Where Do Fungi Fit? the Fungal Domain in Mixtepec Zapotec

Abstract

Spanish

We summarize results of two independent ethnobiological field studies in adjacent Zapotec towns in the Sierra de Miahuatlán, Oaxaca, Mexico. San Juan and San Pedro Mixtepec share a common language (with minor lexical variation) and occupy contiguous traditional municipal territories ranging from 1650 m to 3700 m elevation and practice a common subsistence agricultural tradition. In conjunction, our data provide a detailed account of how macro-fungi are classified, named, and used by residents of these two towns. We first consider “where fungi fit” in the local worldview as well as in the broader context of folk systematics, noting their relative neglect in ethnobiological studies to date. We document more than 30 distinct, named folk generic taxa of macro-fungi (known locally as mèy), analyze the nomenclatural patterns characteristic of this life-form, and argue that it is best construed to be “an unaffiliated life-form” rather than an unaffiliated folk generic taxon or a kingdom on a par with that of plants or of animals. We briefly characterize the ecology and phenology of each recognized folk taxon and detail how 25 species are used as food. We note in particular how local harvesters distinguish confusingly similar toxic from edible species. We compare the Mixtepec Zapotec classification and nomenclature with that of two other Mexican Indigenous societies, the Purépecha of Michoacán, and the Tzeltal Maya of Chiapas, noting many similarities but also some intriguing contrasts.

Keywords

ethnomycology folk biological classification traditional environmental knowledge Zapotec edible mushrooms

Introduction

Contemporary mycologists estimate that between 1.5 and 5 million species of fungi exist, though just 5% of this total (ca. 75,000) have been formally named (Blackwell 2011; Hawksworth 2001). By comparison, current estimates of the number of animal and plant species are 1,470,000 (of which more than 1,100,000 are insects) and 300,000–315,000, respectively (Mora et al. 2011; Scheffers et al. 2012). Fungi are now known to be somewhat more closely allied in evolutionary terms with animals than with plants. In very general terms, we may characterize plants as organisms that capture solar energy, while animals are consumers of, and thus parasites of, plants, and fungi recycle organic material. These three kingdoms of living organisms encompass roughly comparable biodiversity and each plays a distinct role in the economy of the biosphere.

Despite this comparable biodiversity, from a “naked-eye” folk scientific perspective plants and animals present far greater apparent diversity than do the fungi. This is due in large part to the fact that the vast majority of fungal species are microscopic or otherwise difficult to perceive as distinct organisms (cf. Hunn 1999). Only “macro-fungi” are obvious candidates for folk biological recognition, the fungi popularly known as “mushrooms” (which are the visible, above-ground reproductive bodies of these fungi).

Macro-fungi are by and large restricted to a single phylum of the fungal kingdom, the Basidiomycota (∼ 31,500 species known), and a single class within that phylum, the Agaricomycetes (∼ 21,000 species known) along with a few Ascomycota (Kirk et al. 2008; Mueller et al. 2007). Thus, we should not expect folk fungal domains to exhibit a degree of diversity comparable to that of the plant and animal kingdoms. Rather, such domains are more readily compared with a plant or animal life-form, as they typically incorporate from ten to 50 folk generic taxa, as opposed to the several hundred such taxa encountered in many folk floral or faunal domains. We argue in favor of treating fungi as a life-form rather than a folk generic or folk kingdom because we believe that solution best represents the cognitive status of fungi in the local folk classification system. This fungal “life-form” is most often considered to be neither plant nor animal, and is thus in such cases “unaffiliated” with either kingdom.

Methods

We combine here the results of two independent ethnographic investigations in two neighboring communities in the Sierra de Miahuatlán of the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca (Figures 1 and 2). Citizens of these two communities speak as their primary first language mutually intelligible dialects of a single Zapotec language, classified as Cisyautepecan by Smith Stark (n.d.). According to local oral histories the two communities separated within the past 500 years, but are today quite distinct socially and politically, though occupying very similar habitats and practicing subsistence economies based in milpa agriculture with limited reliance on hunting and gathering of wild foods, including a considerable variety of mushrooms (Hunn 2008; Venegas Ramírez 2013). According to the 2010 Mexican census (INEGI 2012), San Juan has 711 and San Pedro 1099 residents, approximately 95% of whom speak the local Zapotec as their first language.

Figure 1

Map of Mexico showing the location of the state of Oaxaca.

Figure 2

Detailed map of Oaxaca.

