General Principles of Ethnomycological Classification among the Tzeltal Maya of Chiapas,Mexico

Abstract

Spanish

French

The Tzeltal Maya of Highland Chiapas, Mexico, regularly gather wild mushrooms as a supplement to the staple diet of corn and beans, especially during the rainy season months from June to December. Fieldwork over 18 months was conducted in the Tzeltal Maya communities of Oxchuc and Tenejapa with the goal of exploring ethnomycological knowledge in the Highland region. Thirty pile sort interviews supplement more than 200 semi-structured interviews concerning the names, uses and folk classification of mushrooms. This paper describes the ways in which the structure of the Tzeltal system of ethnomycological classification conform to the general principles of classification proposed by Berlin (1992).

Keywords

ecological anthropology ethnobiology folk classification mushroom(s)Tzeltal Maya

Introduction

The Tzeltal Maya have developed far-reaching, empirically based knowledge of the plants and animals that exist in the biophysical environment of the highlands of Chiapas (Berlin and Berlin 1996; Berlin et al. 1974; Casagrande 2002; Hunn 1977; Stepp 2002). The Tzeltal name and classify a significant proportion of the living things that inhabit the landscape, and utilize as much as 60 percent of the culturally recognized species for food, shelter, fuel, adornment, medicinal and ritual purposes (Berlin 1992). However, with the exception of the work of Shepard and Arora (1992), there has been little research into Tzeltal traditional knowledge of mushrooms.

Tzeltal families regularly harvest and consume as many as 30 species of macrofungi (mushrooms) throughout the summer and fall seasons. Many of these species are collected and sold for small amounts of cash in the local markets, providing extra income for the household. Other species of macrofungi are used to treat medical conditions such as cuts, burns, weakness, bedwetting, skin conditions, and gastrointestinal problems (Lampman 2007). In addition, there is a widespread belief that mushrooms provide essential nutrients that enhance strength, endurance and well-being, and the unique flavor and texture of mushrooms are highly valued in the culinary tradition of the Tzeltal. It is clear that the macrofungal domain is a salient and culturally important aspect of Tzeltal ethnobiological knowledge.

This paper addresses Tzeltal ethnomycological classification with a focus on the ways in which mushroom categories conform to the general principles of classification proposed by Berlin et al. (1974) and Berlin (1992).

Study Area

Mexico has been described as one of the world's six mega-biodiversity countries (Blanco et al. 1997; Varela and Estrada-Torres 1997) with the highest documented species richness in North and Central America and a rate of endemism that approaches 52% for vascular plant species (Ramamoorthy et al. 1993; Rzedowski 1993; Stepp 2002). According to Moreno-Fuentes and Montoya (1999), approximately 6,000 species of macroscopic fungi have been documented within its borders. Within this context, the state of Chiapas, which lies in the southernmost part of Mexico bordering Guatemala, is second only to the state of Oaxaca in terms of biodiversity (Toledo 1988). Its 73,887 km² of land give sanctuary to a rich array of biodiversity, with approximately 6,000 species of vascular plants and as many as 1,150 species of vertebrates (Berlin and Berlin 1996; Breedlove 1981; Rzedowski 1993). Although the number of macrofungi has not been fully evaluated in Chiapas, at least 291 species had been documented by 1988, 18 of which are thought to be endemic (Perez-Moreno and Villarreal 1988). This backdrop provides ample potential for the exploration of cultural uses of macrofungi in the highlands.

The climate is generally sub-humid temperate due to elevations that range from 900 m to 2900 m (Hunn 1977; Rzedowski 1993). The temperature is generally cool, and there is little variation throughout the year with lows that rarely drop to 12°C in January and highs that reach 25°C in the summer. At elevations below 1000 m, the temperature remains relatively warm throughout the year. At higher elevations, the full range of temperature variation can often be experienced during any given day in the dry winter months, with nearly freezing temperatures at night and hot temperatures in the midday sun. Precipitation varies greatly throughout the region, ranging from 1200 to 2000 mm depending on altitude and east-west location along the mountainous divide. As much as 90 percent of this precipitation occurs during a pronounced wet season between the months of May and December (Vogt 1969). These seasonal conditions are good for wild mushroom production, as relative humidity increases decomposition rates of organic matter in the soil, stimulating the development of numerous varieties of macromycetes.

In Chiapas, approximately 790,000 (23%) of the nearly four million inhabitants are native speakers of an indigenous language1 (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica ‘INEGI’ 2000). An estimated 296,000 of these speak little or no Spanish (INEGI 2000). At least five Mayan languages are spoken in Chiapas, including Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal, Chol and Lacandon. The majority of indigenous speakers in Chiapas, however, speak one of the eleven dialects of Tzeltal, with approximately 292,000 speakers, or Tzotzil, with approximately 285,000 speakers (INEGI 2000; Kohler 2000).

