Name Types,Polysemy and Contrast Sets in Kakataibo Ethnobiological Nomenclature (Pano,Peru)

Abstract

Spanish

The present paper examines the different types of plant and animal names used in Kakataibo (Pano, Peru) in terms of the typology of ethnobiological nomenclature proposed by Berlin et al. (1973; slightly modified in Berlin 1992). While doing so, this paper highlights and discusses the major issues posited by the Kakataibo ethnobiological lexicon, which mainly arise due to the pervasive presence of specific-folk generic polysemy in the language. More precisely, this paper shows that the pervasive presence of this type of polysemy creates a type of contrast set, whose members combine the taxonomic properties of secondary names and complex primary names of the productive type. This is a widespread property of the Kakataibo ethnobiological taxonomic system, which invites us to rethink the distinction between these two types of ethnobiological nomenclature. A comparison of the Kakataibo data with data from other Pano languages is also offered in this paper.

Keywords

Kakataibo Pano ethnobiology nomenclature polysemy

Introduction

Linguistic ethnobiology deals primarily with the naming of animals and plants by different ethnic groups. The scientific relevance of ethnobiological systems for naming animals and plants used by traditional societies was first noted by Lévi-Strauss (1966:153–154), who remarked that people from these societies are able to remember an impressively large number of lexemes that designate the flora and fauna in their surroundings. While Western scientific taxonomy has standardized rules for labeling scientific species and higher categories, indigenous peoples utilize multiple different strategies for naming their local flora and fauna, which are of linguistic and cognitive interest. This paper contributes to the understanding of folk biological nomenclature by describing the Kakataibo ethnobiological lexicon, showing how it fits in with the existing typologies of ethnobiological nomenclature (specifically, Berlin et al. 1973; slightly modified in Berlin 1992), and presenting its most salient properties and particularities. All the claims offered in this paper are based upon an ethnobiological lexical database with 1,233 lexical entries, that includes preliminary biological identifications and detailed descriptions given by the Kakataibo people for approximately 70% of the listed species (see Zariquiey et al. 2014).

According to Berlin (1992:20), “In any new summary of the patterned ways in which people think and talk about plants and animals, it is important that a clear distinction be made between the psychological conceptualization of plants and animals and the linguistic reflections of this underlying conceptual structure.” The present paper deals with the linguistic reflections (nomenclature) of the psychological categories with which the Kakataibo people conceptualize plants and animals; covert categories that are psychologically relevant, are not discussed.

The Kakataibo People

The Kakataibo people (also known as “Kashibo-Kakataibo,” “Kashibo,” and “Uni,” among other denominations) belong to the Pano language family and live in the Peruvian regions of Huánuco and Ucayali, along the Aguaytía, Shamboyacu, San Alejandro, Sungaroyacu, and (more recently) Pisqui Rivers (Figure 1). According to the most recent Census of Indigenous Communities of the Peruvian Amazon (INEI 2007), the Kakataibo people currently number about 1,879. However, the Kakataibo's political organization (FENACOCA) considered their number to be closer to 3,000 or 3,500 in 2007.

Figure 1

Location of Kakataibo communities.

Kakataibo is the westernmost Pano language and, therefore, the one closest to the Andes Mountains. Shell (1965), D'Ans (1973), Loos (1999), and Fleck (2013) correspond in their treatment of this language as the only member of its branch. As described in Zariquiey (2011b), the Kakataibo language has (at least) four extant dialects and the data offered in this paper come from the Lower Aguaytía River dialect (see Zariquiey 2011a).

Folk Taxonomy

According to Berlin, the number of ranks in folk taxonomies does not exceed five or six. These include: unique beginner, life form, intermediate, generic, specific, and varietal. Berlin et al. (1973) graphically modeled the relationship of five of these proposed universal ethnobiological ranks (intermediates are not included), and in his subsequent monograph, Berlin (1992:21) refined and further elaborated on the nine principles of ethnobiological systems (as proposed in Berlin et al. 1973), culminating in his 12 general principles “that characterize a wide number of ethnobiological systems of classification from diverse parts of the world.” Five of these principles have to do with nomenclature and will be commented on throughout this paper in view of the Kakataibo data. Figure 2 (reproduced from Berlin et al. 1973) is a schematic representation of five of the six ethnobiological ranks in an idealized model.

Figure 2

Schematic representation of five of the six ethnobiological ranks in an idealized model (reproduced from Berlin et al. 1973).

Typologies of Ethnobiological Nomenclature

Conklin (1962) proposed the first typology of ethnobiological nomenclature, which is summarized in Table 1. Conklin's typology distinguishes two main types of biological “lexemes” (or more properly, labels): 1) unitary labels; and 2) composite labels (the latter are also referred to by him as binomials or polynomials). Unitary labels may be of two classes: 1) simple; and 2) compound (the latter are not to be confused with composite labels). The essential distinction between compound unitary labels and composite labels in Conklin's terminology is that the latter exhibit descriptive force; for instance, the composite term white oak reveals that its referent is a type of oak that is characterized by being lighter-colored than other oaks. By contrast, compound unitary labels lack this descriptive force, in the sense that they reveal nothing about category membership, despite often describing some feature(s) of the referent. For example, the compound unitary label copperhead is not the name of a type of head, and it is not self-evident that the term refers to a type of snake; therefore, in this case, we are dealing with a compound unitary label (see also Hunn and Brown 2011:321 for a clear summary of these distinctions).

Table 1

Conklin's (1962) typology of ethnobiological nomenclature.

Berlin et al. (1973) elaborated on Conklin's (1962) proposal, introducing an additional distinction to produce the partially divergent typology represented in Table 2, where I have pointed out matches and mismatches with Conklin's proposal.

Table 2

Berlin et al.'s (1973) typology of ethnobiological nomenclature.

This typology was retained by Berlin in his 1992 monograph, but the author changed his terminology as follows: primary lexemes = primary names; unanalyzable primary lexemes = simple primary names; unproductive analyzable primary lexemes = unproductive complex primary names; productive analyzable primary lexemes = productive complex primary names; secondary lexemes = secondary names. For the remainder of this paper, I follow the terminology in Berlin's 1992 monograph.