Hunn recorded Zapotec names for mushrooms during his comprehensive ethnobiological studies in San Juan Mixtepec (SJM) initiated in 1996. His research was approved by the town assembly in August of that year. Specimens of local macro-fungi were collected by Hunn and his colleagues, Donato Acuca Vásquez and Marco Antonio Vásquez Dávila, either in the company of local resident guides or after returning to the town from hikes in the surrounding countryside. These specimens have been curated at the Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN) in Mexico City or at the Herbario Etnomicológico “Dr. Teófilo Herrera Suárez” at the Instituto Tecnológico del Valle de Oaxaca (ITVO) in Xoxocotlán, Oaxaca. They were identified by local staff by reference to standard keys, though these determinations should be considered provisional in many cases.

The great majority of the specimens from San Juan were collected during two guided tours of the pine-oak forests above the town center (between 2200 and 2800 m elevation): the first on June 25, 1997 by Hunn and Acuca Vásquez with Pánfilo Santiago Cruz as guide (specimens to IPN); and the second on August 26, 2005 by Hunn and Vásquez Dávila with Lorenzo Mendoza and Maximiliano Sánchez Hernández guiding (specimens to ITVO). In the latter instance we obtained additional commentary from several other residents of the town the next day.

We compared our efforts at transcribing the Zapotec terms with a dictionary published by Reeck (1991), though there may well be errors of transcription in the names reported here. We also enquired as to local understandings of the edibility or toxicity of the various named categories of mushrooms as well as recording certain details with respect to the phenology and habitat preferences of each. Hunn reviewed lists of potential Zapotec mushroom names with elders considered most expert in an attempt to distinguish valid, that is, broadly consensual names, from descriptive phrases or inventions, though a number of names remain of uncertain status and/or applicability. Preliminary results of the San Juan studies were published in Hunn's A Zapotec Natural History (2008, CD annex).

The San Pedro Mixtepec (SPM) data derive from a systematic study by Yuliana Venegas Ramírez and Marco A. Vásquez Dávila for Yuliana's master's thesis at El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico (Venegas Ramírez 2013). They requested and were granted permission for their study by the San Pedro authorities in 2011. They then visited the community twice each month for a week or two each between February and July of that year. They conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 local consultants using visual aids as stimulus material. In these interviews they sought to corroborate their field observations and to elaborate on local understandings with respect to the use and management of mushrooms by residents. They completed 11 “mushroom hunts” with local guides in the countryside surrounding the town center and participated as observers on mushroom collecting forays with local consultants. A sample of local species was collected, photographed, and deposited at ITVO. Scientific determinations were obtained by reference to standard guides and identification keys with the assistance of experts.

Names and comments recorded in one or the other of these two communities are marked SJM or SPM, as appropriate. Otherwise no specific source is indicated.

Results

One striking find of our research is the fact that from the local perspective mushrooms are treated as a kind of “animal” rather than as a kind of plant. This is expressed linguistically in several ways, including the anatomical terminology applied to mushrooms, which shares many terms with the anatomical vocabulary applied to animals and which explicitly labels mushroom parts as “animal” parts (e.g., the mushroom cap is called guìc-mâ , ‘animal's head’). Also, the general term for mushrooms, měy , which is incorporated as the head term of the binomial names for nearly all kinds of mushrooms, shares with the names of most animals what is clearly an animate prefix, m- , derivative of mâ ‘animal’. Furthermore, when a local person sets off to collect mushrooms he or she is said to “hunt animals” ( rguíb mâ ). Local consultants note that the “flesh” of mushrooms tastes more like that of deer, beef, or chicken. This association is widespread throughout indigenous Mesoamerica, as among the Maya (Lampman 2007) and the Aztecs (cf., sacred mushrooms as “the flesh of the gods”). This is in accord with the current received wisdom with respect to the deep evolutionary relationships among plants, animals, and fungi.

In San Pedro, at least, mushrooms are associated with the moon, měě , which also incorporates the Zapotec animate prefix. It is said that when the new moon appears it will rain a lot and thus it is the best time to “hunt mushrooms” (Melitón, SPM). On the other hand, “it is good to cut mushrooms at the full moon as they then sustain and provide more” (Isabel, SPM). It is also considered bad form to point at mushrooms or to hit the ground (“la madre tierra”), as Mother Earth is sacred. Considering the above, mushroom harvesting is properly done with respect (Venegas Ramírez 2013:44).

Though knowledge of local fungi is widely shared within these communities, those who are especially knowledgeable about fungi are distinguished as mé rùn měy ‘he/she who knows [conoce] mushrooms’: A good campesino ( mé ndâan ) not only knows mushrooms but also all the resources of the country when going out to look for them (Romeo, SPM).