The Tzeltal Maya have inhabited the Central Highlands, or Central Plateau, of Chiapas since at least the 17^th century (Adams 1961; Beltran 1973). Small, isolated communities scattered throughout the countryside assert diversified traditional identities through localized styles of clothing, and each community practices religious rituals and ceremonies to honor a specific set of patron saints. Specialized crafts, services and agricultural products are typically associated with specific communities, and due to historical processes and the mountainous landscape, there are vast differences across these communities in access to modern services such as roads, utilities and healthcare. Despite these localized differences, Tzeltal and Tzotzil communities all exhibit social, political and religious characteristics common to the larger Mesoamerican culture, and at the household level, families engage in subsistence-level corn, bean and squash swidden agriculture (Blanton and Feinman 1984; Blanton et al. 1993; Collier 1975; Kirchoff 1943; Laughlin 1969; Sharer 1994; Villa Rojas 1969).

Materials and Methods

Research was conducted in two Tzeltal speaking municipalities, Oxchuc and Tenejapa, located in the ‘cold-country’ regions of Highland Chiapas. Once permission had been obtained at the national, state, municipal, local and individual levels, fieldwork began with the collection, identification and preservation of mushroom specimens to establish a basic inventory of mushroom diversity in the Tzeltal region. With the help of local Maya collaborators, approximately 250 specimens were collected over the months of June - August 2001, and these are housed in the herbarium at El Colegio de La Frontera Sur (ECOSUR) in San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. In order to explore ethnomycological classification, color photographs of each species of mushroom were taken for use in ethnographic elicitation and identification interviews.

Extensive in-depth interviews were conducted with approximately 200 individuals to gather qualitative data concerning traditional knowledge of the uses of mushrooms. These interviews yielded a large body of data indicating that the Tzeltal have extensive knowledge of mushroom ecology, substrate preferences, microhabitat preferences, seasonality, edibility and medical applications.

Following the formalized methodology of pile sorts, 30 participants (16 females, 14 males) were asked to sort 25 mounted photographs of the most frequently collected and widely known mushrooms into groups based on similarities or differences as determined in an unconstrained manner by each individual participant. After initial sortings, participants were asked to subdivide groups into smaller groups until further subdivision was no longer possible. At each level of sorting, participants were asked to explain the criteria used in decision-making. Analysis and comparison of these sorting exercises generated taxonomic trees showing underlying categories and relationships of the Tzeltal system of ethnomycological classification.

Results

General Purpose Classification

In folk systems of ethnobiological classification, taxa of the kingdom rank occur at the highest or most abstract level and incorporate all of the taxa of lesser rank (Berlin 1992:24). Many traditional cultural groups are thought to indirectly acknowledge the existence of at least two categories at the kingdom rank: one corresponding to Plantae, and one corresponding to Animalia. Often these categories are “covert” or unlabeled. Historically, there has been little discussion concerning the recognition of other kingdoms in ethnobiological systems. The dilemma relevant to this discussion, however, is that the Tzeltal Maya do not include macrofungi with either of the two previously described plant or animal kingdoms.

According to Berlin, evidence for treatment of a domain at the kingdom level comes in several forms, including (1) the existence of an unanalyzable primary lexeme labeling the category, (2) a well-developed vocabulary associated only with the organisms that are members of the category, (3) the use of obligatory linguistic markers that indicate members of the folk category are distinct from organisms in other kingdoms, and (4) indirect linguistic and behavioral evidence of native speakers treating the organisms as a distinctive group (1992:190–191). I will treat each of these forms of evidence in turn.

The Tzeltal with whom I worked consider all of the diverse forms of macrofungi to be part of a single, coherent domain that is separate and different from the domains of plants and animals. The domain as a whole is habitually labeled chejchew(etik) 2, an unanalyzable primary lexeme that can be glossed as “all of the fleshy mushrooms” and refers exclusively to species that are recognized as fungi in the Western scientific system. The use of a label at the kingdom level is not unique to mushrooms, as the Tzeltal Maya also use loose labels that refer to the kingdom rank for te'ak’ ‘plants’ and chanbalam ‘animals’. The mushroom domain is thus treated linguistically in a way that is similar to the well-established folk kingdoms of plants and animals.

The mushroom domain as conceived by the Tzeltal also has unique life-history properties that set it apart. Among the many exceptional characteristics mentioned regularly by Tzeltal collaborators include the fact that mushrooms are highly seasonal, they live short lives and appear and disappear rapidly, they taste and feel like the meat of animals but are rooted to the earth like plants, and some mushrooms are decidedly poisonous whereas others are considered by the Tzeltal to be a delicacy. As most of the individuals with whom I worked put it, the species that compose this domain are “neither plant nor animal, but simply mushrooms.”

Further evidence for a folk kingdom comes in the form of specialized vocabulary and descriptive phrases. For example, numerous folk taxonomic systems (Tzeltal, Huambisa, Aguaruna, Hanunóo, and Ndumba among others) have extensive vocabularies used exclusively for the description of folk taxa of plant or animal kingdoms (Berlin 1992). The Tzeltal utilize such a well-developed vocabulary in describing the mushroom domain, with more than 150 terms describing features of mushroom morphology such as size, shape, texture, taste, habitat, and growth habit. Many of these terms are simply descriptive (e.g., color terms), and others are shared with the domains of plants and animals, such as the term yakan ‘stem/trunk’. This vocabulary, however, is large and sophisticated, resembling the specialized terminology of Western mycologists in specifying unique features of mushroom morphology, ecology, habitat, and habit. The existence of a detailed vocabulary suggests that the Tzeltal have a long history of interacting with, and exploiting, mushrooms found in the local environment, further indicating that mushrooms have special status as a unique domain.