According to Berlin's second principle of nomenclature, “primary plant and animal names may be simple (e.g., louse, frog, oak) or complex (e.g., skunk cabbage, forget-me-not, catfish). In contrast, secondary plant and animal names (exemplified by words such as sugar maple, large-mouthed bass, and Stellar's jay) are always linguistically complex” (Berlin 1992:27, emphasis in the original). The next step in his argument is to distinguish between complex primary labels and secondary labels. According to Berlin, complex primary labels are of two types: 1) productive; and 2) unproductive. In his own words and according to his second principle of nomenclature: “productive forms include a constituent that labels a taxon superordinate to the form in question (e.g., catfish, bluebird, bullfrog). In contrast, none of the constituents of unproductive forms marks a category superordinate to the form in question (e.g., prairie dog is not a ‘kind of dog’, silverfish is not a ‘kind of fish’, buckeye is not a ‘kind of eye’)” (Berlin 1992:28, emphasis in the original). Thus, unproductive complex primary labels are semantically similar to simple primary ones (and also to Conklin's compound unitary labels). Following the distinction between productive and unproductive complex primary labels, the ones that require a more careful distinction from secondary names are, therefore, the productive ones. Productive complex primary labels are found in contrast sets that include simple unitary labels, “[t]hese expressions occur as the names for taxa in contrast sets some of whose members are labeled by simple primary names” (Berlin 1992:28, nomenclature principle 2). For instance, tulip tree and mockingbird contrast, respectively, with oak and robin, or equivalent terms (Hunn and Brown 2011:321). In turn, “ secondary plant and animal names are linguistically complex expressions, one of whose constituents indicates a category superordinate to the form in question (e.g., red oak, fox terrier)” (Berlin 1992:28, nomenclature principle 2). Thus, the crucial difference between complex primary labels of the productive type and secondary names is that “secondary forms differ from primary productive expressions in that the former occur, with predictable exceptions, only in contrast sets whose members share a constituent that labels the taxon that immediately includes them” (Berlin 1992:28, nomenclature principle 2). As can be concluded from the examples presented by Berlin, secondary forms only contrast with other secondary forms (see more discussion on this point below). Berlin and colleagues’ typology of plant and animal names is summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Typology of plant and animal names (Berlin et al. 1973; Hunn and Brown 2011).

In sum, the main difference between Conklin's (1962) typology and Berlin et al.'s (1973) proposal has to do with the introduction of one additional distinction within the category of primary complex labels, which are divided into productive and unproductive by Berlin and his associates. It is important to note that the distinction between productive complex names and secondary names is only based on taxonomic criteria (i.e., their contrast sets) and not on linguistic properties—in the sense that in both cases we have complex forms with one constituent that refers to a superordinate (see Berlin et al. 1973:217, note 4). I will return to this issue below.

Methods

The lexical database used in this paper is the result of a one-year collaborative documentation project, in which Kakataibo speakers were incorporated as members of our project team and not just as experimental subjects. Thus, the project has promoted the development of a local team, composed of eight members of the Yamino community (five men and three women), who have participated in different ways in the activities included in our project—group walks into the forest, preparation of a multi-authored ethnobiological dictionary (see Zariquiey et al. 2014), biological identification of species, audio and video recordings of cultural knowledge, mythology about plants and animals, and so on. The participation of the Kakataibo people has carefully satisfied all the requirements established by the Ethics Committee of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, including permission to work in the Yamino village and formal consents from team members. The project has also complied with all the obligations agreed to with the population of Yamino, which included fair salaries for the participants, support for the development and promotion of their local handicraft, and sharing of the results with the community.

Species Assignments

Our documentation project followed methods suggested by Fleck (2007) for obtaining scientific designations for plant and animal names in a research language when it is not possible to collect voucher specimens. Initially, lists of animal and plant names were compiled from research sessions with the Kakataibo members of our local team and augmented with plant and animal names that appeared in recorded texts and/or Wistrand de Robinson (1984), or overheard during residence in Yamino. Subsequently, these names were correlated with biological species (or higher-ranked biological taxa) and new names were elicited using drawings or photographs in field identification guides (Emmons [1997] for mammals; Schulenberg et al. [2007] and Clements and Shany [2001] for birds; Bartlett and Bartlett [2003] for reptiles and amphibians; Henderson et al. [1995] for palms; and Goulding et al. [2003] for fish, among others), while simultaneously discussing the natural history of the species and playing recorded vocalizations, if available (Emmons et al. [1997] for mammals; Schulenberg et al. [2000] for birds; and Cocroft et al. [2001] for frogs). David W. Fleck, who has conducted zoological and botanical inventory work and ethnobiological research with the Matses (also Pano) in Peruvian Amazonia, worked together with me and part of the Kakataibo team in Lima to associate the names with scientific designations. Only species expected to be in the area (according to the range map or range description in these field identification guides) were used in this type of group research.

These methods were useful for collecting a near complete inventory of Kakataibo plant and animal names, both in the field and in research sessions conducted in Lima, with the participation of four speakers of the language. As no voucher specimens were collected to confirm the identifications, the scientific designations are necessarily tentative; however, for the larger and distinctive species, as well as for species in monotypic taxa, there is little room for doubt. In any case, since the present paper focuses on the form of the names rather than on a comparison with scientific systematics, it is usually not relevant whether some of the names for difficult-to-identify plants and animals actually refer to a sister species, or to more than one species that the Kakataibo people consider a single terminal taxon.

Higher-Order Groupings

Higher-order groupings are based on a total of 24 hours (divided into eight sessions of three hours each) of group discussion about the relationship among different animals and plants and their organization. These sessions of group discussion were led by the author and always included the participation of at least four people (mostly members of our local Kakataibo team, but also itinerant participants who occasionally volunteered to participate in a session). Men and women usually worked separately due to cultural preferences.

The methodology of these group sessions consisted of giving the participants a number of topics to discuss as a group (e.g., fish, parrots, monkeys, palms, and so on). They were asked to construct an agreed-upon organization of the category under discussion based on the names proposed by them and the ones that our project had previously documented. Notes on A2-sized pieces of papers, using markers of different colors, were taken mostly using tree figures to represent the conclusions reached by the group. On average, each topic took one hour to discuss so we were able to discuss three topics per session. From the eight sessions, four were recorded on audio and two were also partially recorded on video. This methodology allowed us to offer a first approximation of the internal structure of a considerable number of higher-order taxa, from unique beginners to generics.

