38
found that the application of the phylogenetic species concept (in place of more
traditional concepts based on interbreeding and morphology ) increased the species
count by nearly 50 % on average. A breakdown of the results by taxon is enlighten-
ing; the important point here is that it is not only the groups frequently left out of
folk taxonomies that are affected (fungi, lichens), but also those that play very cen-
tral roles in ethnobiological classifi cation s (plants, reptiles, mammals, birds).
It is diffi cult to detect any trend across groups, and given the small sample size and how it
was obtained, any putative trends should be treated with suspicion. With this in mind, the
greatest increase in species numbers was seen in fungus, a 300% increase... lichens (259%
increase) and plants (146% increase). Among animals, reptiles showed the greatest increase
(137%). It is startling that taxonomically well-studied groups like mammals, arthropods,
and birds showed large and roughly similar increases (87%, 77%, and 88%, respectively).
Regardless of whether or not one agrees with Ereshefsky’s viewpoint, the actual
practice of taxonomy very rarely results in the production of classifi catory schemes
that go unchallenged for long periods of time. A brief look at the contents page of any
scientifi c journal dealing with taxonomic issues will confi rm this assertion—as new
data (the discovery of new species in little-explored parts of the world) arise from
fi eldwork, and new analytic (genetic and molecular) techniques are developed in
laboratories, amendments are frequently made to all levels of the taxonomic hierar-
chy, from Kingdom (e.g. [ 117 ]) to Species (e.g. [ 118 , 119 ]). Note that the latter two
examples pertain not to obscure, hard-to-perceive taxa, but to two groups that Berlin
would defi nitely call perceptually salient—fur seals/sea lions and edible yams. Even
the biological species concept has come under attack in recent years, both for con-
ceptual reasons (which will not be discussed here), as well as practical ones:
Although the biological species concept provides an unambiguous criterion for differentiat-
ing and delimiting species, one of the major problems is the practical impossibility of ascer-
taining reproductive isolation between large numbers of populations in the wild. As a result,
most taxonomists, even those that accept the biological species concept, continue to use
morphology and other phenotypic characters in order to delineate species boundaries
([ 120 ], p. 690).
Balakrishnan goes on to note that the competition between rival species concepts
is unlikely to be resolved in the near future, particularly because biological
systematics aims at achieving two tasks that are often in opposition: that of recon-
structing the historical paths of evolution , and that of providing a practical frame of
reference for other biological studies. One may therefore object on philosophical
grounds alone to the desirability of having a universal species concept imposed on
all the subfi elds of biological research.
2.4.2 ‘Objective’ Scientifi c Taxonomy
An issue related to the one discussed above is that of the accuracy and objectivity of
“modern” scientifi c classifi cations, something Berlin seems to take for granted. In
saying that the folk classifi cation of a particular language closely approximates
2 Ethnotaxonomies and Universals: Investigating some Key Assumptions