Other forms of linguistic evidence are more difficult to interpret. Numeral classifiers, for example, are obligatory grammatical forms found in Mayan languages that specify, classify or describe things that are being counted. Although there is little data concerning Tzeltal use of numeral classifiers in association with the macrofungal domain, Shepard and Arora (1992) report that the Tzotzil Maya from a neighboring region regularly use the terms kojt ‘animal’, wojt’ ‘flower’, and lejch ‘leaf’ to classify mushrooms while counting. In other words, the Tzotzil do not use unique numeral classifiers in association with the mushroom domain, and in fact, those numeral classifiers that are used indicate the somewhat paradoxical treatment of macrofungi as alternatively plants or animals.

Another form of linguistic evidence indicating the paradoxical nature of the mushroom domain comes from the use of the transitive verb ti’ which literally means ‘to eat meat’. Although this verb generally occurs only in association with the flesh of animals, it is also habitually used to express the act of consuming mushrooms. The use of this verb may be a reference to the texture and flavor of mushrooms, which in many ways resemble the texture and flavor of animal meat. In fact, the association of mushroom flesh with meat is found in the languages of numerous cultures, including folk English. Other examples include the Chewa of Malawi who conceptually group mushrooms with nyama , a term referring to both meat and animals (Morris 1984:54), and the Aztecs of Mexico, who wrote of a divine, hallucinogenic mushroom called teonanácatl that can be glossed as ‘flesh of the gods’ (Schultes 1939,1940; Singer 1958; Wasson and Wasson 1957). In most, if not all of these cultures, historical evidence suggests that macrofungi are classified as a separate and independent group of living things. The fact that animals and macrofungi share the verb ti’ in the highlands of Chiapas, then, does not indicate that they are thought of as similar kinds of living things, but rather that they share some features of texture and flavor.

The final type of evidence for treating a group of organisms as a separate kingdom includes indirect linguistic or behavioral evidence. I conducted over 200 freelists concerning chejchew , and not once did an individual include an organism that was not classified as a macrofungus in Western science. In addition, Tzeltal collaborators were extremely well-versed in the substrate and habitats in which specific mushrooms develop. They knew the specific seasonality of numerous species of edible mushrooms, and they freely discussed the fact that mushroom abundance has waned as more land has come under cultivation and development. These forms of informal treatment of fungi, when combined with the way in which the Tzeltal treat mushrooms in conversation and everyday use, suggest that the mushroom domain is indeed cognitively perceived and linguistically treated as a third, independent group of taxa at the kingdom rank.

Comparative data from the Zapotec of Oaxaca (Hunn et al. 2000) shows peculiarities of linguistic and behavioral evidence associated with the mushroom domain that dovetail well with those described above. For example Hunn et al. (2000) indicate that the number of named taxa in the mushroom domain is large for a folk generic but small for a folk life-form or kingdom. My own data indicate this dilemma is true for the Tzeltal Maya as well; in comparison with the kingdoms of plants and animals few mushroom taxa are recognized. However, people consistently and overtly consider mushrooms to be separate and distinct from other living things, and this structural difference in the fabric of the ethnobiological system could simply be the result of unique features of the mushroom domain such as small domain size, marked seasonality and short mushroom life-span.

More confusing, perhaps, is the fact that Zapotec mushroom names are generally binomial at what is most likely the folk generic rank (Hunn et al. 2000:3). Hunn et al. (2000) point out that this is not a unique pattern for the Zapotec as they routinely include life-form labels in the binomial names of folk generic plant taxa. The use of binomial names that incorporate labels for higher order categories for both plants and mushrooms at the generic rank motivates Hunn et al. to conclude that the mushroom domain is linguistically treated like a life-form on par with tree or flower (2000:3). The problem is that for the Zapotec, as for the Tzeltal Maya, the mushroom domain is not immediately included within the plant kingdom and does not contrast with other plant life-forms.

To further highlight the peculiarities of the mushroom domain, Hunn et al. (2000) interpret the m - prefix in mëy ‘mushroom’ as a contraction of mô ‘animal’ in Zapotec. In addition, when discussing presence or absence of mushrooms, Zapotec speakers obligatorily refer to mushrooms with an animate classifier, which suggests mushrooms are affiliated with animals. Yet, just as with the Tzeltal Maya, the Zapotec unambiguously assert that mushrooms are living things that are not of the animal kingdom. Ultimately, it appears that the data gathered by Hunn et al. (2000) compares well with that gathered by Shepard and Arora (1992) and myself. Mushrooms are neither plants nor animals; they are something unique, different and apart.

