognitive and utilitarian factors are “aspects of the same process but on two separate lev- els.” In some sense, we could also extend this argument to fish and game preferences and taboos, where we found both utilitarian and symbolist explanations. Rather than supporting an utilitarian/materialist or a structuralist/symbolist view, our study shows an inter-face between both points of view, which presents satisfac- tory explanations both for fish ethnotaxonomy as well as fish and game preferences and taboos. oncerning the use of local knowledge in designing resource management plans, this study calls attention to the importance of a detailed investigation of local knowledge in order to avoid bias in interpreting and using of such data. Local knowledge about fish biodiversity seems an important source of informa- tion to elaborate appropriate fishery management strategies for areas adjacent to Aventureiro and Proveta, particularly for the Marine Park of Aventureiro. As well, local knowledge on the usefulness of fish and game as presented in this paper may provide for the elaboration of new regulations which should be more in tune with the local population needs, thereby increasing compliance in management. For example, despite the fact that hunting is prohibited inside the RBEPS and fish- ing is prohibited inside the Marine Park, ee Ae to : ae current fegulanon 4 is not likely to occur voluntarily as some game and fish spe for local medicine practices. Understanding the reasons behind food preferences and taboos, the use of : Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 127. animals in local medicine, and the diversity of fishing resources and their classifi- cation can provide helpful information for resource managers to elaborate more ecologically sound, and socio-economically appropriate management plans. NOTES ' The term “scientific names” in this paper corresponds to the names given to animals and plants according to Linnean taxonomy. * There are conceptual differences regarding the use of the term “taboo.” Some authors argue that taboo should only be used when religious reasons appear behind the avoidance of an item or action. Taboos associated with hot-cold syndromes might be related to Hipocratic humoral medicine. Voeks (1995) found hot-cold syndromes in the Brazilian candomblé; the author observed agi this ancient cone is aii in European and Asian health and healing theories, but it is al re- Hispanich civiliza- tions. Hot-cold syndromes are i found among Brazilian rural boo (such as the caigaras of the Atlantic Forest) in referring to a reimoso oF tabooed food (considered as hot). In this paper, we use the term taboo to refer to any f an item or action, indepen- dent of the reason behind such avoidance. This approach has been previously used by other researchers, such as Ross (1978) and Begossi (1998). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS = £, daoaP 1 do NIZ ] We are grateful to the Fundacao Superior (CAPES) for Scholarship (1995- ee to Seixas; to CNPq, for a research productivity scholarship to A. B.; to the Fundacgéo de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) for financial aid in the field work; to Natalia Hanazaki for helping to identify the fishes and to José Lima de Figueiredo (MZUSP) for revision in the fish identification; to Katia Facure Giaretta for helping to identify the mammals; to Débora Q. Tavares for helpful comments on the first draft of this paper. Finally, we are very thankful to the caicaras of Aventureiro and Proveta for their hospitality and valuable contribution in this work. LITERATURE CITED _______, HERMOGENES F. LEITAO- FILHO, and PETER J. RICHERSON. ie Plant uses ie a Brazilian coastal BEGOSSIL, ALPINA. 1992. Food taboos at Buzios island (Brazil): Their significance and relation to folk medicine. Jounal of Ethnobiology 12(1):117-139. fishing community (Buzios Island). BEGOSSIL, ALPINA, 1998. Food taboos: a Journal of Ethnobiology 13(2):233-256. scientific reason? Pages 41-46 in Plants =§=—H+ and JOS LIMA de for Food and Negvee Nina L. Etkin FIGUEIREDO. 1995. Ethnoichthology of D. R. Harris, P. J. Houghton, and H. D. outhern coastal fishermen: cases from V. Enendareast (editors.). Royal Botanic Buzios Island and Sepetiba Bay. Bulletin Garden, of Marine Science 56(2):682-68 —— "1996. Use of ecological methods = BERKES, FIKRET.1985. Fishermen and in ethn obotany: Diversity indices. ‘traged of the commons. Economic eee Sane 280-289 Environmental Conservation 2(3):199- ——__—, and FRANCISCO M.S. BRAGA. 206. 1992. Food taboos oe folk medicine ——_.. 1999. Sacred Ecology. Taylor & among fishermen from Tocantins river Francis, London (Brazil). Amazoniana 12:101-118. 128 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI ___., DAVID FEENY, BONNIE J. McCAY, and JAMES M. ACHESON. 1989. The Sane of the commons. Nature 340:91-93. —_———, and MINA KISLALIOGLUO. 