Conventions Used in this Paper

All the examples offered in this paper observe the following orthographic conventions (phonetic symbols are given when they do not coincide with their corresponding orthographic representation): a, e, ë [], i, o, u, p, t, k [k], kw [k^w], b [β, w], r [], m, n, ñ [], s [s, z], sh [], x [], ts [ts], ch [t], and []. In addition, for names that have been identified only to the genus level, the following abbreviations are used: sp. = names that refer to only one biological species (of a genus), but it has not yet been identified; spp. = names that refer to more than one species (of a genus); and sp(p). = names known to refer to at least one species (of a genus), but it is not certain whether they refer to more than one species of the genus.

Ethnobiological Nomenclature in Kakataibo

In this section, I illustrate and describe the most salient types of Kakataibo's plant and animal names following Berlin and colleagues’ typology (but using the terminology employed in Berlin 1992). Some particularities of the Kakataibo data in relation to this typology are also discussed here.

Primary Labels

Simple Primary Labels

Simple primary labels are found at every level of the taxonomic classification of plants and animals used by the Kakataibo with no distributional restrictions, but they tend to appear in generic or higher taxonomic categories. The simple primary label nëpaxta is a generic name used to refer to all the sungrebes identified by the Kakataibo people (for instance, both Nomonyx dominicus [L.] and Heliornis fulica [Boddaert]), while the simple primary label ñutan refers to a specific type of tinamou (Crypturellus cinereus [Gmelin]). The term ñutan contrasts with other terms, including the simple name kuma, which refers to the black tinamou (Tinamus osgoodi Conover). However, the name kuma is also used as a generic, meaning simply ‘tinamou’. In this use, the semantic range of kuma includes both kuma in its specific sense and ñutan, among other terms used to name the different species of tinamous identified by the Kakataibo people. This situation, in which a polysemous term can refer to both a subgeneric taxon (which can be considered the prototype) and to one of its superordinate taxa, has been called generic elevation by Hunn (1976), but I prefer the terms specific-folk generic polysemy (Berlin et al. 1973) or taxonomic polysemy (Forth 1995) since they do not presuppose that the subgeneric meaning precedes the generic one, which cannot be determined for Kakataibo.

According to my current interpretation of the Kakataibo taxonomic system, ñutan (Crypturellus cinereus) belongs to the specific rank in Berlin's terms and this is true regarding the specific use of kuma (Tinamus osgoodi). However, the more general use of kuma corresponds to what Berlin calls a generic ( = ‘tinamou’) and this also holds for the word nëpaxta ( = ‘sungrebe’).

Therefore, simple primary names appear in association with both generic and specific taxa. However, this is also true regarding other levels of the taxonomic hierarchy illustrated in Figure 2. For instance, the collective research conducted with the Kakataibo speakers led to an interpretation according to which the simple term ‘isá denoting ‘(inedible) small birds and passerines’ corresponds to the rank that Berlin calls life form. In turn, although it is not common, I have found cases of varietals being named by simple primary names. The polysemic word ruti can be used to refer to categories of three different taxonomic levels, for example. First, it is used as a generic to refer to a taxon that includes two closely-related species of fish in the Serrasalmidae family with different names in regional Spanish: ruti (Piaractus brachypomus G. Cuvier), paco in Spanish; and rution (Colossoma macropomum G. Cuvier), gamitana in Spanish. Second, as just indicated, it is also used to refer to one particular fish species, Piaractus brachypomus, again, paco in Spanish. Third, the Kakataibo people distinguish two different varieties of P. brachypomus: ruti (dark phase, paco in Spanish) and xón ruti (red phase, paco [rojo] in Spanish). In this third sense, the word ruti corresponds to Berlin's varietals. Therefore, simple primary names can be used in association with four of the six taxa that the Kakataibo recognize (unique beginners are covert categories in Kakataibo and intermediates, which do exist in the language, are always complex terms). It is interesting to note that, according to Berlin (1992:26–35), the use of primary names for subgeneric taxa is not an expected property of ethnotaxonomic systems, but it is relatively common in Kakataibo (and apparently even more common in Matses; see Fleck and Voss 2006). This is mainly because the pervasive presence of specific-folk generic polysemy, but in fact, non-polysemous simple primary labels referring to specific taxa are not exceptional in Kakataibo (see discussion below).

The total number of simple primary names in our database is 599, which corresponds to 48.6% of the total number of entries (1,233). Additional exemplification of the simple primary names found in our database is offered in Table 3.

Table 3

Examples of simple primary labels in Kakataibo.

Unproductive Complex Primary Names

These forms are also found in Kakataibo. They appear in association with both generic and specific taxa, but they mainly relate to the latter. This is again an unusual property of the Kakataibo ethnobiological taxonomic system since unproductive primary terms would be expected to be generic binomials (see Hunn and Brown 2011). Table 4 presents some examples of this kind of name.

Table 4

Examples of unproductive labels in Kakataibo.

All the examples in Table 4 refer to Kakataibo specific taxa and are considered “unproductive” because, for example, ‘isku xëta literally means ‘oropendola beak’ and does not include as its head a word meaning ‘vine’. As shown in Table 4, the same occurs with baka ñushin which literally means ‘river devil’ (not ‘river lapwing’), with bukun uni, which means ‘man of the Cecropia tree’ (not ‘ant of the Cecropia tree’) and with non kamun, which literally means ‘foreigner's wild dog’ (not ‘foreigner's capuchin monkey’). Unproductive complex primary names can also be found as generics (but in the database used for this paper, this is less usual than finding these words in association with specific taxa). A case of an unproductive complex primary label with a generic meaning is chuna kuru, which literally means ‘gray spider monkey’, but refers to woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagothricha Humbolt). The Kakataibo people recognize different classes of woolly monkeys, such as xón chuna kuru ‘red woolly monkey’ and even kuru chuna kuru ‘gray woolly monkey’ (literally, ‘gray gray spider monkey’). The repetition of the lexeme kuru ‘gray’ or ‘ashes’ in the latter name indicates that the form chuna kuru ‘woolly monkey’ might be synchronically non-analyzable.