In order to address the structural and linguistic peculiarities they encountered, Hunn et al. conclude that the mushroom domain in the Zapotec folk classification system forms a small life-form that is unaffiliated at the kingdom level (2000:4). This solution solves definitional problems with the size and structure of the recognized mushroom domain and explains the binomial naming pattern associated with Zapotec mushroom taxa. The Tzeltal mushroom domain is also irregular and full of inconsistencies, and yet, given the nature of the linguistic and behavioral data presented herein, I believe that the Tzeltal conceive of mushrooms as a third kingdom. In addition to the use of a consistent unique beginner label, the Tzeltal have an extensive vocabulary associated with mushrooms, are keenly aware of substrate, habitat, habit and seasonal features of mushrooms, and never confuse mushrooms with any other category of living thing. Just as important, as I detail below, the Tzeltal Maya consistently recognize at least two mushroom life-forms that subdivide a higher-level category. Ultimately, the peculiarities with the size and structure of the mushroom domain in both Tzeltal and Zapotec classification systems could result from a few simple facts: this domain is strange in the world of living things, it can be dangerous to consume, and due to lifecycle features, it can be difficult to observe.

Although they never explicitly use the word “kingdom,” Shepard and Arora (1992) appear to previously have come to the same conclusion as myself while conducting research on mushrooms with the Tzotzil and Tzeltal Maya. They note the existence of a unique beginner label and detail the recognition of life-forms in the mushroom domain suggesting that mushrooms belong to an independent kingdom (1992:5–6). This conclusion is anything but shocking: the Western system of classification has recognized fungi as a separate biological kingdom since at least the 1970s. Given the morphological, behavioral, nutritional, hallucinogenic and toxic features of the wide diversity of fungi, it might be more bizarre to find that traditional cultural groups did not recognize them as a different class of living things.

As noted by Mapes et al. (1981), similar findings concerning the separate status of the macrofungal domain have been reported among other groups including the Purépecha (Mapes et al. 1981), Huastec (Brown 1972), Tzotzil (Laughlin 1975), Matlazinca (Escalante 1973), Mazateco (Wasson and Wasson 1957), Southern Tepehuan (Elizondo 1991), groups from Tlaxcala (Esquivel 1998), Mixtec Zapotec (Hunn et al. 2000), Iban of Sarawak (Sather 1978), and the Chewa of Malawai (Morris 1984). Research conducted with these groups suggests that the existence of single, often unanalyzable, lexeme referring specifically to fungi is common among different cultures. This points to the possibility that a mushroom kingdom is a regular part of ethnobiological systems of classification.

At the next “lower” level, the Tzeltal system of ethnomycological classification appears to include two contrasting life-form taxa grouped on the basis of substrate preference and morphology. These two categories are salient and widely agreed upon across the highlands, and indeed, Shepard and Arora (1992) found the same two categories to be salient during their work ten years earlier. The first of these life-form categories is polysemously labeled chikin te’ ‘tree ear’, and generally includes all of those macrofungi that grow on trees, sticks, logs or roots3. A second salient category, which either lacks a linguistic designation, or quite often is polysemously labeled chejchew , generally includes all of those macrofungi that grow in the earth.

Like the taxa of life-form rank in other ethnobiological domains, these life-form categories include folk genera from a broad range of biological families, cutting across “natural” boundaries (Berlin 1992:167). The most obvious features uniting lower level taxa at the life-form rank in this system appear to be the substrate in which the mushroom grows (i.e., wood or earth), and form (e.g., ‘typical’ mushroom shape vs. ‘atypical’ shape). Also like other ethnobiological domains, these two life-forms fail to fully subdivide the kingdom (Berlin 1992:168) and leave out a large proportion of lower-order taxa, the most notable of which are the culturally useless or morphologically indistinct species. In contrast to life-form categories that have been described in other ethnobiological domains, the two mushroom life-forms appear to include almost exclusively species that are edible, highly salient, or well known to be poisonous. As is discussed in more detail in the following section, it is clear that cultural utility heavily influences the size and structure of the mushroom domain as conceived of by the Tzeltal Maya. As a result, these categories are relatively small compared with plant and animal life-forms.

The life-form chikin te’ includes at least 26 monotypic folk genera, two of which are unlabeled. Almost all of the taxa included fruit in some form of wood, be it living trees, dead trees, rotting stumps, or dry or rotting sticks or twigs. Many of the included species have an ‘atypical’ shape such as an off-center or completely absent stem or a flat cap. I could find no evidence that any of these folk genera formed larger covert (intermediate) groupings, despite a number of similarities in linguistic designations. Many of the species included are edible; others are either so large or so prevalent that it would be hard to imagine not giving them a linguistic designation. Table 1 presents the Tzeltal folk genera and Latin binomial names of species included in these folk genera.

Table 1

Life-form chikin te' .