1991, ei ihas ed management and sustainable development. Pp. 567- 574 in La Recherche face a la Peche Artisanale, Symp. Int. ORSTOM- IFREMER, J. R. Durand, J. Lemoalle and . Weber (editors). ORSTROM- IFREMER, Montpellier, France. BERLIN, BRENT. 1973. Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology sie? te 4:259-271. iedtirsricn Ethnobiological Classification. hei ce) f Pl mals in sueoien Societies. University Press, New Jersey. CLEMENT, DANIEL. 1995. Why is taxonomy utilitarian? Journal of Ethnobiology 15(1):1-44 COLDING, JOHAN. 1997. Taboos and the Conservation of Natural Resources, ne mae al Resources Managemen a ~ open Ecology, Stockholm Uni DIEGUES, , ANTONIO sina ba sie Pescador Cam octane babs do Mar. red. gf a Sao Paulo. EMMONS, LOUISE H. and FRANCOIS University of Chicago Press, Chicago. FEENY, DAVID, FIKRET BERKES, BONNIE J. nara and JAMES M. ACHESON. 1990. The Tragedy of the commons: i enty-two years later. Human Ecology 18(1):1-19. FREIRE, FATIMA C. J. and JOSE GERALDO W. MARQUES. 1996. Répteis utilizados na medicina popular Etnoecologia. Univ.Est.de Feira de Santana. 3 a 8 de marco de 1996. Vol. 21, No. 1 FIGUEIREDO, GISELA M., ERMOGENES F. LEITAO-FILHO and ALPINA BEGOSSI. 1993. Ethnobotany of Atlantic forest coastal communities: Diversity lant uses in Gamboa (Itacuruga island, Brazil). Human Ecology 21(4):419- ~~ nd ~ Ethnobotany - of Atlantic forest coastal communities: II. Diversity of plant uses at Sepetibaa bay (SE Brazil). Human pe Bis 25(2):353-360. FIGUEIREDO, JOSE LIMA. 1977. Manual de Pivee Marinhos a Sudeste do teased o -Introducao. Cacoes, raias e quimeras. Museu de Zoologia / USP, Sao wer ne ee NAERCIO A. MENEZES. 1978. Prot de Peixes Marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. I]-Teleostei (1). Museu de Zoologia/USP, Sao Paulo. ince eg . 1980. Manual de s Marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. iI. “Teleostei (2). Museu de Zoologia/ USP, Sao Paulo. GADGIL, MADHAV, FIKRET BERKES and CARL FOLKE.1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2-3):151-156. GEOGHEGAN, WILLIAM H. 1976 Potytypy in folk biological taxonomies. American postop 3(3):469-480. GODOY, M. P. eixes do Es tad F. LEITAO- FILHO and ALPINA BEGOSSI. 1996. Uso de ae da Mata Atlantica: 0 caso da ponta do Almada Neds Brasil) irscecitncls 21(6):268- HARRIS, MARVIN. 1987a. The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture. (originally cae as Good to eat). Touchstone, New Yor . Comment on Vayda’s review of Good to eat: Riddles of food and cultures. Human Ecology 15(4):511- 17. HAY, TERENCE E. 1982. anaegogaf adaptationist explanations of fol biological classifications: ome cautionary notes. Journal of Ethonobiology 2:89-94. Summer 2001 HUNN, EUGENE S. 1982. The utilitarian por in yt biological classification. erican Anthropologist 84(4):830-847. JOHANNES, R.E. 1978. Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise. Annual Review of Ecology and spores 9:349-364. 998. The case * yoininins marine —— managemen S si tere nearshore Ha fshenies Tree 13(6):243-246. AGURRAN. ANNE E. 1988. pe Diversity and its Measur Cam we dge University ad ss. Cambr MARCILIO, MARIA LUIZA. 1986. Caicara: bpie e Populagao. Eds. Paulinas, Sao MAROUES, JOSE = W. 1995. Pescando Pescadores: Etnoecologia Secheore pee no Baixo - ao Francisco. PAU-USP, Sao Paul MENEZES, Nee and 1 JOSE LIMA de FIGUEIREDO. 1980. ee de Peixes Marinhos do Sudes i Teleostei (3). Museu a Zoologia/ USP, Sao Paulo. —__—__ . 1985. Manual de Peixes Marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. V-Teleostei (4). Museu de Zoologia/USP, Sao Paulo. MOYLE, PETER B. and J. J. CECH Jr. 1982. Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. NOWAK, RONALD M. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World. 5" ed. Hopkins University Press, Baltimore OLIVEIRA, ROGERIO R., D.F. LIMA, PD. SAMPAIO, R.F. SILVA and D.D.G. TOFOLLI. 1994. Roga caigara: um sistema “primitivo” =) acorn Ciéncia Hoje 18(104):44 POSEY, DARREL A., J. FRECHIONE, A EDDINS, L. F. SILVA, D. MYER, D CASE an in Amazonian development. man Organization 43(2):95-107. PEREIRA, N. 1974. Panorama da Alimencgao aa Livraria Sao José, Rio de Janeiro JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 129 PISO, GUILHERME. 1658. Histéria Natural e Médica da India Ocidental (re-editado em 1957). Dept. de Imprensa Nacional, Rio aphid ROSS, ERIC BARRY. 1978. Food taboos, diet, and hunting strategy: was adaptation to animals in Amaz cultural ecology. Current Aditinpalogy ):1- ROSSATO, SILVIA C. 1996. Utilizagéo de Depto. Ecologia Geral do Instituto de Biociéncias da USP, Sao Paulo. RUDDLE, KENNETH. 1994. Local knowledge in the folk management of fisheries an oasta marine environments. Pp. 161-206 in Folk Management in the World’s Fisheries: University Press of Colorado, Boulder. SAHLINS, HALL. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. SILVA, GILDA A. ee ig GERALDO W. MARQUES. 996. Mamiferos Domésticos Utilizados na Medicina yoga? do Estado de Alagoas. Resumos do I Simpésio de Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia. Univ.Est.de aig de Santana. 3 a 8 de marco de 199 SOUTO, FRANCISCO J. B. 1996. iaack> de Répteis pela Medicina Popular no Estado da Paraiba. Resumos do I Simpésio de _ Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia. Univ.Est.de Feira de Santana. 3 a 8 de marco de 1996. VAYDA, ANDREW P. 1987a. Explaning what people eat: A review article. Human Ecology 15(4):493-510. a Reply to Harris. Human Ecology 15(4): 519-521 VOEKS, ROBERT A. 1995. Candomblé ethnobotany: African medicinal plant classification in Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology 15(2): 257-280. 130 BOOK REVIEWS Vol. 21, No. 1 Appendix I: Fish identification of folk genera and species cited during inter- views in Ilha Grande; correspondence between caicaras folk names and scientific names. Folk Names Other Folk Names Family Genera-Species One-to-one correspondence — folk genera Gigante elonidae Tylosurus acus* Olhete Carangidae Seriola lalandi Olho-de-Boi! —_Carangidae Seriola dumerili* Olhudo Carangidae Caranx lalus Palumbeta Carangidae Chloroscombrus chrysurus Sarabiguara Carangidae Trachinotus falcatus Dourado Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus Pregador Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates Elopidae Elops saurus* Roncador Haemulidae Conodon nobilis* Salema Haemulidae Anisotremus virginicus* Mangorra Holocentridae —_Holocentrus ascensionis* Tainha Mugilidae Mugil platanus Piaba Pempherididae Pempheris schomburgki Frade Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus paru Tinitina Pomacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis* Enchova Pomatomidae § Pomatomus saltatrix Bijupira Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadus Castanha Sciaenidae mbrina canosai Corvina Sciaenidae Micropogonias furnieri Maria-Luisa'! _ Sciaenidae Paralonchurus brasiliensis Xingo Sciaenidae Stellifer rastrifer *** Cavala Cavalinha Sororoca Mero Mira Marimba Espada Cabrinha Trichiuridae ** Triglidae Scomberomorus cavalla ** Scomber japonicus ** Scomberomorus brasiliensis ** Epinephelus itajara Mycteroperca acutirostris Diplodus argenteus* Pagrus pagrus Trichiurus lepturus ** Prionotus punctatus* Over-differentiation type I —- Folk genera/ species 1 ase Carapau? Manequinho® Xerelete* Case 2 a Garabebé a Pampo Pampo-Branco Case 3 Carangidae Carangidae Carangidae Carangidae Carangidae Carangidae Pampo-Amarelo ? Caranx crysos* Caranx crysos* Caranx crysos ** Trachinotus goodei* Trachinotus goodei* Trachinotus carolinus* Peixe-espada* Manequinho, Xerelete u Carapau Pampo-Branco Garabebé Pampo Folk Names Family Genera-Species Other Folk Names Case 4 Xaréu>® Carangidae Caranx hippos C. latus Xaréu-Branco Xaréu-Branco® Carangidae Alectis ciliaris Xaréu Case 5 Gudiao-Sabonete! Mullidae Pseudupeneus maculatus* Sabonete Sabonete Mullidae Pseudupeneus maculatus* Gudiao-Sabonete ase Savelha Clupeidae Harengula clupeola ** Sardinha-Cascuda Clupeidae Harengula clupeola* Case 7 Capucho ? Peixe-porco” Peixe-Porco* Balistidae Balistes capricus Capucho Over-differentiation type II - folk genera Case 1 Camburu Muraenidae Several species from Moréia Gymnothorax genus Moréia Muraenidae Several species from Camburu Gymnothorax genus a Imbetara Sciaenidae Menticirrhus americanus Papa-terra or Perna-de-moga M. littoralis Papa-terra! Scianidae Menticirrhus americanus Imbetara j P. M. littoralis Perna-de-Moga' ? J aguareca* Holocentridae Holocentrus ascensionis Priacanthus arenatus P. cruentatus Priacanthus arenatus Jingolé* Priacanthidae Olho-de-Cfio!* Priacanthidae cruentatus Padecedo Sambalo ? 4 Parati-barbudo'! Polynemidae apa dies oligodon* virginicus Barbudo ? ee type I - folk genera Galo angidae pa —— $.0 Goivira Carangidae ** Sevens ain from Oligoplites genus Robalo enus Centropomidae Species from Centropomus 8 erna-de-moca Imbetara, Papa-terra Sambalo, Olho de Cao, Jingolé Olho de Cao, Jaguare¢a, Padecedo, Sambalo / sins Jaguareca, Sam Jingol Dike de-vho, Jaguareca, Jingolé Barbudo Parati-barbudo Peixe-Galo? 132 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 Appendix I (continued) FISHES Folk Names Family Genera-Species Other Folk Names Pirajica Kyphosidae agape incisor* K. secta Caranha Lutjanidae More sa one species from Lutjanus genus Parati Mugilidae Several species from Mugil genus, excepting M. platanus Namorado Mugiloididae — Pseudopercis numida P. semifasciat Atum Scombridae Species from Thunnus genus Badejo Serranidae Several species from Mycteroperca genus Garoupa Serranidae Several species from Epinephelus genus Michole Serranidae Diplectrum formosum D. radiale Bicuda Sphyraenidae Several species from Sphyraena genus Baiacu Tetraodontidae