Mushroom “flesh” is considered to be “cold,” perhaps in part due to the close association of mushroom fruiting with the rains and humid ground. (The single exception is the parasitic fungus Ustilago maydis, huitlacoche.) Likewise, the meat of forest game animals such as deer, rabbit, and squirrel, is “cold.” This distinction between “hot” and “cold” essences of foods and medicines is at the core of Mesoamerican understandings of health and disease and of fertility more generally. One should avoid eating too many mushrooms during the rainy season for fear of stomach upset (due to the “cold” essence).

Nomenclatural Patterns

Nearly every “kind of” mushroom is named binomially by qualifying the head term měy ‘mushroom’ (e.g., měy-guìin ‘chili mushroom’, měy-yâg ‘wood mushroom’, měy-yù ‘earth mushroom’). Somewhat more than 50 are widely recognized in San Juan and San Pedro Mixtepec. The few exceptions involve metaphoric allusions (e.g., x-chòb-guièt-lí ‘the Virgin's tortilla basket’ for the odd bird's nest fungus [Cyathus spp.] or x-câch-mdzìn ‘deer's antler’ for Xylaria hypoxylon, evocative of its branching growth form).

This might argue in favor of considering these names to be “secondary lexemes” and thus as referring to folk specifics within a single, albeit very large and complex generic taxon. However, as Hunn (1999) has demonstrated elsewhere, Zapotec routinely incorporates the life-form name into the names of folk generic plant taxa (e.g., yàg-guièr ‘pine tree’, guièe-bgùs ‘spindle flower’, the zinnia), which are clearly taxa of generic rank. Thus, there is no compelling reason to treat měy as other than a life form on a par with yâg ‘tree/shrub’ and guièe ‘flower’.

Given that the mushroom life form exhibits a nomenclatural pattern common in the plant domain, and unlike that of the animal domain, why not simply treat měy as a plant life form? The problem is that měy begins with m- , which appears to be a prefixed element, a reduced variant of mâ ‘animal’, a feature shared with a large majority of all animal names (e.g., mguïn ‘bird’, mèel ‘snake’, mèedz ‘wild cats and allies’, and mrè ‘ant’). This interpretation of the initial m- of měy is further supported by the fact that a negative response to the query, “Are there mushrooms here?” (i.e., when there are none) is “ guiènd mâ ” ‘there are no animals’. This is in contrast with the appropriate response to the parallel questions: “Are there flowers here?” “ guiènd-á ” “There are none (inanimate)”; “Are there women here?” “ guiènd mé ” “There are none (persons).” Furthermore, as noted above, the “partonomic” nomenclature for mushrooms employs terms commonly used to describe animal parts, such as ‘head’ and ‘foot’. In response to a direct question as to whether mushrooms are plants or animals consultants most often reply that they are neither. Mushrooms are thus “neither fish nor fowl,” that is, they are unaffiliated with either kingdom, though certainly considered to be living things (e.g., they have guièl-mbán “life” and in SJM some claim also that they “have a heart” [ rquiànié zdòo ], as is said of many plants, such as maize).

A nomenclatural strategy that has been widely noted in many languages is the use of a modifier to indicate that a particular specimen is similar to, but not a perfect example of, a named category. In Mixtepec Zapotec, the term xín- is prefixed to a name to indicate that the thing to be named is “a relative of,” xín-a , some better known category. Examples include, xín-mèy-dùuzh ‘relative of the string-bean mushroom’ for Ramariopsis species of the Clavariaceae, similar to the Ramaria species properly so-called, and xìn-měy-yŭp ‘relative of Amanita caesarea group’ for Amanita flavoconia. Such terms are not true names.

We should note that lichens, molds ( biòo ), and algae ( bèèl-nguiă , metaphorically, ‘green meat’) are excluded from měy . Lichens are classified as kinds of bzhàazh (SJM) or yàazh (SPM) along with green algae, club mosses (Selaginellaceae), and the Bromeliad, Tillandsia usneioides, so-called “Spanish moss” (which is neither Spanish nor a moss but rather a most atypical flowering plant). Mycologists classify lichens with respect to their fungal hosts, which are diverse but most often species of the Ascomycota. Several subcategories of bzhàazh/yàazh are named in the local Zapotec language, typically by substrate (i.e., “rock” or “wood,” or by color, ‘green’ or ‘white’): bzhàazh-nquıĭts ‘white moss’, specifically, Tillandsia usneioides; bzhàazh-nguiă ‘green moss’, algae; bzhàazh-quiè ‘rock moss’, lichens that grow on rock surfaces; and bzhàazh-yâg ‘tree/wood moss’, lichens, mosses, perhaps also including club mosses that grow on wood surfaces.