The life-form chejchew includes at least 28 folk genera that refer to more than 44 scientifically described species of mushroom. Three of these folk genera are polytypic, and 25 are monotypic. Species included in this life-form all develop in substrates found on the ground, including soil, moss, humus, pine needles or the leaves of hardwoods. These taxa generally have a ‘typical’ mushroom form, including a centered stipe and conical cap, and although most have gills, a few have pores or teeth underneath the cap. Table 2 presents both the Tzeltal names and the Latin binomial names of species included in these folk genera.

Table 2

Life-form chejchew : Polytypic Genera and Covert Complexes.

Interestingly, the membership and boundaries of mushroom life-form categories are only stable in a general sense. When asked point-blank, the majority of my collaborators would consistently claim that all tree-growing mushrooms were a type of chikin te’ , and earth-growing mushrooms were a type of chejchew . However, when conducting pile sorts, membership in these two groups began to vary to a considerable degree. Except for the polysemously labeled prototypical folk genera that serve as the central members of these categories, Tzeltal collaborators often disagreed during pile sort interviews about which folk genera belong to one or the other of these life-forms respectively, and a few folk genera are included in more than one category.

Rather than making “mistakes,” these collaborators were relying on a combination of key morphological features and substrate growth patterns to make determinations of category membership, and in some cases they had to choose between conflicting features. Often they appeared to use overall morphological appearance (e.g., ‘typical’ vs. ‘atypical’ shape) rather than substrate preference when making this choice. In other words, the boundaries of these life-form categories are, to some extent, fluid and porous, once again showing that folk classification systems are never neat and tidy.

These life-form categories also face a problem similar to that noted at the kingdom level. Relatively few folk genera are included in each of the two categories. Compared with life-form taxa such as ‘tree’ or ‘bird’ found respectively in plant and animal systems of classification, the number of folk genera included in mushroom life-form categories is extremely low, with approximately 26 identified folk genera of the ‘tree-ear’ category and 28 identified folk genera of the ‘earth-grower’ category. In some sense, these groupings are simply too small, and their boundaries too unclear, to be treated as categories of equal perceptual status with the large polytypic groupings found at the life-form rank in the other kingdoms. On the other hand, these folk life-form categories clearly form labeled groupings of perceptually related folk genera that immediately, although not exhaustively, partition the kingdom rank. And although these categories appear to stretch the notion of life-form taxa a bit, it is likely that both cultural considerations and the small size of the macrofungal domain could lead to structural differences, such as those noted here.

Notwithstanding the conceptual limitations noted above, the life-form chejchew also appears to be subdivided by least four covert groupings that could be argued to be intermediate categories. These covert groupings of folk genera are clearly based on obvious similarities in overall morphology, and tend to include groupings based on shape, habit, texture, size, life history and substrate preference. Each covert category includes between two and five monotypic folk genera, many of which share an obligatory label. Although the importance of these categories for the structure of the overall classification system is debatable, these covert groupings appear to be relatively salient since collaborators revert to calling a specimen a “kind of” the presumed covert category when an exact identification of at the folk genus is dubious.

One Tzeltal intermediate category resembles intermediate taxa of the folk English mycological system. The complex bonkos – tonkos (unanalyzable) corresponds closely with the English folk taxon ‘bolete’ and includes all of the fleshy earth-growing species with pores underneath the cap. The majority of taxa in this category come from genera such as Boletus and Suillus. The lumping of many species with pores under the cap together at the intermediate rank is not surprising as there were so many fruiting species with pores in the region that many of our own collections were not scientifically identified before research was discontinued. Likewise, although the Tzeltal Maya recognize and label a few of the most distinct, and usually edible, of these species, by far the majority are simply called ‘ bonkos ’ or ‘ tonkos ’.

The other three potential intermediate categories are: k'an chay ‘yellow fish mushroom’, which includes all known species of Lactarius; the polysemously labeled category chejchew (unanalyzable), which includes various species such as Naematoloma fasciculare (Huds. ex Fr.) Kar. and Armillaria mellea (Vahl ex Fr.) Kar.; and tsa’ wakax ‘cow shit mushroom(s)’, which includes a wide variety of small species including Conocybe tenera (Schaeff. ex Fr.) Küh, Coprinus atramentarius (Bull. ex Fr.) Fr., Coprinus comatus (Müll. Ex Fr.) S.F.G., and Coprinus plicatilis (W. Curtis ex Fr.) Fr. among others. These intermediate categories all appear to be based on gross morphology or substrate preference and do not appear to have correlates in the folk English ethnomycological system.

As is the case with most ethnobiological classification systems, taxa of the genus rank make up the core of the Tzeltal ethnomycological taxonomy. Mushroom genera represent morphologically and behaviorally distinctive discontinuities that are readily observed and often typified by a single, central member. Based on the collections made for this research, the Tzeltal ethnomycological taxonomy includes at least 51 monotypic taxa at the genus rank and at least three polytypic taxa of the genus rank that immediately include two or more members at the species rank. There appear to be no taxa at the varietal rank, a fact that is not surprising as the Tzeltal Maya only recently began to cultivate one or two species of mushrooms in the region.