Several species from Sphoeroides genus Under-differentiation type II — folk genera Arraia 10 families Cacao 13 families Bagre Ariidae Several — Xixarro Carangidae More than one g (e.g., Selar cramenaphthalnas Sardinha Clupeidae Several spec ere. Diodontidae Several oaties Pana Hemiramphidae Several species agua Pate Agalhe? Hemiramphidae Species from Hemiramphus and Hyporhamphus genera Agulha Voador Exocoetidae Several genera (e.g.,Cypselurus melanurus*) Carapicu Gerreidae Name given to several species (e.g., Eucinostomus melanopterus*) Caratinga Gerreidae Name given to several species (e.g., Diapterus olisthostomus*) Emboré Gobiidae More than one genus Corcoroca Haemulidae More than one genus Sargo Haemulidae Anisotremus surinamensis* Sparidae Archosargus oh henge A. rhomboida Emboré-Castigo! Labrisomidae More than one gen (e.g., Labrisomus Ee aanaien Gudido Labridae Several species from more than Scaridae one genus from both families Vermelho Lutjanidae Several species from Lutjanus genus Rhomboplites aurorubens Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY FISHES Folk Names Family Genera-Species Other Folk Names Trilha Mullidae Mullus argentinae Upeneus parvus ** Linguado Families of Species from more than Pleuronectiforms one famil Cangua Sciaenidae More than one genus Goete Sciaenidae More than one genus (e.g., Cynoscion jamaicensis*) Maria-Mole! Sciaenidae Several species Pescada Sciaenidae More than one genus Bonito Scombridae More than one genus Serrinha Scombridae Several species Mamangaba Scorpaenidae ** Several species One-to-correspondence — folk species Galo-da- Correigéo Carangidae Selene — Galo-Testudo Carangidae Selene v Xaréu-Preto* Carangidae Caranx hu ubris Cagao-Verdadeiro Carcharhinidae Rhizoprionodon lalandei* Sardinha-do-Reino Clupeidae Sardinella brasiliensis orcoroca-Bicuda Haemulidae Haemulon plumieri* Corcoroca-Languicha Haemulidae Haemulon aurolienatum* Gudido-Prego-de- Labridae Halichoeres radiatus* obre Pescada-Branca _Sciaenidae Cynoscion leiarchus Garopinha-Sado- _Serranidae Epinephelus morio Tomé Over-differentiation — folk species ase 1 Sardinha-Laje Clupeidae Opisthonema oglinum ** Sardinha-MarombaClupeidae Opisthonema oglinum ** Case 2 Corcoroca-Branca Haemulidae Haemulon steindachneri Orthopristis ruber* Corcoroca-Sargo Haemulidae Boridia grossidens Haemulon steindachneri ** Under-differentiation — folk species Cacao-Anjo Squatinidae Species of Squatina genus Cacao-Martelo Sphyrnidae Several species from Sphyrna genus Corcoroca-Branca Haemulidae Haemulon steindachneri Orthopristis ruber* Corcoroca-Sargo Haemulidae pe a ae wlon steind 134 SEIXAS and BEGOSSI Vol. 21, No. 1 FISHES Folk Names Family Genera-Species Other Folk Names Folk genera not identified Cambe ? Galhado ? anjica ? Peixe-Cobra‘ £ Folk species not identified Bonito-Cadelio Cavalinha-do-Norte ? Gudiao-Canivete ? Gudido-de-Ferrio ? Gudiaio-Vermelho ? Special case Languicha’ Haemulidae Haemulon aurolineatum* Corcoroca-Languicha S first obtained from Figueired (1977), Figueiredo and Menezes (1978a, 1978b), and Menezes and Figueiredo (1980, 1985) includi (*), and secondly from other literature: (**) from Begossi and Figueiredo (1995) and (***) from Godoy (1987). NOTES: 1Although binomials, these fish names were considered folk genera because they do not represent a variation of its against-part (e.g., Baiacu-de-espinho and Baiacu are from dif- ferent families), or because they are simply complex names (e.g., Maria-Luiza). 2Peixe means fish, so these are also complex names instead of real binomials; so, we also considered them as folk genus. 3As fishermen declared, we considered Manequinho, Carapau and Xerelete as the same species: Caranx crysos. Thus, we did not consider Decapterus punctatus as Carapau (Begossi and Figueiredo 1995) but as Xixarro, nor Caranx latus as Xerelete (Menezes and Figueiredo 1980) but as Olhudo. 4Although Jaguareca is described in the li t member of the Hol idae f. (Holoncentrus ascensionis), we considered it as fishermen do - as the same as Olho-de-Ciio and Jingolé (Priacanthus genus), a member of Priacanthidae family - for the reason that Holocentrus ascensionis were collected and identified as Mangorra - another folk name. >According to fishermen, there are two types of Xaréu: Xaréu-Preto and Xaréu-Branco. ee 8 . vere ep Mev oe Jigpende (1980) as Caranx lugubris - a very rare g t. However, it was many times cited during inter- views. Some fishermen say Xaréu is the same as Xaréu-Branco. Xaréu-Branco appears in litera- ture as Alectis cilliaris (Menezes and Figueiredo 1980) and Xaréu as Caranx hippos (Menezes and Figueiredo 1980) and Caranx latus (Begossi and Figueiredo 1995). Nevertheless, Alectis cilliaris is quite morphologically distinct Lin Seeing —: Since Caranx latus were col- lected and identified as Olhudo do, Xaréu and Xaréu-Branco as being the same species: Caranx hippos. Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 135 7Even Languicha is monomial written we considered it as a folk species because it is a simplification of binomial name Corcoroca-languicha. One may argue that it is also the case of Barbudo and Parati-barbudo or Sabonete and Gudiao-Sabonete. In the former case, however, the Corcoroca-languicha is part of the scientific family (Haemulidae) which in- clude all fish named Corcoroca. In the latter cases, Parati-barbudo (Polymenidae) and Gudido-sabonete (Mulidae) are not variations in the same family of its against part Parati (Mugilidae) and Gudido (Labridae and Scaridae). 136 BOOK REVIEWS Vol. 21, No. 1 Human Impact on Ancient Environments. Charles L. Redman. 1999. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Pp. 288, 9 photos, 46 line illustrations. ISBN: 0-8165- 1963-3 ($22.96, paper); ISBN: 0-8165-1962-5 ($45.00, library cloth). Our understanding of the relationship between people and the environment has long been in flux. In the past century alone, it has undergone a series of transfor- mations from th of Ellsworth Huntington in the 1930s to the emergence of the field of human ecology in the 1970s (which has become an important component of both anthropology and archaeology), and more recently to an increasing interest on the degree to which human affairs have influenced the environment. Human Impact falls neatly within this latter realm. In what is less a systematic survey than an extended essay on the evidence for, and processes of, anthropogenic change, Charles Redman has not only produced an excellent intro- duction to this important area of study, but has demonstrated the utility of ata in roblems: “...understanding the diversity of human environmental impacts, both sustainable and destructive, has the potential to become the hallmark of our discipline. No domain of inquiry is more appropriate for the archaeologist nor more pressing for contemporary soci- ety” (p. 6). The title of Redman’s first chapter, “Lessons from a Prehistoric ‘Eden’,” sets both the tone and the stage for the ensuing discussion. Here he takes as his pri- mary example the AHBIOrY of Easter Island as revealed through both archaeological and f studies. A forested island when colonized by Polynesians approximately 1,600 years ago underwent substantial changes in both native flora and fauna, including extensive deforestation. Although the extensive deforesta- tion and other human impacts on Easter Island occurred perhaps far more rapidly than other locations where humans also had an impact, this example serves well to illustrate both the potential speed and totality of anthropogenic change. The second chapter, “Attitudes toward the Environment,” provides an inter- esting review of Western perceptions of the environment, and how they influenced the landscape. Here, the examples are drawn primarily from Greek, Roman, and Judeo-Christian sources, with important similarities and contrasts among them noted. The brief discussion includes indications on the degree of environmental inpact. made by Roman society, for example, as well as comments on the Chris- tian However, this review is surprisingly limited on non-Western attitudes (2 pages vs. 6 pages), with China essentially being the only example mentioned. What is missing is attention to non-Western attitudes, such as the influence of Cree worldview regarding hunting or water control through the operation of Balinese water temples. Such examples are important because they hint at the range of environmentally inclusive worldviews and behaviors that may be reflected in the archaeological record. Aptly titled “Concepts That Organize Our Thoughts,” Chapter 3 provides a valuable exposition on the basics of human ecology, which is the study of the rela- tionship between people and their environment. Here, Redman introduces the importance of scale (“we must employ concepts to organize the complexity of the real world into manageable units” [p. 35]); ecosystem composition and operation; Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 137 and human decision-making. While there are far more detailed expositions else- where on each of these themes (e.g., Dincauze 2000), this chapter suffices for the purposes of the volume. The remainder of the volume explores various aspects of past human-envi- ronmental interactions through archaeological examples drawn from around the world. The first of these, “Animal Exploitation: The Prehistoric Loss of Habitat and Biodiversity” (Ch. 4), begins by examining the relationship that humans and animals have had. It then explores three elements of this relationship in terms of human impacts on the environment: extinction, dispersal, and domestication. The discussion on extinctions is thankfully not limited to Pleistocene mega fauna (al- though this is included from a