The total number of unproductive complex primary names in our database is 154, which corresponds to 12.5% of the total number of names. These 154 names include nominalizations like xëta ‘amiananti ‘rufous-tailed flatbill’ (literally, one that can harm with its beak) or taë tëbiskati ‘non-identified fish species’ (literally, one that can cut one's feet). Notice, however, that similar nominalizations may also carry an adjacent noun referring to a superordinate, as in the case of an nami pikë bina ‘wasp species’ (literally, wasp that eats meat) or anun tuatima ro ‘shrub species’ (literally, medicinal plant for not bearing children). With this adjacent noun, nominalizations like the ones presented here are not unproductive forms anymore and must be analyzed either as productive complex primary names or as secondary names. In order to determine if one name belongs to one type or the other, it is necessary not only to look at their linguistic properties, but also at their taxonomic behavior. I explore this distinction and the problems that it posits in the case of Kakataibo in the next section.

Secondary Labels or Productive Complex Primary Labels?

One difficulty that surfaced while analyzing the Kakataibo terminology for naming plants and animals in terms of Berlin and colleagues’ typology was that, in many cases, determining whether a particular binomial or polynomial constitutes a secondary label or a productive complex primary label was not straightforward. This was due to the particularities of the contrast set within which it was included. Before discussing these difficult cases, let us start with others for which this distinction is straightforward. Figures 4 and 5 list the types of giant hunting ants and Spanish cedar identified and named by the Kakataibo people, respectively.

Figure 4

Types of giant hunting ants identified by Kakataibo people.

Figure 5

Types of Spanish cedar identified by Kakataibo people.

In Figure 4, we find one generic primary name for ‘giant hunting ant’ and two binomials that refer to two types of these ants and contrast with each other. These binomials equally include the name of the generic (buna) and constitute a contrast pair exclusively conformed by morpho-syntactically complex terms. Exactly the same situation is found in Figure 5. Therefore, the binomials in Figures 4 and 5 clearly constitute secondary names in Berlin's terms. Only 47 binomials in our database show this taxonomic behavior and are undoubtedly secondary names. This represents only 3.8% of the total number of gathered entries.

In turn, Figure 6 presents a selection of the types of armored catfish (Fam. Loricariidae) that the Kakataibo people distinguish and name (the complete list includes at least 19 different terms, whose referents are still to be more precisely identified).

Figure 6

Types of armored catfish identified by Kakataibo people.

Although they contrast with each other and are formally identical to the secondary terms identified in Figures 4 and 5, the names ‘o ‘ipu and bachu ‘ipu fit Berlin et al.'s definition of productive complex primary labels, because these two binomials contrast with some simple primary labels, such as ‘ibapa, ‘ipu and kaxa. According to the descriptions given by the Kakataibo speakers who participated in our documentation project, each of these terms refers to a different type of armored catfish with particular properties, but all the referred armored catfish belong to the same category, named ‘ipu in the language, as represented in Figure 6. A total of 211 names in our database are unquestionably productive complex primary labels in Berlin's terms and this represents 17.1% of our total database.

Notice that, as is usually the case in Kakataibo's taxonomic system, in Figure 6, the name ‘ipu is a generic name that refers to the whole class, but also the name of one specific type of armored catfish identified by the Kakataibo people. This type of polysemy may be problematic for the distinction between secondary names and productive complex primary names in cases like the one presented in Figure 7, where the different subtypes of the single local biological species of tapir that the Kakataibo people identify are listed.

Figure 7

Types of tapir (Fam. Tapiridae) identified by Kakataibo people.

As can be seen in Figure 7, the Kakataibo people recognize and name (at least) six subtypes of the single local species of tapir, with five of the subtypes being labeled with descriptive binomials, and one with a one-word term. The number of different types of tapir identified and named by the Kakataibo people is remarkable, since Berlin (1992) suggests that domesticated species are usually over-differentiated, while wild species are not. Similar cases have been widely described in the literature. For instance, Hunn (1977) reported over-differentiation of peccaries by the Tzeltal Indians of Chiapas. In strict terms, binomials like the ones in Figure 7 would constitute productive primary complex names, since they do contrast with one primary name (‘ó in its specific sense). However, contrast sets like the one in Figure 7 are in some way different from the ones in Figure 6. In the latter, we find lexically different primary names and this is also the case in all the examples used in the literature for illustrating the distinction between secondary names and complex primary names of the productive type. Treating the descriptive binomials in Figures 6 and 7 as belonging to the same type in the typology proposed by Berlin et al. is not entirely satisfying, since they do not exhibit the same taxonomic behavior. This analysis neglects that the contrast set in Figure 7 is in fact reminiscent of the contrast sets in Figures 4 and 6. In this sense, it is possible to argue that contrast sets like the one in Figure 7 seem to combine properties that correspond to secondary names and complex primary names of the productive type. Interestingly, in our database, 202 (16.4%) morpho-syntactically complex terms (binomials and polynomials) appear in contrast sets equivalent to the one illustrated in Figure 7 and are considered as “mixed” complex names in Table 5 above.

Table 5

Distribution of different types of names (following Berlin's [1992] terminology) in our Kakataibo database.

Summary

Table 5 summarizes the general characteristics of the Kakataibo ethnobiological database this paper is based on. It can be appreciated that the total number of complex names (binomials and polynomials) is 634 and, therefore, they are more numerous than simple terms (N = 599). In addition, among complex terms, productive primary ones are the more frequent (with 211 tokens), while we only find 47 names that clearly correspond to the category of secondary names. Furthermore, 202 complex names appeared in contrast sets that exhibit features associated with both secondary names and productive primary ones (similar to the one illustrated in Figure 7) and, therefore, have been called as “mixed” in the context of this paper.