As noted for higher order taxa above, one of the most puzzling features of the Tzeltal system of ethnomycological classification is that the number of folk genera that are recognized and named within the mushroom domain appears to be relatively low in comparison with the domains of plants and animals. I argue again that this structural feature likely arises from some unique feature of the macrofungal domain itself. For example, although the number of fungal species existing in the region is likely to compare well with the numbers of plants or animals, the number of readily observable macrofungi is likely to be much lower4. In other words, because mushrooms are small, ephemeral and tend to appear and disappear relatively rapidly, they are simply more difficult to observe on a regular basis.

Other features of the macrofungal domain, including unusual morphological and behavioral characteristics, may also contribute to the relatively small set of species that are recognized in ethnomycological classification. For example, gross morphology, small size, variable prevalence, short life history, or extreme morphological diversity of macrofungal species found in the local environment could significantly affect the salience of mushroom species leading to under-representation in the classification system (Berlin 1992; Hunn 1977). Additionally, utilitarian factors such as the need to distinguish between edible and potentially poisonous species could lead people to ignore almost all mushrooms that are inedible or unknown, influencing the overall size and structure of the ethnomycological system. This possibility is explored in more detail in the following section.

On the other hand, the fact that the Tzeltal name relatively few of the macrofungi that exist in the region may be the result of the fact that this research was conducted with an incomplete inventory of the totality of the species that make up the macrofungal domain in the highlands of Chiapas. Impressively, a mere three months of field-collections yielded over 250 specimens representing approximately 72 distinct species. Given the short duration of this stage of research, however, it must be assumed that the 72 biological species identified represent only a small portion of the total number of species existing in the local environment. Consequently, the unusual structural features noted above could be the result of a statistical effect such as the over-representation of a few species or genera in my collections. Expanding our knowledge of the total mushroom domain is likely to have some effect on an analysis of the unusual aspects of the domain outlined above.

Special Purpose Classification

The unique beginner chejchew is regularly used in normal conversation to refer to all species of macrofungi. The term, however, is not appropriate in every situation. Species of mushrooms that are culturally useless are lumped together in a large category labeled lu’ ‘vagina’. Most of the species lumped in this category do not receive consistent linguistic designations, and they are not further classified. During detailed interviews and pile sorts it became clear that these species belong to the category of living things labeled chejchew but do not belong to the category of edible things that is generally labeled chejchew .

Three examples support the notion that lu’ is a special purpose category. First, when asked to freelist “all the kinds of chejchew that exist in the world,” almost every collaborator included species that were later classified as types of lu’ . Second, when directly asked to define the category lu’ , most collaborators simply said these species are unknown or poisonous. Finally, during pile sort interviews all collaborators agreed that every mushroom in the initial pile of pictures could be labeled chejchew . However, the first sort often resulted in two large groups, one polysemously labeled chejchew and one labeled lu’ . The explanation generally given was that species in the lu’ group were unknown or poisonous. During consecutive sorts our collaborators had little difficulty grouping and naming the species from the chejchew pile but often declined to further subdivide the lu’ pile. When asked repeatedly to continue sorting the lu’ group, almost all of our collaborators reverted to sorting by perceived morphological similarities and dissimilarities.

All indications are that the category lu’ is a conceptual “dumping ground” for all species of mushrooms that are poisonous, unknown or indistinct, and the category is not otherwise incorporated in the ethnomycological system of classification. It is also likely that the term chejchew is synonymous with the notion of edibility. This special purpose distinction significantly affects the size and structure of the recognized ethnomycological domain. By lumping all unknown species together into a large category of biologically and perceptually unrelated species, the Tzeltal effectively limit the number of species they must recognize and remember from the total domain of hundreds of mushrooms that exist in the region. This overall classificatory approach is likely a cultural solution to a problem that is well known to speakers of folk English; eating an unknown mushroom is perceived as foolhardy. Thus the Tzeltal system of ethnomycological classification is lopsided in that it really only deals with edible or highly salient species. Yet once utilitarian concerns are met, the recognized and labeled portion of the mushroom domain is classified into a shallow hierarchy based on gross morphological similarities and dissimilarities.

Discussion

Macrofungi are an important biological resource for the Tzeltal of highland Chiapas. As with other kinds of living things, the Tzeltal interact with and manage macrofungi through both direct means such as harvesting and indirect means such as landscape transformation. Through a long history of utilization, the Tzeltal have developed extensive knowledge of the morphological, ecological, nutritional, hallucinogenic, and toxic attributes of mushroom species. Ethnomycological nomenclature and classification follows highly consistent patterns across individuals throughout the highlands, and the substance and structure of these folk cognitive systems serve adaptive functions (Ellen and Reason 1979). This knowledge is organized in systematic ways that both reflect the unique biological features of the macrofungal domain and facilitate safe cultural use of the domain.

The Tzeltal folk system of ethnomycological classification, at least when applied to culturally important species, appears to conform to the general principles of ethnobiological classification advanced by Berlin (1992) in significant ways. The general purpose classification system for the mushroom domain forms a shallow hierarchy centered around mostly monotypic folk genera that form natural and obvious discontinuities. These folk genera are grouped together into two somewhat atypical life-form taxa based on overall similarities in substrate preference and gross morphology. There are at least four covert categories that loosely group folk genera that are similar in morphology, texture or life-history features at the intermediate level. Given the distinctive features of mushrooms, it is not surprising that the mushroom domain as a whole forms a third independent kingdom that receives a separate, unanalyzable linguistic designation.

