26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Folkbotanical classification: morphological, ecological and utilitarian characterization of plants in the Napf region, Switzerland

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Discussions surrounding ethnobiological classification have been broad and diverse. One of the recurring questions is whether classification is mainly based on the “inherent structure of biological reality” or on cultural, especially utilitarian needs. So far, studies about ethnobotanical classification have mainly been done in indigenous societies. Comparable data from industrialized countries are scarce. In this paper, folkbotanical classification data from the Napf region in central Switzerland is analysed and cross-culturally compared.

          Methods

          Structured and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 60 adults and children chosen by random sampling. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and cultural domain analysis were used to analyze the data.

          Results

          Close to 500 folk taxa have been documented during field work. As life-form taxa appeared tree, bush, grass, herb, flower, and mushroom. Intermediate taxa mentioned regularly were sub-categories of the life form tree and bush, i.e. conifer, deciduous tree, fruit tree, stone fruits, pomaceous fruits, and berry bush. The rank of the folk generic was by far the largest with 316 taxa (85.4% monotypical). The specific rank contained 145 taxa, the varietal 14 taxa. The 475 generic, specific and varietal folk taxa could be assigned to 298 wild growing plant species, which make up 28.13% of the local flora, and to 213 cultivated plant species, subspecies and cultivars.

          Morphology, mainly life-form, fruits, leaves, and flowers, was the most important criterion for classifying plants. Other important criteria were their use (mainly edibility) and habitat (mainly meadow, forest and garden). The three criteria emerged spontaneously out of open questioning.

          Conclusion

          The classification system of the Napf region is comparable to classification systems of indigenous societies, both in its shallow hierarchical structure and in the amount of recognized taxa.

          The classification of plants was mainly guided by morphology, habitat and use. The three aspects seem to be mutually linked for certain plant groups, which results in always the same groups, independent from the different sorting criteria. Sensory perception allows for a broader explanation of the known coincidence of morphology and use groups.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Ethnobiological Classification

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Folk biology and the anthropology of science: cognitive universals and cultural particulars.

            S Atran (1998)
            This essay in the "anthropology of science" is about how cognition constrains culture in producing science. The example is folk biology, whose cultural recurrence issues from the very same domain-specific cognitive universals that provide the historical backbone of systematic biology. Humans everywhere think about plants and animals in highly structured ways. People have similar folk-biological taxonomies composed of essence-based, species-like groups and the ranking of species into lower- and higher-order groups. Such taxonomies are not as arbitrary in structure and content, nor as variable across cultures, as the assembly of entities into cosmologies, materials, or social groups. These structures are routine products of our "habits of mind," which may in part be naturally selected to grasp relevant and recurrent "habits of the world." An experiment illustrates that the same taxonomic rank is preferred for making biological inferences in two diverse populations: Lowland Maya and Midwest Americans. These findings cannot be explained by domain-general models of similarity because such models cannot account for why both cultures prefer species-like groups, although Americans have relatively little actual knowledge or experience at this level. This supports a modular view of folk biology as a core domain of human knowledge and as a special player, or "core meme," in the selection processes by which cultures evolve. Structural aspects of folk taxonomy provide people in different cultures with the built-in constraints and flexibility that allow them to understand and respond appropriately to different cultural and ecological settings. Another set of reasoning experiments shows that Maya, American folk, and scientists use similarly structured taxonomies in somewhat different ways to extend their understanding of the world in the face of uncertainty. Although folk and scientific taxonomies diverge historically, they continue to interact. The theory of evolution may ultimately dispense with the core concepts of folk biology, including species, taxonomy, and teleology; in practice, however, these may remain indispensable to doing scientific work. Moreover, theory-driven scientific knowledge cannot simply replace folk knowledge in everyday life. Folk-biological knowledge is not driven by implicit or inchoate theories of the sort science aims to make more accurate and perfect.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Considerations for Collecting Freelists in the Field: Examples from Ethobotany

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                anna.poncet@boku.ac.at
                christian.vogl@boku.ac.at
                caroline.weckerle@systbot.uzh.ch
                Journal
                J Ethnobiol Ethnomed
                J Ethnobiol Ethnomed
                Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1746-4269
                14 March 2015
                2015
                : 11
                : 13
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
                [ ]Institute of Systematic Botany, University of Zürich, Zollikerstrasse 107, Zürich, CH-8008 Switzerland
                Article
                477
                10.1186/1746-4269-11-13
                4429483
                7a7cbaa5-9005-410d-98b1-b36e5e8ae529
                © Poncet et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 22 May 2014
                : 31 December 2014
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Health & Social care
                ethnobotany,ethnobotanical classification,local plant knowledge,switzerland

                Comments

                Comment on this article