Discussion

As may be concluded from the above analysis and from the results presented in Table 5, the pervasive presence of specific-folk generic polysemy has produced a type of contrast set that was not predicted by Berlin et al. (1973) or Berlin (1992) in their distinctions between productive complex primary names and secondary names. This kind of polysemy is, of course, not new in the literature and has been described for many other languages. In fact, in Berlin et al. (1973), it is possible to find several examples of this kind of polysemy in languages such as Hanunóo, Karam, and Guarani, among others. In turn, Taylor (1990:25–28) offers a detailed discussion of this issue in the ethnobiological taxonomic system of the Tobelo people (Moluccas, Indonesia), in which, due to polysemy, a single name may appear in different contrast sets. Taylor illustrates this by examining the most inclusive named Tobelo groupings of floral forms: o gota ‘tree’, o gumini ‘vine’, and o rurtibu ‘herbaceous weed’. The issue regarding these words is that they involve polysemous meanings that produce variations in membership of lower-level terms into these three major categories. For instance, among other meanings, o gota could be used to refer to ‘firewood’ and in this sense it includes any type of firewood, even if it comes from a tree-like palm or cycad, which do not belong to the o gota class and, therefore, cannot be referred to by this name if not used as firewood. Although polysemy is pervasive in Kakataibo, as far as I can tell, it does not produce a similar multi-membership effect.

Another important issue raised by Taylor has to do with the need of distinguishing between polysemy and homonymy. Although the distinction between polysemy and homonymy is not always clear, for Taylor (1990:28) the criterion of distinction should be relatedness of meaning (as is traditionally proposed by dictionary makers): “two lexemes may be said to be homonymous if all their forms [i.e., sounds] are the same, but they have unrelated meanings … Polysemy, on the other hand, refers to related meanings of the same lexeme” (Taylor 1990:28). This distinction is certainly useful for Kakataibo. Although all the examples presented in this paper are clearly cases of polysemy in Taylor's terms, homonymy does exist in the inventory of animal and plant names of the language. One example of this is found in the pair ‘aku ‘type of catfish’ (Cetopsis sp.) and ‘aku ‘unidenfied tree’. These two words have exactly the same sounds but unrelated meanings. One interesting type of meaning relatedness among the senses of a single lexeme is metonymy. Words are metonymously related when “we use [one] word not in its established sense but to name a category in contextual association with the category usually named by the word” (Waldron 1967, quoted in Taylor 1990:28). Examples of metonymy are also found in Kakataibo, as can be seen in the pair xëox ‘tangarana tree’ (Triplaris sp.) and xëox ‘type of ant that lives in the tangarana tree’ (Pseudomyrmex gracilis Fabricius). Thus, although there is evidence of honomymy and metonymy in the Kakataibo language, this paper is exclusively based on cases in which a lexeme presents two related meanings that exhibit a taxonomic relation (i.e., a species and its superordinate).

This type of polysemy corresponds to what Forth (1995) calls taxonomic polysemy. In his study of the taxonomic system of the Nage people (Island of Flores, Indonesia), Forth argues that the type of polysemy shown in the names for snakes was different from the type of semantic relation found between terms for non-biological categories, such as spirits. For the author, names of snakes exhibit a taxonomic type of polysemy, which is exclusively found when the more specific sense of the polysemous word can be specified with the use of a modifier meaning ‘typical’, ‘real’, ‘true’, or ‘original’. Since this linguistic mechanism is not available for all the cases of alleged polysemy in Nage, Forth argues that the Nage data reveal a non-taxonomic semantic relationship between categories that the author calls encompassment. In his terms, “A category encompasses another when there is no regular distinction, lexical or otherwise, between a superordinate conceptual entity and one existing at the same level of contrast with a distinctly named encompassed term” (Forth 1995:28). One crucial point in the distinction between taxonomic polysemy (also referred to as “inclusion” by Forth) and encompassment is that speakers are likely to reject a direct inclusion of the encompassed term when directly asked. The only instance of encompassment in Kakataibo that I have found so far is the generic use of ñapa, ‘fish type’ (Astyanax sp.), which is informally and occasionally used to refer to different types of small fish, including ñuma, ‘fish type’ (Characidae spp.). When speakers are asked if ñuma is a type of ñapa, they immediately reject this possibility. All the examples discussed in this paper, however, fit the definition of taxonomic polysemy given by Forth (1995). This implies that in all the cases studied in this paper it is possible to use the Kakataibo suffix kuni (‘true’ or ‘genuine’) to distinguish the specific and the generic senses of the polysemous word.

As we can see, polysemy is not a clear-cut and transparent phenomenon. On the contrary, it must be distinguished from homonymy and, at least partially, from metonymy, as it has been done by Taylor (1990). In addition, as proposed by Forth (1995), it is also relevant to distinguish between taxonomic polysemy (inclusion) and non-taxonomic polysemy (encompassment). All these distinctions can be established in Kakataibo, but since only inclusion has direct taxonomic consequences (Forth 1995), this paper is exclusively based on this type of polysemy (called here specific-folk generic polysemy), a type that is widely found in the language.

As shown in the previous section, due to the pervasive presence of specific-folk generic polysemy, a considerable number of binomials (which may largely contrast with other binomials) also contrast with the non-generic use of the simple name that refers to their superordinate. This produces a situation in which the distinction between secondary names and primary names of the productive type (in Berlin's [1992] terms) is not always easy to apply. This issue is explored in greater detail below.

According to Berlin (1992:28, nomenclature principle 2), “secondary forms differ from primary productive expressions in that the former occur, with predictable exceptions, only in contrast sets whose members share a constituent that labels the taxon that immediately includes them.” In cases like the one illustrated in Figure 7, the non-generic use of the polysemous term shares a constituent with the binomials it contrasts with and, crucially, this constituent refers to their superordinate (e.g., compare ‘ó ‘tapir’ and chuna ‘ó ‘tapir, subtype’). In this sense, the morpho-syntactically complex names given in Figure 7 in principle fit the definition of secondary names. However, based on the examples found in the literature, it seems that Berlin and his associates were thinking more of contrast sets in which binomials only contrast with other binomials that share a root referring to their superordinate (see Figures 4 and 5). This is what defines (prototypical) secondary names. Contrasting with simple primary names is, in principle, a property of complex primary names of the productive type and not of secondary names. From this perspective, it is also possible to argue that, in Berlin's terms, morpho-syntactically complex terms like the ones in Figure 7 are in fact complex primary names of the productive type. Yet, and this is the crucial issue, when Berlin et al. (1973) and Berlin (1992) discuss productive complex primary terms, they seem to assume a prototypical situation in which the contrast set includes lexically different primary terms: “Productive primary lexemes such as planetree, tuliptree, and leadtree, however, occur as members of contrast sets of which some members are labeled by expressions such as maple, walnut, elm, etc.” (Berlin et al. 1973:217). This is exactly what happens with contrast sets as the one illustrated in Figure 6 and in many other cases in our Kakataibo database; it is clear that in those cases we find complex primary names of the productive type.