Tzeltal ethnomycological classification appears to deviate from Berlin's general principles of classification in that edibility and avoidance of potentially poisonous species affects both the structure of the general purpose classification system and the size of the mushroom domain that is recognized, named and classified. The domain as a whole is conceptually divided. Species that are edible, salient or prevalent are named and classified in ways that resemble other systems of folk classification. Species that are inedible, indistinct or difficult to observe are lumped together in a large special purpose category that is not further classified. This feature supports the proposals of Berlin (1992), Ellen (1993) and many others who have shown that a history of human management, cultural beliefs and resource use significantly affect systems of ethnobiological classification.

The potential impact of present and future changes on local ecosystems, local market systems, and ethnoecological domains of traditional knowledge draw attention to the need for more investigation and understanding of the role of macrofungi in indigenous cultures. This study is not meant to examine Tzeltal ethnomycological knowledge in isolation, and other aspects of ethnomycological knowledge are discussed elsewhere (Lampman 2004). Future work will address more specifically whether specific domain features such as the size of the mushroom domain, prevalence of organisms, and nutritional, hallucinogenic and toxic properties, significantly influence the substance and structure of traditional systems of nomenclature and classification in ways that could, through the development of a set of measurement criteria, be predicted.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to the people of Oxchuc and Tenejapa for their generosity, support and participation. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (Award #0079197), and a Jacobs Research Funds Individual Grant provided by Whatcom Museum. Thanks to Lucia Robles from the herbarium at El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Chiapas, Mexico, for her work in identifying several of the species included in this research. Support was also generously provided by the Labs of Ethnobiology at the University of Georgia under the direction of Brent Berlin and Elois Ann Berlin, and El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Chiapas, Mexico.

1

Refers to native speakers over the age of five.

2

The conventions used here follow those of Berlin and Berlin (1996:xxix). Vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and consonants are generally pronounced as those in Spanish. Two exceptions are (x), which is pronounced in English as (sh), and (tz) which is pronounced as (ts). The consonants (ch’, k’, p’, t’, and tz’), are pronounced through the use of a glottal stop. Most Tzeltal words are stressed on the last syllable. All translations are by the author.

3

Interestingly, one of the most prevalent folk English terms for tree-growing species is also tree ear.

4

Based on a 3:1 plant to macrofungi ratio (Hawksworth 1991), with approximately 3,000 vascular plants (Stepp and Moerman 2001) the number of macrofungal species in the highlands could range from 300 to 1,000, and the number of fungi in the region is likely even higher.

References

Adams

R.M.

1961. Changing patterns of territorial organization in the central highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. American Antiquity 26:341–360.

Beltran

G.A.

1973. Regiones de refugio: El desarrollo de la comunidad y el proceso dominical en Mestizoamerica, second edition. Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Avenida Revolucion, Mexico.

Berlin

1992. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.

Berlin

, Breedlove

D.E.

, and Raven

P.H.

. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal plant classification. Academic Press. New York.

Berlin

E.A.

and Berlin

. 1996. Medical ethnobiology of the highland Maya of Chiapas, Mexico: The gastrointestinal diseases. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.

Blanco

J.C.

, Rios

M.V.

, Villarruel-Ordaz

J.L.

, and Galvan

S.S.

. 1997. Diversity of macromycetes in pine-oak forests in the Neovolcanic Axis, Mexico. In Mycology in sustainable development: Expanding concepts, vanishing borders. eds. Palma

M.E.

and Chapela

I.H.

, editors. 112–120.Parkway Publishers, Inc. Boone, NC.

Blanton

R.E.

and Feinman

. 1984. The Mesoamerican world system. American Anthropologist 86:673–682.

Blanton

R.E.

, Kowalewski

S.A.

, Feinman

G.M.

, and Feinstein

L.M.

. 1993. Ancient Mesoamerica: A comparison of change in three regions, second edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Breedlove

D.E.

1981. Part 1: Introduction to the flora of Chiapas. Flora of Chiapas. California Academy of Sciences. San Francisco, CA.

10.

Brown

C.H.

1972. Huastec plant taxonomy. Katunob 8:74–84.

11.

Casagrande

D.G.

2002. Ecology, cognition, and cultural transmission of Tzeltal Maya medicinal plant knowledge. Athens University of Georgia. Ph.D. Dissertation (Anthropology).

12.

Collier

G.A.

Fields of the Tzotzil: The ecological bases of tradition in highland Chiapas. 1975. University of Texas Press. Austin.

13.

Ellen

and Reason

, editors. 1979. Classifications in their social context. Academic Press. New York.

14.

Ellen

1993. The cultural relations of classification: An analysis of Nuaula animal categories from central Seram. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

15.

Elizondo

M.G.

