119when the Solega names are used as a base count rather than the scientifi c names—
18 out of 35 ‘consistent’ Solega names (51 %) fi nd a place in Solega folklore, com-
pared to only 1 of 25 ‘inconsistent’ names (4 %). We conclude that birds are more
likely to be recognised and identifi ed consistently across Solega communities if
they have some cultural signifi cance.
These results support Bulmer ’s claim [ 173 ] that salience is a result of many
cross-cutting variables. Some of these are purely perceptual (e.g. large size, bright
colours ), some have ecological and behavioural considerations (e.g. contrast
between terrestrial and arboreal, or herbivores and scavengers), and yet others are
anthropocentric (e.g. being involved in interactions with humans, or being a source
of products desired by humans). Even if it were possible to accurate isolate the per-
ceptual variables from all others, there might still be a considerable degree of over-
lap between the two groups of variables, at least for some cultures. For instance, the
largest birds might be the ones that provide the most meat, while the brightly-
coloured species might be highly prized for their feathers. In such cases, it would be
pointless to try and tease apart the two dimensions of ‘culture’ and ‘perception’, as
they would be inextricably linked.
4.6 Relation to Scientifi c Taxonomy
It is often stated that folk and scientifi c classifi cation systems show a remarkable
degree of convergence at the level of the folk generic taxon; in recent years, such a
view has come to be taken for granted, and authors now rarely make the effort to
point out where these convergences might lie. Looking at Table 4.1 , it could be
argued that Solega bird classifi cation closely matches Linnaean classifi cation, on
the basis that 45 out of 67 (67 %) Solega bird name s (counting both ‘generic’ and
‘ subgeneric ’ names) match a single scientifi c species. This, however, would be a
trivial conclusion, as it merely indicates that something that has a name in one sys-
tem also has a name in another system. Considerations of space prevent us from
entering into a discussion on whether or not Linnaean species constitute ‘real’ units
of nature, although Bulmer [ 174 ] provides a well-argued account of why folk taxa
are just as real as biological species.
It is important to remember, however, that ethnoclassifi cations reported in the
literature are not the result of omniscient researcher/consultant partnerships casting
their gaze on entire species and ecosystems at a time; rather, the subjects of scrutiny
tend to be individual organisms (birds, in this case), either living, dead, or
photographed. It would be an extremely diffi cult task to empirically and reliably
determine the referential limits of all the folk taxa in an ethnoclassifi cation , just as
it is often a very challenging task to ascertain where one biological species begins,
and another ends. A more robust test would be to compare larger groupings of
‘ generic ’ taxa, as was done for plants in Chapter 3, to see if these also match with
the same level of congruence. Using this criterion, it appears that there are some
similarities to be found between the Solega and Latin classifi cation schemes pre-
4.6 Relation to Scientifi c Taxonomy