However, in Kakataibo it is possible to find binomials or polynomials that neither contrast exclusively with other complex names with which they share a constituent referring to their superordinate, nor contrast with lexically different primary terms. Therefore, they are neither prototypical secondary terms nor prototypical complex primary names of the productive type. It is true that the typology proposed by Berlin and his associates predicts exceptions to these prototypes (see Berlin 1992:28, nomenclature principle 2), but the issue in Kakataibo is that contrast sets like the ones in Figure 7 are not exceptional but very common, due to the pervasive presence of specific-folk generic polysemy. Although this type of polysemy is not new in the literature, what seems to be unusual regarding Kakataibo taxonomy is that this kind of polysemy is quite common for polytypic categories and constitutes a well-established systemic pattern. Thus, any analysis that treats cases like the one in Figure 7 as exceptional would be problematic for this language.

Conklin (1962) developed his typology of ethnobiological nomenclature based on two linguistic features: 1) the number of roots that make up a term; and 2) whether a multi-root term carries the semantic property of descriptive force. That is, whether a term involves a head noun referring to a superordinate category, which is modified by a second root. Berlin et al. (1973) and, more recently, Berlin (1992) based their typology on these same linguistic characteristics, but added a taxonomic criterion, specifically related to the properties of the contrast set in which we find a multi-root term with a head that refers to its superordinate in order to introduce the distinction between productive complex primary names and secondary names. The type of contrast set exhibited by a multi-root term is more a taxonomic property than a properly linguistic one. However, it was argued by Berlin et al. (1973) that this decision was based on the need of distinguishing between multi-root terms that would have equally been composite labels in Conklin's terms, but were clearly different from their perspective. According to Berlin et al. (1973:240–41), this distinction is “theoretically advantageous and empirically justified.” The particularity of Kakataibo, however, is that we find three well-defined types of contrast sets not two, as predicted by Berlin and colleagues’ typology. While two of them clearly correspond to prototypical secondary names and prototypical productive complex primary names, the third one, illustrated in Figure 7, seems to be somewhere in between. Regardless of how we analyze the binomials and polynomials in contrast sets of the third type (as secondary names or as productive complex primary names), we will always find the same problem—that we are dealing with non-prototypical cases. Rather than assuming that the distinction under discussion must be abandoned and proposing that we should simply go back to Conklin's composite labels, I argue that the distinction between productive complex primary names and secondary names can be kept if it is reformulated in order to attend cases like the ones described here. One possible reformulation would be to expand the typology by postulating a third, independent category, but this is unnecessary if we take into consideration that the third type of contrast set identified in Kakataibo in fact combines properties of the other two predicted by Berlin and colleagues’ typology. Conversely, I propose to apply a property-driven approach, in which the categories productive complex primary name and secondary name are assumed as prototypes, composed of two different properties, which can distribute independently in the data.

A property-driven approach to the classification of plant and animal names (similar to the one that is being argued for in contemporary linguistic typology; e.g., Plank 2001, Hyman 2009) is useful to offer a satisfying analysis of the Kakataibo data presented in this paper, without introducing a new distinction into the typology. Basically, there are two properties which are relevant for the distinction between prototypical secondary names and prototypical productive complex primary names in Berlin's terms: 1) to exclusively contrast with other binomials, sharing with them the name of the superordinate; and 2) to contrast with at least one lexically different primary term. As shown in Table 6, a property-driven approach will produce three possible combinations of these two features (since they are by definition mutually exclusive, the fourth combination is impossible).

Table 6

A property-based approach to the distinction between secondary names and productive complex primary names.

As we can see, the property-driven approach proposed here produces a three-way distinction which allows us to offer a satisfying description of the Kakataibo data, without abandoning the typology proposed by Berlin, which has proven to be useful for other languages. Basically, in this approach, we have three possible combinations of the two features that define the two prototypes described by the categories productive complex primary name and secondary name, and these three combinations are confirmed in Kakataibo. This seems to constitute a novelty in the description of ethnobiological taxonomic systems and, in this sense, it may be important to determine if other Pano languages exhibit similar ethnobiological taxonomic systems, in order to establish if this is a property of the whole family or a peculiarity of the Kakataibo language.

The two Pano languages whose ethnobiological taxonomic systems have been studied in more detail are Shipibo-Konibo (e.g., Tournon 1991, 1994; Valenzuela 1998, 2000) and Matses (e.g., Fleck and Voss 2006; Fleck et al. 2002). Valenzuela (1998) has shown that in Shipibo-Konibo it is very usual to find that names of plants and animals are compounds. Indeed, Valenzuela (1998) mentions that more than 86% of the compound names found in the whole language are associated with names of animals and plants. For instance, as indicated in Valenzuela (1998), the Shipibo-Konibo people distinguish around 30 types of plantain and all the names used to refer to them are complex. In many of the complex terms analyzed by Valenzuela, we find a nominal head referring to a superordinate accompanied by a pre-head modifier, which expresses a property (shape, color, behavior, etc.). However, complex names might also include heads that are not related to a superordinate, but to some other referent, which may or may not be semantically related with the named species by means of a metaphoric or metonymic relation. In general, the scenario in Shipibo-Konibo is similar to what we find in Kakataibo regarding the extended presence and use of binomials/polinomials in their ethnobiological taxonomic systems (recall that in our lexical database we have more complex names than simple one). However, we do find differences between the two languages regarding polysemy. While polysemy is a pervasive feature of the Kakataibo taxonomic system, Valenzuela (2000) only reports a few cases of polysemy, like the word banabu, which can mean ‘cultivated plants’, but also ‘plant’. Tournon (1994) gives a similar example with the word yuina, usually translated as ‘edible or game animal’ (Valenzuela 2000), which can also refer to its superordinate ‘vertebrates’. What we find in Kakataibo is clearly different from Shipibo-Konibo both because polysemy is mostly found between generic and specific taxa and not at higher ranks, and because polysemy constitutes one of the most significant and systematic properties of the whole taxonomic system.