1991. Ethnobotany of the Southern Tepehuan of Durango, Mexico: I. edible mushrooms. Journal of Ethnobiology 11:165–173.

16.

Escalante

1973. Panorama de la etnociencia. XIII Mesa Redonda, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico, 1973 161–178.

17.

Esquivel

A.M.

1998. Ethnomycology of Tlaxcala, Mexico. McIlvainea 13:6–12.

18.

Hunn

E.S.

Tzeltal folk zoology: The classification of discontinuities in nature. 1977. Academic Press. New York.

19.

Hunn

E.S.

, Vasquez

D.A.

, and Avendano

H.L.

. 2000. Where do fungi fit? The fungal domain in Mixtepec Zapotec. Paper presented at the Society of Ethnobiology Annual Meetings, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

20.

Inegi , 2000. Anuario estadistico: Chiapas. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica. Available at: http://www.inegi.gob.mx (verified 30 March 2002).

21.

Kirchhoff

1943. Mesoamérica, sus límites geográficos, composición étnica, y carácteres culturales. Acta Americana 1:92–107.

22.

Kohler

2000. The Maya of Chiapas since 1965. In Supplement to the handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 6. ed. Monaghan

J.D.

, editor. 179–206.University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.

23.

Lampman

A.M.

2004. Tzeltal ethnomycology: Naming, classification and use of mushrooms in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation (Anthropology). University of Georgia. Athens.

24.

Lampman

2007. Ethnomycology: Medicinal and edible mushrooms of the Tzeltal Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms 9:(1)1–5.

25.

Laughlin

R.M.

1969. The Tzotzil. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 7. ed. Vogt

E.Z.

, editor. 152–194.University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.

26.

Laughlin

R.M.

1975. The Great Tzotzil dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantan. Smithsonian Institute. Washington, D.C.

27.

Mapes

, Guzman

, and Cabellero

N J.

. 1981. Elements of the Purpecha mycological classification. Journal of Ethnobiology 1:231–237.

28.

Moreno-Fuentes

and Montoya

. 1999. La ensenanza de la etnomicologia en Mexico. UNAM, Seccion de Micologia. Herbario FCME, Mexico.

29.

Morris

1984. Macrofungi of Malawi. Bulletin of the British M ycological Society 18:48–57.

30.

Perez-Moreno

and Villarreal

. 1988. Los hongos y myxomycetes del estado de Chiapas, Mexico. Estado actual de conocimiento y nuevos registros. Micologia Neotropical Aplicada 1:97–133.

31.

Ramamoorthy

T.O.

, Bye

, Lot

, and Fa

, editors. 1993. Biological diversity of Mexico: Origins and distribution. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

32.

Rzedowski

1993. Diversity and origins of phanerogamic flora of Mexico. In Biological diversity of Mexico: Origins and distribution. eds. Ramamoorthy

T.P.

, Bye

, Lot

, and Fa

, editors. 129–144.Oxford University Press. New York.

33.

Sather

1978. Iban folk mycology. The Sarawak Museum Journal 26:81–102.

34.

Schultes

R.E.

1939. Plantae Mexicanae II: The identification of teonanácatl, a narcotic basidiomycete of the Aztecs. Botanical Leaflets of Harvard University 7:37–54.

35.

Schultes

R.E.

1940. Teonanácatl: The narcotic mushrooms of the Aztecs. American Anthropologist 42:429–443.

36.

Sharer

R.J.

1994. The Ancient Maya, 4th edition. Stanford University Press. Stanford.

37.

Singer

1958. Mycological investigation on teonanácatl, the Mexican hallucinogenic mushroom. Part I. The history of teonanácatl, field work and culture work. Mycologia 50:239–261.

38.

Shepard

Jr and Arora

. 1992. Grace of the flood: The naming and use of mushrooms among the highland Maya of Chiapas. Paper presented at the International Society for Ethnobiology Meetings, Mexico City, Mexico.

39.

Stepp

J.R.

2002. Highland Maya medical ethnobotany in ecological perspective. Ph.D. Dissertation (Anthropology). University of Georgia. Athens.

40.

Stepp

J.R.

and Moerman

. 2001. The importance of weeds in ethnopharmacology. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 75:(1)19–23.

41.

Toledo

1988. La diversidad biologica de Mexico. Ciencia y Desarrollo 181:17–30.

42.

Varela

and Estrada-Torres

. 1997. Diversity and potential use of mycorrhizae for sustainable development in Mexico. In Mycology in sustainable development: Expanding concepts, vanishing borders. eds. Palm

M.E.

and Chapela

I.H.

, editors. 160–182.Parkway Publishers, Inc. Boone, NC.

43.

Villa Rojas

1969. The Tzeltal. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 7. ed. Vogt

E.Z.

, editor. 195–225.University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.

44.

Vogt

E.Z.

1969. Chiapas Highlands. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 7. ed. Vogt

E.Z.

, editor. 133–151.University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.

45.

Wasson

V.P.

and Wasson

R.G.

. 1957. Mushrooms, Russia and history. Pantheon Books. New York.