brief, but comparative global overview), with its primary example an extended discussion of Polynesian colonization and resource harvesting and its effects on avifauna. The expansion of the geographic range of animals, both intentionally and unintentionally influenced or induced by humans, is but one of the factors explored, which can still have far-reaching consequences (e.g., the transport of the Zebra mussels to North American waters). Redman hits his stride in the next two chapters, “The Impact of Agrarian Sys- tems” and “The Growth of World Urbanism”— topics that he has had long experience with. When he states that, “In looking back over the vast sweep of the human career, there probably is no greater transformation than the introduction of agriculture” (p. 81), he is referring not only to the transformation of human society, but to that of the landscape. Ranging between New World and Old World examples, Redman’s discussion on the processes by which agricultural societies developed and their impact on the environment is clear, and his examples are interesting and appropriate. Ample attention is devoted not only to the usual list of settings (e.g., the Middle East, Mesoamerica), but also to the American South- west. The dynamic relationship between the operation of large-scale societies and their environments is illustrated through both modeling and field investigations. Perhaps due to space restrictions, aspects of these chapters could have been more fully developed. There is, for example, only passing mention of chinampas and their impact on the extensive wetlands of Mesoamerica. : The next chapter, “Forces that Grew with Society,” addresses the impacts that agricultural systems and environmental conditions had on humans, ranging from the susceptibility of individuals to malaria to the response of populations toa host of population pressures. It is the most eclectic chapter of the volume with topics ranging from Thomas Malthus and nutrition, to Mediterranean trade networks, to failed Norse colonies in Greenland. Redman pulls all of these together by noting that the various dimensions of the urban revolution — “population growth, com- munity health, industrial production, trade, and hierarchical government — not only contribute to social change, but also have significant impacts This last theme is continued in the final chapter of the volume, “The Past as Pro- logue,” in which the author suggests persuasively that the knowledge that we have obtained through archaeology concerning past urban societies has much to contribute in understanding our own. The questions that he poses — Is there a natural or ‘best’ environment?” “Is urban society a sustainable solution?” — are not only important, but exactly the ones we need to be asking today. Throughout 138 BOOK REVIEWS Vol. 21, No. 1 both this chapter and this book, he encourages us to look at past societies to pro- vide some of the knowledge we need today to make informed decisions as to the ture. Overall, this is a very successful book and will undoubtedly appeal to a broad readership. Not only does it deal with issues relating to the rise of urban societies, but to the larger issues of human ecosystems and anthropogenic processes. The volume could easily have been twice the length to include the wider range of human-environmental interactions once present. The relatively tight focus of the volume adds to the book’s attractiveness and readability. Nonetheless, it falls short in several areas. Indigenous environmental perspectives are omitted, as is the role that small-scale societies had on the landscape. For example, there is no mention of fire-stick farming and wetland channeling in Australia, nor the effects on local vegetation of long-term harvesting wood for constructing and maintaining trackways and fish weirs in Europe and elsewhere). Obviously choices have to be made, but the omission of these types of antl factors i ro "11 1 . I f ost of tl I lrecord , there is no mention of the sealitelion of one ancient land- altering technique, raised field farming, which has been demonstrated by Clark Erickson (1998) and others to be an important means of improving contemporary crop yields in Bolivia and Ecuador. One other minor point is that the index is not as inclusive as it should be; there is, for example, no mention of chinampas and many other terms found in the text. All things considered, this is a very well written and organized book. As a general introduction to processes and effects of anthropogenic change, it succeeds admirably. Of equal importance is that Charles Redman puts his subject into con- text by exploring effects of human-induced environmental change upon a suite of ancient societies. In doing so, demonstrates that human activities may have pro- ound , and that those consequences, in turn, provide new challenges or opportunities for future generations. worldwide. S George P. Nicholas Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser University /Secwepemc Education Institute Kamloops, British Columbia V2H 1H1 LITERATURE CITED DINCAUZE, D.F. 2000. Environmental Archaeology: Principles and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ERICKSON, C.L. 1998. Applied I devel ‘s potential contribution to the future. on 34-45 in eons Currents: shires and Chan ange in Latin America, M. Whiteford and S. Whiteford (editors). Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle, New Jersey. Erratum Editor's Note: This appendix to the article by Gregory Forth was inadvertently omitted from vol. 20(2) [Winter 2000] and is here reproduced. APPENDIX 1.—Bird Species Recorded on Sumba The list contains species recorded at least once on Sumba according to Coates and Bishop (1997). In one case (the Common sandpiper), where Sumba is not mentioned explicitly as within the range of the species, I follow Monk et al. (1997:443). Species endemic to Sumba are marked with an asterisk. Grebes (Podicipedidae) Red-throated little grebe, Tachybaptus ruficollis Cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae) Little black cormorant, Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Little pied cormorant, Phalacrocorax melanoleucos Pelicans (Pelecanidae) Australian pelican, Pelecanus conspicillatus Herons (Ardeidae) Grey heron, Ardea cinerea Great-billed heron, Ardea sumatrana Purple heron, Ardea purpurea Great egret, Egretta alba Intermediate egret, Egretta intermedia White-faced heron, Egretta novaehollandiae Little egret, Egretta garzetta Pacific reef-egret, Egretta sacra Cattle egret, Bubulcus ibis Javan pond-heron, Ardeola speciosa Little heron, Butorides striatus Yellow bittern, Ixobrychus sinensis Cinnamon bittern, Ixobrychus cinnamomeus Ibises and spoonbills (Threskiornithidae) Glossy ibis, Plegadis falcinellus Royal spoonbill, Platalea regia Hawks, eagles and allies (Accipitridae) Osprey, Pandion haliaetus Pacific baza, Aviceda subcristata Black-winged kite, Elanus caeruleus Black kite, Milvus migrans Brahminy kite, Haliastur indus White-bellied sea-eagle, Haliaeetus leucogaster Short-toed eagle, Circaetus gallicus Spotted harrier, Circus assimilis 140 ERRATUM Falcons (Falconidae) Spotted kestrel, Falco moluccensis Australian hobby, Falco longipennis Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus Whistling-ducks (Dendrocygnidae) Wandering whistling-duck, Dendrocygna arcuata Ducks (Anatidae) Sunda teal, Anas gibberifrons Pacific black duck, Anas superciliosa Megapodes (Megapodiidae) Orange-footed scrubfowl, Megapodius reinwardt Quails, pheasants and allies (Phasianidae) Brown quail, Coturnix ypsilophora Blue-breasted quail, Coturnix chinensis Green junglefowl, Gallus varius Buttonquails (Turnicidae) Red-backed buttonquail, Turnix maculosa Sumba buttonquail, Turnix everetti* Rails (Rallidae) Buff-banded rail, Gallirallus philippensis Ruddy-breasted crake, Porzana fusca [recorded once] White-browed crake, Poliolimnas cinerea White-breasted waterhen, Amaurornis phoenicurus Dusky moorhen, Gallinula tenebrosa Common moorhen, Gallinula chloropus Purple swamphen, Porphyrio porphyrio Jacanas (Jacanidae) Comb-crested jacana, Irediparra gallinacea Stilts and avocets (Recurvirostridae Black-winged stilt, Himantopus himantopus Plovers (Charadriidae) Little ringed plover, Charadrius dubius Malaysian plover, Charadrius peronii Oriental plover, Charadrius veredus Sandpipers, snipes and allies lize panies: Little curlew, Numenius minu Eurasian curlew, Numenius sal Common redshank, Tringa totanus Marsh sandpiper, Tringa stagnatilis Common sandpiper, Actitis hypoleucos Vol. 21, No. 1 Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY Great knot, Calidris tenuirostris Sanderling, Calidris alba Curlew sandpiper, Calidris ferruginea Broad-billed sandpiper, Limicola falcinellus Pratincoles (Glareolidae) tralian pratincole, Stiltia isabella Oriental pratincole, Glareola maldivarum Terns (Laridae, sub-family Sterninae) Whiskered tern, Chlidonias hybridus White-winged black tern, Chlidonias leucopterus Gull-billed tern, Gelochelidon nilotica Common tern, Sterna hirundo Black-winged tern, Sterna sumatrana Little tern, Sterna albifrons Brown noddy, Anous stolidus Pigeons and doves (Columbidae) White-throated pigeon, Columba vitiensis Spotted dove, Streptopelia chinensis Little cuckoo-dove, Macropygia ruficeps Emerald dove, Chalcophaps indica Barred dove, Geopelia maugei Nicobar pigeon, Caloenas nicobarica Sumba green pigeon, Treron teysmannii* Red-naped fruit-dove, Ptilinopus dohertyi* Black-naped fruit-dove, Ptilinopus melanospila Green imperial pigeon, Ducula aenea Parrots, loris and cockatoos (Psittacidae) Rainbow lorikeet, Trichoglossus haematodus Yellow-crested cockatoo, Cacatua sulphurea Eclectus parrot, Eclectus roratus Red-cheeked