In San Pedro the crustose lichens are called nàc-guìx , literally ‘it is’ + ‘bush’ (Reeck 1991), glossed as ‘scab’, with ‘rock scab’ and ‘wood scab’ distinguished: nàc-guìx-quiè ‘rock scab’; and nàc-guìx-yâg ‘tree/wood scab’.

We prefer to treat bzhàazh/yàazh and nàc-guìx as unaffiliated (with respect to life-form and kingdom), polytypic folk generic taxa. Various bzhàazh/yàazh are valued for decoration and may be sold in Oaxaca City, particularly at the Christmas season (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Sales of decorative bzhàazh in Oaxaca at Christmas (photo by E. Hunn).

An Inventory of Mixtepec Zapotec Macro-Fungi

We have 124 collections of fungi from San Juan Mixtepec. These represent at least 71 species of 40 genera in 25 families. Determinations are listed in Supplementary Appendix A (http://www.bioone.org/loi/etbi). We also have descriptions of three additional species known to occur in the town. This compilation falls far short of a comprehensive local mycological survey. However, we have collected examples of most of the categories used as food, medicine, or material.

Venegas Ramírez and Vásquez Dávila collected specimens which represent at least 55 species plus two subspecies, of 36 genera of 22 families. Ten species are of the phylum Ascomycota (including several lichens) and 45 are of the Basidiomycota.

Combined, we have records of at least 105 species and subspecies of 65 genera in 40 families from these two adjacent municipios. However, only 15 species are common to both communities in our samples. This suggests either that there are many more species to be found or that the habitats sampled or the collection strategies in each study were quite different. A third possible explanation is that the determinations are faulty and that specimens assigned to different species from the two sets of collections may prove to be the same. We are inclined to favor the first option. Though our two samples are hardly random, the problem is similar to the “capture-recapture” problem in biological sampling (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_and_recapture). If Hunn's sample “capture” from the local population of fungal species is considered the first sample and that of Venegas Ramírez the second, we may crudely estimate that both samples could have been drawn from a common population of somewhat over 250 species. This results from calculating the number of species “captured” or “marked” by Hunn (n = 71) divided by the proportion of species “recaptured” by Venegas Ramírez, 15/55, or 0.27, 71/0.27 equals 263, the most likely population size from which the two samples were drawn. This is not unreasonable. Despite this uncertainty, we believe our ethnomycological analysis is robust, as the best known species exhibit substantial agreement between the two communities. Of the 31 folk generic taxa we recognize here, 20 (65%) are common to both communities, though these folk taxa are not precisely equivalent in the species included nor the names applied.

The prototypical mushroom or měy emerges from soil or wood after the first solid rains of summer. They are usually white, gray, or brown, though sometimes red or even rarely blue or green. When fully formed they show a roundish cap ( guìc-mâ ‘head of the animal’) on a stalk ( nì-mâ ‘leg of the animal’) which may be supported by a foot ( lù-mâ ‘boot of the animal’ or x-pât-měy ‘foot of the mushroom’) and decorated with a ring ( laan mâ ‘pants of the animal’), a remnant of the veil ruptured by the expanding cap. Beneath the cap ( lén-mâ ‘belly of the animal’) are the gills ( lsì ‘lines’). Mushrooms produce spores ( diè ‘dust’) rather than seeds. Note that this anatomical terminology is modeled closely on that for animals rather than for plants and applies to many though not all local mushrooms.

Of course, not all “mushrooms” are typical, just as not all plants or animals are typical. In fact, the outer boundary of the category měy is not entirely clear-cut, as with respect to algae, and the relatively amorphous jelly fungi, known as běEl-nguiă ‘green meat’ and běEl-gùts ‘yellow meat’ (e.g., Dacryopinax spathularia) respectively. Also on the margins is the coal fungus, Daldinia concentrica, an Ascomycete, named ngùd-yâg ‘tree ball’.

Edible Mushrooms

First we list the 24 edible species, many of which are among the most widely recognized mushrooms. Our first two citations are for species considered particularly satisfying, “vanquishing hunger” (SPM), měy-guièr and měy-guìin .

1). Měy-guièr or měy-yàg-guièr ‘pine (tree) mushroom’ is best known in San Pedro Mixtepec. Two closely allied species are carefully distinguished, each associated with a different species of pine, differing as well in palatability. 1a) Neolentinus ponderosus is associated with Mexican white pine (Pinus ayacahuite), while 1b) N. lepideus occurs with “yellow pine,” which is most likely Oaxaca pine (P. pseudostrobus var. oaxacana) and/or Douglas pine (P. douglasiana):

We find pine mushrooms held tightly to the roots or trunk of old, rotten pines, others on trunks at river shores where it is humid (Roberto, SPM). There are two classes of pine mushrooms, one that grows on the white pine and the other on yellow pine, the mushrooms of the white pine are more tasty than that of the yellow (pine) (SPM).