The Matses case is also very interesting. Fleck and Voss (2006) offer a detailed description of the Matses classification and terminology for mammals. One of the most fascinating properties of the terminology presented by the authors is the presence of unusually large synonym sets to refer to a single mammal species or variety identified by the Matses (and other small Pano groups from the area). Interestingly, based on the information given, binomials seem to be clearly less common than simple terms in the terminology used by the Matses to name mammals. In fact, only a few complex names are found in the paper. These names usually include the name of the superordinate followed by an adjective like çhëxë ‘dark’ or uxu ‘white’. Simple names are clearly the norm in the Matses’ mammal terminology and this makes the situation in this language different from what we have found in Kakataibo and Shipibo-Konibo. It is important to notice that Fleck et al. (2002) find large sets of descriptive phrases formally similar to the binomials and polinomials in Matses’ bat terminology described by Fleck and Voss (2006) and by Valenzuela (1998). Yet, these descriptive phrases are not lexicalized terms and might be cognitively different from the complex terms discussed in this paper. Regarding polysemy, the situation is similar to what we find in Shipibo-Konibo. There is also no pervasive specific-folk generic polysemy indicated in Matses and, in fact, the single case of this type of polysemy given by Fleck and Voss (2006) is only partial—the term bëchun could mean ‘capuchin monkey’ but it could also mean ‘brown capuchin monkey’ (Cebus apella, syn. Sapajus apella L.), in which case it is usually followed by the modifier çhëxë ‘dark’. Therefore, based on the available references, it is possible to conclude that the type of polysemy described here is unusual from the perspective of the Pano language family and represents a specific trait of Kakataibo.

Conclusions

The present paper has listed and illustrated the different types of plant and animal names that are used in Kakataibo. The discussion has mainly followed the nomenclature typology proposed by Berlin et al. (1973; terminologically modified in Berlin 1992) and attention has been given to how the Kakataibo data interact with the taxonomic generalizations (particularly with respect to nomenclature) summarized in Berlin (1992). The primary focus of this study has been on issues concerned with the morpho-syntactically complex names and their classification in the Berlin et al. (1973) typology. While many of them can be easily classifiable (see Figures 4, 5, and 6), the pervasive presence of polysemous terms in the Kakataibo ethnobiological taxonomic system has produced a very particular situation, in which classifying morpho-syntactically complex names in terms of Berlin et al.'s (1973) typology is not always straightforward. Complex forms in contrast sets like the one in Figure 7 might simply be considered productive complex simple names, but they would not be prototypical examples of this nomenclature type since they do not contrast with lexically different primary names. These morpho-syntactically complex terms are also reminiscent of secondary names in the sense that they only contrast with other terms with which they share a constituent (that refers to their superordinate). However, prototypical secondary names only contrast with other secondary names and examples like the ones in Figure 7 contrast as well with one primary name—a polysemous form that also names the superordinate. In fact, contrast sets like the one found in Figure 7, which are very common in Kakataibo, exhibit characteristics that were not predicted by Berlin et al.'s (1973) typology. This problematic situation has been solved by means of a property-driven approach, which produces a three- (and not two-) way distinction, more appropriate for the organization of Kakataibo's plant and animal names (see Table 6).

This proposal constitutes a new approach to the nomenclature typology proposed by Berlin and his associates. This new approach facilitates a description of the complex situation found in the Kakataibo data without abandoning the distinctions proposed by Berlin et al. (1973). Interestingly, this type of pervasive polysemy is not found in the other Pano languages whose ethnobiological taxonomic systems have been described; it is a distinctive characteristic of the Kakataibo language.

The distribution of primary terms throughout the Kakataibo data is also relevant since it does not necessarily observe Berlin's generalizations about ethnobiological nomenclature. While secondary names are systematically used for subgeneric taxa (with almost no exceptions), simple primary names and unproductive complex primary names distribute widely throughout the taxonomic system of Kakataibo and are relatively common for subgeneric taxa. The presence of simple primary names and unproductive complex primary names in association with subgeneric taxa is not predicted by Berlin, who states that, “A specifiable relationship can be observed between the names of taxa and their rank. Life-form and generic taxa are labeled by primary names; subgeneric taxa are labeled, in general, with secondary names” (Berlin 1992:34, nomenclature principle 3). It is true that Berlin's (1992:34, nomenclature principle 4) generalizations predict that under some conditions (polysemy and great cultural importance) subgeneric taxa might be named by primary names; however, not all the contradictory cases in Kakataibo satisfy these two conditions (cf. ñutan ‘type of tinamou’ [Crypturellus cinereus] and kaisa ‘fish type’ [Astyanax sp.], which are non-polysemous terms that equally denote specific taxa and are not neccesarily of great cultural importance). In fact, from the Kakataibo perspective, there is perhaps no more culturally important animal than the tapir but there are no non-polysemous primary names to refer to the different subtypes of tapir identified by the Kakataibo. Therefore, while the association between secondary names and subgeneric taxa finds solid support in the Kakataibo data, these data suggest at the same time that the alleged association between primary names and higher ranks might require further evaluation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The present paper is a product of a one-year documentation project on the ethno-biological knowledge of Kakataibo people (Proyecto n° 70242.2024, “Etno-biología de los Kakataibo: una Aproximación al Saber Sobre la Naturaleza de un Pueblo Amazónico Peruano”), conducted in 2012 and funded by the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, through its Dirección de Gestión de la Investigación. At this institution, I would like to thank Pepi Patron and Carlos Chávez and his team for all their support and help. I would also like to thank the Kakataibo speakers—Emilio Estrella, Ricardo Odicio, Salomón Estrella, Magaly Estrella, Karen Estrella, Irma Odicio, Ricardo Pereira and Alfredo Estrella—who helped with the elaboration of the lexical database used for this paper. A special thanks to David Fleck, who, as my co-researcher, has shared with me all his expertise in biology, without which this paper would have not been possible. I also thank William Aranda, who worked as a research assistant in the first stage of our project, Gabriel Martínez for proof-reading a previous version of this paper, and Hugo Ponce de León for creating the excellent map figure. Finally, I thank the editors of the Journal of Ethnobiology and the three anonymous reviewers for all their help and useful comments, which have enormously improved this paper.

