The Nature of Folk‐Botanical Life Forms

Original work by Brent Berlin, Eugene Hunn, Cecil Brown, and other ethnoscientists has produced significantfindings pertaining to claims ofuniversalityforfolk-biological ranks, in general, and folk-botanical lifeforms, in particular. These findings implicitly call into question conventional wisdom in the history of biology, which tends to consider lifeforms as the outworn vestiges of scholastic tradition or as merely socially practical ways ofcarving up the living world. Unfortunately, however, ethnobiologists continue to rely on faulty analytical schema for assessing the nature of lifeforms which philosophers and historians of biology have developed in their ignorance of the popular conceptual foundations offolk taxonomy. The error is compounded by the adoption into ethnosystematics of the most empiricistically reductionist, and logically confused, interpretation ofsuch schema that derives from the neo-Adansonian, orpheneticist, school of modern systematics. This interpretation confounds (1) meaning and reference, (2) the semantics of cognitively distinct object domains, and (3) the conceptual differences between common sense and science. These points are challenged, and it is concluded that lifeforms, though anthropocentrically biased, are no more "artificial" or "special-purpose" than higher-order scientific taxa. Finally, the problem of so-called "unaffiliated" and "ambiguous" generics is addressed and a new analysis offered.

[1]  Cecil H. Brown.  life-forms from the perspective of Language and Living Things: some doubts about the doubts notes , 1984 .

[2]  R. A. Randall,et al.  do life‐forms evolve or do uses for life? some doubts about Brown's universale hypotheses , 1984 .

[3]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Categories and concepts , 1984 .

[4]  J. Macnamara.  Names for Things: A Study in Human Learning , 1984 .

[5]  T. E. Hays.  Ndumba Folk Biology and General Principles of Ethnobotanical Classification and Nomenclature , 1983 .

[6]  Sharon Lee Armstrong,et al.  What some concepts might not be , 1983, Cognition.

[7]  S. Atran.  Covert Fragmenta and the Origins of the Botanical Family , 1983 .

[8]  E. Hunn,et al.  The Utilitarian Factor in Folk Biological Classification , 1982 .

[9]  J. Hampton.  A demonstration of intransitivity in natural categories , 1982, Cognition.

[10]  M. Ghiselin.  Categories, life, and thinking , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  Cecil H. Brown,et al.  WHERE DO TREE TERMS COME FROM , 1981 .

[12]  J. D. Dougherty.  LEARNING NAMES FOR PLANTS AND PLANTS FOR NAMES , 1979 .

[13]  T. E. Hays.  Plant Classification and Nomenclature in Ndumba, Papua New Guinea Highlands , 1979 .

[14]  Cecil H. Brown.  Growth and development of folk botanical life forms in the Mayan language family , 1979 .

[15]  Willett Kempton,et al.  Category grading and taxonomic relations: a mug is a sort of a cup , 1978 .

[16]  Cecil H. Brown.  Folk Zoological Life‐Forms: Their Universality and Growth , 1977 .

[17]  Robert A. Randal.  how tall is a taxonomic tree? some evidence for dwarfism1 , 1976 .

[18]  William H. Geoghegan.  polytypy in folk biological taxonomies1 , 1976 .

[19]  E. Hunn.  toward a perceptual model of folk biological classification1 , 1976 .

[20]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Paul Kay,et al.  A model-theoretic approach to folk taxonomy , 1975 .

[22]  R. Bulmer.  Folk biology in the New Guinea Highlands , 1974 .

[23]  B. Berlin.  Folk Systematics in Relation to Biological Classification and Nomenclature , 1973 .

[24]  D. E. Breedlove,et al.  General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology , 1973 .

[25]  William H. Geoghegan,et al.  Speculations on the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature , 1972, Language in Society.

[26]  R. Bulmer.  WHICH CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG-HEAD? , 1970 .

[27]  J. Gregg.  Finite Linnaean structures. , 1967, The Bulletin of mathematical biophysics.

[28]  D. E. Breedlove,et al.  Folk Taxonomies and Biological Classification , 1966, Science.

[29]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies , 1966 .

[30]  H. Ross.  Principles of Numerical Taxonomy , 1964 .

[31]  A. Cain.  THE POST‐LINNAEAN DEVELOPMENT OF TAXONOMY , 1959 .

[32]  William M. Smith,et al.  A Study of Thinking , 1956 .

[33]  R. Blackwelder,et al.  The Language of Taxonomy , 1955 .

[34]  A. Burks.  A theory of proper names , 1951 .

[35]  E. Meyerstein.  The Theory of Proper Names , 1942 .

[36]  Joseph Henry Woodger,et al.  The axiomatic method in biology , 1938 .

[37]  J. Gilmour.  A Taxonomic Problem , 1937, Nature.

[38]  E. Rosch,et al.  Categorization of Natural Objects , 1981 .

[39]  G. Miller,et al.  Language and Perception , 1976 .

[40]  J. Miller.  Delaware Alternative Classifications. , 1975 .

[41]  D. Sperber.  Pourquoi les animaux parfaits, les hybrides et les monstres sont-ils bons à penser symboliquement ? , 1975 .

[42]  R. Laughlin.  The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantan. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 19. , 1975 .

[43]  E. Rosch.  ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PERCEPTUAL AND SEMANTIC CATEGORIES1 , 1973 .

[44]  S. M. Walters,et al.  PHILOSOPHY AND CLASSIFICATION , 1964 .

[45]  A. F. Parker-Rhodes,et al.  The language of taxonomy. , 1954 .

[46]  J. Sachs.  History of botany (1530-1860) , 1875 .