parrot, Geoffroyus geoffroyi Great-billed parrot, Tanygnathus megalorhynchos Old world cuckoos (Cuculidae) Oriental cuckoo, Cuculus saturatus Rusty-breasted cuckoo, Cacomantis sepulcralis Shining bronze cuckoo, Chrysococcyx lucidus Australian koel, Eudynamys cyanocephala Channel-billed cuckoo, Scythrops novaehollandiae Coucals (Centropodidae) Lesser coucal, Centropus bengalensis Barns owls (Tytonidae) Barn owl, Tyto alba Eastern grass owl, Tyto longimembris 141 142 ERRATUM Typical owls (Strigidae) Sumba boobook, Ninox rudolfi* Nightjars (Caprimulgidae) Large-tailed nightjar, Caprimulgus macrurus Savanna nightjar, Caprimulgus affinis Swifts and swiftlets (Apopidae) Edible-nest swiftlet, Collocalia fuciphaga Glossy swiftlet, Collocalia esculenta Fork-tailed swift, Apus pacificus Little swift, Apus affinis Wood kingfishers (Halcyonidae) Collared kingfisher, Halcyon chloris Cinnamon-banded kingfisher, Halcyon australasia Small kingfishers (Alcedinidae) Oriental dwarf kingfisher, Ceyx erithacus Common kingfisher, Alcedo atthis Bee-eaters (Meropidae) Blue-tailed bee-eater, Merops superciliosus Rainbow bee-eater, Merops ornatus Rollers (Coraciidae Common dollarbird, Eurystomus orientalis Hornbills (Bucerotidae Sumba hornbill, Rhyticeros everetti* Pittas (Pittidae) Elegant pitta, Pitta elegans Larks (Alaudidae) Australian bushlark, Mirafra javanica Swallows and martins (Hirundinidae) Barn swallow, Hirundo rustica Pacific swallow, Hirundo tahitica Striated swallow, Hirundo striolata Tree martin, Hirundo nigricans [recorded once] Fairy martin, Hirundo ariel [recorded once] Wagtails and pipits (Motacillidae) Yellow wagtail, Motacilla flava Grey wagtail, Motacilla cinerea Richard’s pipit, Anthus novaeseelandiae Pechora pipit, Anthus gustavi Cuckoo-shrikes and trillers (Campephagidae) Vol. 21, No. 1 Summer 2001 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY Wallacean cuckoo-shrike, Coracina personata Black-faced cuckoo-shrike, Coracina novaehollandiae Pale-shouldered cicadabird, Coracina dohertyi White-shouldered triller, Lalage sueurii Drongos (Dicruridae) Wallacean drongo, Dicrurus densus Orioles (Oriolidae) Black-naped oriole, Oriolus chinensis Crows (Corvidae) Large-billed crow, Corvus macrorhynchos Tits (Paridae) Great tit, Parus major Thrushes and chats (Turdidae) Chestnut-backed thrush, Zoothera dohertyi Pied chat, Saxicola caprata Old world warblers (Sylviidae) Clamorous reed-warbler, Acrocephalus stentoreus Arctic warbler, Phylloscopus borealis Tawny grassbird, Megalurus timoriensis African warblers (Cisticolidae) Zitting cisticola, Cisticola juncidis Old world flycatchers (Muscicapidae) Russet-backed jungle-flycatcher, Rhinomyias oscillans Asian brown flycatcher, Muscicapa dauurica Sumba flycatcher, Ficedula harterti* Monarch flycatchers (Monarchidae) Asian paradise flycatcher, Terpsiphone paradisi Spectacled monarch, Monarcha trivirgatus Broad-billed flycatcher, Myiagra ruficollis Fantails (Rhipiduridae Rufous fantail, Rhipidura rufifrons Australian robins (Petroicidae) Grey-headed flycatcher, Culicicapa ceylonensis Whistlers (Pachycephalidae) Common golden whistler, Pachycephala pectoralis Wood swallows (Artamidae) White-breasted wood-swallow, Artamus leucorynchus Shrikes (Laniidae) Brown shrike, Lanius cristatus 143 144 ERRATUM Starlings and mynas (Sturnidae) Short-tailed starling, Aplonis minor White-vented myna, Acridotheres cinereus Honeyeaters (Meliphagidae) Helmeted friarbird, Philemon buceroides Brown honeyeater, Lichmera indistincta Red-headed honeyeater, Myzomela erythrocephala Sunbirds (Nectariniidae) Brown-throated sunbird, Anthreptes malacensis Apricot-breasted sunbird, Nectarinia buettikoferi* Flowerpeckers (Dicaeidae) Thick-billed flowerpecker, Dicaeum agile Blood-breasted flowerpecker, Dicaeum sanguinolentum White-eyes (Zosteropidae) Yellow-spectacled white-eye, Zosterops wallacei Ashy-bellied white-eye, Zosterops citrinellus Sparrows, weavers and estrildine finches (Passeridae) Tree sparrow, Passer montanus Red avadavat, Amandava amandava Zebra finch, Taeniopygia guttata Black-faced munia, Lonchura molucca Scaly-breasted munia, Lonchura punctulata Five-coloured munia, Loncura quinticolor Pale-headed munia, Lonchura pallida Vol. 21, No. 1 TT ICETO AUTHOR: 3 1753 00299 6780 NOT The Journal of Ethnobiology’s revised “Guidelines for Authors” appears in volume 19, number two (winter 1999). If you need a copy of these ne ey ey request i a veh on the sega Careful scrutiny of recent issues of the J PE any manuscript you may wish to submit. Th bmitti sideration for publication in the Journal should send three hard copies and o one copy on a ahi — 3. 5" sneer in cael grey or deh format with original camera-ready figures ormat will be returned. i 2 I Manuscripts should be sent to: WILLIAM BALEE Editor, Journal of Ethnobiology Department o temihiag ogy Tulane Univers Orleans, LA mat USA