208
A staunch supporter of Berlin might argue here that as the Solega cultivate ra:gi
‘ millet ’ they should really be classed as agriculturalists , who would be expected
to have subgeneric taxa. The reality is that the Solega do both, and until some
causal effect of agriculture on the perception of other biological entities can be
demonstrated (or even a plausible mechanism described), it makes no sense to
assume that the cultivation of a food crop can somehow cause people to better
distinguish between honeybee species. Ellen [ 72 ] has reviewed the evidence used
by Brown [ 113 ] and Berlin [ 9 ] to make their case for a correlation between mode
of subsistence and the ethnobiological lexicon. Ellen was able to identify a num-
ber of confounding factors in both data sets, including the fact that the ‘ hunter-
gatherer s ’ included in the comparisons were from temperate and subarctic
latitudes (where biodiversity is generally lower); by the same token, the counts
of generic terms were higher for both hunter- gatherers and agriculturalists in
tropical rain forests.
The most parsimonious explanation for the existence of subgeneric honeybee
categories in Solega appears to be a utilitarian one—simply that the four species are
distinguished and named because they are exploited by the Solega. Finally, the
‘varietal’ names ko:ḷi je: nu and kenje:nu have the same structure as the taxa of the
‘subgeneric’ level, and do not incorporate the names of the superordinate category.
Structurally, then, ko:ḷi je:nu and kenje:nu appear to form a contrast set with the
four main honeybee species, but Solega speakers will explicitly state that ko:ḷi je:nu
kaḍḍi je:nige se:rutte ‘ ko:ḷi je:nu meets/belongs to kaḍḍi je:nu ’. Biologically, too,
ko:ḷi je:nu and kaḍḍi je:nu belong to the same species, but may well represent sepa-
rate subspecies. Similarly, kenje:nu is said to be a kind of tuḍuve je:nu.
All the Solega speakers interviewed in the fi eld were able to provide detailed
information on various aspects of the biology of the four bee species: this included
their life histories, hive architecture, migration schedules, preferred nesting sites,
and times of high honey fl ow. Most were also able to identify the tree species on
which certain kinds of bee were most likely to be found. The same tree species were
repeatedly named by various speakers, indicating a high level of precision, and
therefore a very real (biological) preference among bee species for certain kinds of
trees.
7.5.1.1 Hejje:nu
The name hejje:nu , (in particular, the presence of the prefi x heʔ- ) acknowledges the
fact that this is the largest type of honeybee known to the Solega. The colonies of
hejje:nu (the giant honeybee or Apis dorsata ) are common in high-altitude rain
forests ( male ka:ḍu or ka:nu ka:ḍu ), although they may also be found in dryer, low-
land forest types ( na:ḍu ka:ḍu ). Place name s where hejje:nu may be found are read-
ily volunteered: Ambaḷḷa (the name of a stream, or aḷḷa), Doḍḍa Sampage Ka:ḍu
(the forest surrounding the sacred doḍḍa sampage tree ), Seppirotte Ka:ḍu , Aravilu
Ka:nu (an evergreen forest dominated by aravilu trees), Daiya Gallu (a rocky place
7 Honeybee Lore