The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of the Solega A Linguistic Perspective

45

and scientifi c classifi cation is not merely imperfect, but completely nonexistent. In
Australia , where the biological landscape is dominated by a few very large genera
like Eucalyptus and Macropus , folk generic names for the plants and animals
belonging to these taxa in local indigenous languages almost invariably correspond
to biological species within Eucalyptus and Macropus [ 13 ]. Note that this in sharp
contrast with the Australian English folk terms used to describe these species—e.g.
scribbly gum, red gum (kinds of Eucalyptus ) and agile wallaby, tammar wallaby
(kinds of Macropus ), which are more in keeping with Berlin’s predictions. Similar
patterns emerge in the Amerindian nomenclature of oaks ( Quercus spp.), where
mononomial folk genera correspond to individual species, and there may or may
not be a labelled superordinate category that corresponds to the English ‘oak’ [ 141 ].
As mentioned above, other large plant genera such as the Solanaceae will often be
labelled by folk generics that correspond to scientifi c species, while labels such as
the English ‘monkey’, ‘deer’, ‘seal’, or, for that matter, ‘ elephant ’, label taxa that
include more than one scientifi c genus. Berlin’s original ‘General Principles’, and
their explication in the text of the 1992 monograph are fl exible enough to accom-
modate such exceptions. However, the promotion of these ‘General Principles’ to
the status of ‘universals’ [ 35 ] seems unwarranted, in light of the linguistic counter-
examples described above.
At this point, it is useful to consider another of Berlin ’s generalisations that links
scientifi c and folk genera:

Focusing solely on monotypic genera as the most likely candidates for linguistic recogni-

tion, the following hypothesis is suggested:

1. If a scientifi c genus, x, is monotypic, it is highly likely to be given a distinct folk generic
   name.


2. The generic name will be restricted in its range of application to the single monotypic
   genus, x.
   Berlin suggests a uni-directional effect which allows the prediction of aspects of
   folk taxonomy from scientifi c taxonomy. Here, Berlin fails to clarify if he is referring
   to local monotypy or monotypy on a global taxonomic level, as these two concepts are
   hugely different [ 142 ]. Moreover, if (1) scientifi c and folk genera often align closely
   (though not perfectly), (2) monotypic scientifi c genera are often labelled by exclusive
   folk genera, and (3) monotypic genera predominate in not only modern scientifi c
   taxonomy but also folk classifi cations (i.e. the hollow curve ), it follows logically that
   the vast majority of folk generics should correspond to monotypic scientifi c genera.
   The preceding discussion has already demonstrated that this is defi nitely not the case
   for much of the named Australian fl ora and fauna. Waddy’s [ 26 ] comprehensive
   inventory of Anindilyakwa (a northern Australian language) ethnotaxonomy clearly
   demonstrates a complete lack of binomial names—monotypic scientifi c genera
   abound in this part of the world, but they are treated no differently from polytypic
   genera by Anindilyakwa speakers, and practically every terminal taxon is a “distinct
   folk generic name”. Berlin’s perception-based model would imply that Anindalyakwa
   speakers are unable to perceive any strong similarities between, e.g. the nine different
   kinds of stingray that are named by mononomials (there is no superordinate ‘stingray’

2.6 Folk Genera, Rank and Nomenclature