References

Bartlett

R. D.

and Bartlett

.2003. Reptiles and Amphibians of the Amazon: An Ecotourist's Guide. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL.

Berlin

.1973. Folk Systematics in Relation to Biological Classification and Nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:259–271.

Berlin

.1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NY.

Berlin

and O'Neill

J. P.

.1981. The Pervasiveness of Onomatopoeia in Aguaruna and Huambisa Bird Names. Journal of Ethnobiology 1:238–261.

Berlin

Breedlove

D. E.

and Raven

P. H.

.1973. General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology. American Anthropology 75:214–242.

Clements

J. F.

and Shany

.2001. A Field Guide to the Birds of Peru. Ibis Publishing Company, Temecula, CA.

Cocroft

Morales

V. R.

and McDiarmid

R. W.

.2001. Frogs of Tambopata, Peru. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Conklin

H. C

.1962. Lexicographic Treatment of Folk Taxonomies. In Problems in Lexicography, edited by Householder

F.W.

and Saporta

. pp. 119–141. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

D'Ans

A. M

.1973. Reclasificación de las lenguas pano y datos glotocronológicos para la etnohistoria de la Amazonía Peruana. Revista del Museo Nacional 39 349–369.

10.

Emmons

L. H

.1997. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide, 2^nd edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

11.

Emmons

L. H.

Feer

Whitney

B. M.

and Ross

D. L.

.1997. Sounds of Neotropical Rainforest Mammals. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

12.

Fleck

D. W

.2007. Field Linguistics Meets Biology: How to Obtain Scientific Designations for Plant and Animal Names. Language Typology and Universals 60:81–91.

13.

Fleck

D. W

.2013. Pano Languages and Linguistics. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 99.

14.

Fleck

D. W.

and Voss

R. S.

.2006. On the Origin and Cultural Significance of Unusually Large Synonym Sets in Some Pano Languages of Western Amazonia. Anthropological Linguistics 48:335–368.

15.

Fleck

D. W.

Voss

R. S.

and Simmons

.2002. Underdifferentiation and Sublexical Categories: An Example from Matses Classification of Bats. Journal of Ethnobiology 22 63–104.

16.

Forth

.1995. Ethnozoological Classification and Classificatory Language among the Nage of Eastern Indonesia. Journal of Ethnobiology 15:45–69.

17.

Goulding

Cañas

Barthem

Forsberg

and Ortega

.2003. Amazon Headwaters: Rivers, Wildlife, and Conservation in Southeastern Peru. Asociación para la Conservación de la Cuenca Amazónica/Amazon Conservation Association, Lima, PE.

18.

Henderson

Galeano

and Bernal

.1995. Field Guide to the Palms of the Americas. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NY.

19.

Hunn

.1976. Toward a Perceptual Model of Folk Biological Classification. American Ethnobiology 3:508–524.

20.

Hunn

.1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classification of Discontinuities in Nature. Academic Press, New York, NY.

21.

Hunn

and Brown

C. H.

.2011. Linguistic Ethnobiology. In Ethnobiology, edited by Anderson

E.N.

Pearsall

Hunn

and Turner

N..

, pp. 319–333. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, NJ.

22.

Hyman

.2009. How (Not) to do Phonological Typology: The Case of Pitch Accent. Language Sciences 31:213–238.

23.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI). 2007. II Censo de Comunidades Indígenas de la Amazonia. Lima. Available at: http://iinei.inei.gob.pe/iinei/RedatamCpv2007.asp?ori=C, Accessed on:

24.

Lévi-Strauss

.1966. The Savage Mind. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, UK.

25.

Loos

.1999. Pano. In The Amazonian languages, edited by Dixon

R. M. W.

and Aikhenval

Alexandra Y

.(eds.), pp. 227–249. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

26.

Plank

.2001. Typology by the End of the 18th Century. In History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, edited by Burkhardt

Steger

and Wiegand

H. E.

.Vol. 2, pp. 1399–1414. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, DE.

27.

Schulenberg

T. S.

Marantz

C. A.

and English

.2000. Voices of Amazonian Birds: Birds of the Rain Forest of Southern Peru and Northern Bolivia. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

28.

Schulenberg

T. S.

Stotz

D. F.

Lane

D. L.

O'Neill

J. P.

and Parker

T. A.

.2007. Birds of Peru. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

29.

Shell

.1965. Pano Reconstruction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

30.

Taylor

.1990. The Folk Biology of the Tobelo People: A Study in Folk Classification. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 34. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

31.

Tournon

.1991. La Clasificación de los Vegetales entre los Shipibo-Conibo. Antropológica 9:119–151.

32.

Tournon

.1994. ¿Cómo los Shipibo Nombran y Clasifican los Animales? Antropológica 11:91–108.

33.

Valenzuela

.1998. Luna-Avispa y Tigre-Machaco: Compuestos Semánticos en la Taxonomía Shipiba. In IV Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística del Noroeste, Memorias I, edited by Estrada

Figueroa

López

and Costa

.Vol. 2, pp. 409–28. Universidad de Sonora, Sonora, MX.

34.

Valenzuela

.2000. Major Categories in Shipibo Ethnobiological Taxonomy. Anthropological Linguistics 42:1–36.

35.

Waldron

R. A

.1967. Sense and Sense Development. London: Deutsc.

36.

Wistrand de Robinson

Lila

.1984. Biota of the Cashibo/Cacataibo of Peru, Giving (Where Identifiable) Scientific Name, Cashibo, Spanish, and English I-II. Lingua Folks Publications, Forest, VA.

37.

Zariquiey

.2011a. A Grammar of Kakataibo. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. La Trobe University, Melbourne, AU.

38.

Zariquiey

.2011b. Hacia una Dialectología del Idioma Kakataibo. Lexis 35:5–46.

39.

Zariquiey

Fleck

D. W.

Estrella

Odicio

and Pereira

.2014. Animales y Plantas del Pueblo Kakataibo: Diccionario Trilingüe (Kakataibo, Español, Inglés) con Idenficaciones Biológicas, Indice Alfabético Castellano-Kakataibo, Clasificación Semántica, Nombres Regionales y Definiciones Etnobiológicas. Lincom-Europa, Munich, DE.