There are two pine mushrooms, the yellow…is hard like cedar and tastes bitter…the other that comes out of the white pine, this is very tasty and smells of walnut (Samuel, SPM).

Pine mushrooms are exceptional in fruiting during the late dry season, in April and May, when the first thunder is heard forecasting the first rains. Note that this is not what is better known in English as “pine mushroom,” which is the matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare). That species is scarce in our area and known rather as měy-mdzìn ‘deer mushroom’ (SJM), měy-yù ‘earth mushroom’ (SPM), or měy-nquıĭts ‘white mushroom’ (SPM).

2) Měy-guìin ‘chile pepper mushroom’, Hypomyces lactifluorum, the lobster mushroom (Figure 4). This species is parasitic on Lactarius and Russula species. The name may refer to the color of “shell” produced by the parasite, which resembles that of a lobster, or perhaps the spicy taste when the host is a species of the Lactarius piperatus group (see http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/aug2001.html). There is a great variety of means of preparation. This fungus may be roasted, fried, breaded, served in stews, soups, or in amarillo, a yellow mole sauce (SJM, SPM).

Figure 4

měy–guìin [2], Hypomyces lactifluorum (photo by E. Hunn).

A number of other mushrooms are widely known and eagerly sought as food:

3) Měy-yùp is glossed by San Pedro consultants as “hongo de casita,” “mushroom of the little house,” which we are unable to further analyze, or “nanacate,” Mexican Spanish derivative of the Aztec language, for the most prized edible mushrooms. It is a favorite roasted, then served with yellow mole sauce (“amarillo”) or breaded (“empanada”). This is one of several species (A. basii, A. hayalyuy, A. jacksonii, A. laurae, A. yema) of the Amanita caesarea group, characterized by smooth red caps (Figures 5 and 6). It is carefully distinguished from the several poisonous species of this genus, as noted below.

Figure 5

meĭy–yùp [3], Amanita caesarea group (photo by E. Hunn).

Figure 6

meĭy–yùp [3], Veronica Santiago Cruz with Amanita caesarea group (photo by E. Hunn).

4) Měy-guièdz describes the distinctive “pimples” or “warts” that decorate the caps of Amanita muscaria, the fly agaric (Figure 7), and A. pantherina. Both are well known for their dangerous toxic properties:

Figure 7

měy–guièdz [4]< měy–ncuàan, Amanita muscaria (photo by E. Hunn).

The měy-guièdz are brothers of the měy-yùp , only that one is good and the others are bad…Because měy-yùp grows where also appears the poisonous one with little flowers or drawings on its hat (Amanita muscaria), they are mixed up and they don't realize it…Thus many people confuse them and partake of the bad ones and he or his family dies…The one we eat is smooth, with yellow foot ( ni mâ ) and cap; the toxic one wears pants and the ni mâ is white. They are more confusing because there are three kinds of měy-yùp and měy-guièdz : with yellow, red, or white caps. But the white one has a white foot (Francisca, SPM).

Amanita muscaria and A. pantherina are classified in the special purpose intermediate taxon, měy-ncuàan ‘toxic mushroom’, but are known more specifically as měy-guièdz ‘pimple mushroom’, referring to the white wart-like spots and veil remnants that cover the red cap. Many other species are classed as měy-ncuàan . These may or may not be more specifically distinguished, as will be noted below.

We cannot state for certain yet exactly which species of this genus are eaten and which avoided, but as mushroom poisoning is said to be rare in the village, it seems reasonable to assume that they are conservative and accurate in their judgments. However:

People get confused and collect both…Those that have white warts ( guièdz nquıĭts ) (on the cap) may be washed by the rain and these warts fall off, which brings more confusion during the rainy season (Samuel, SPM).

5) Měy-guièt-xtîl ‘bread mushroom’, literally, ‘Castillian tortilla’ (SJM), Boletus edulis and/or B. pinicola, boletes (Figure 8). In San Pedro it is known as měy-pân ‘bread mushroom from the Spanish word for bread, pan’ or měy-dàc-nìzhniê , red lamb's quarters mushroom. This synonym shows that local mushroom experts recognize the phylogenetic relationship between Boletus edulis and Suillus luteus, known as měy-dàc ‘lamb's quarters mushroom’ (see below). These large boletes are considered choice, cooked by roasting. Local consultants distinguish edible and poisonous species of the genus Boletus, the former are ‘bread mushrooms,’ the others are included in the broad category měy-ncuàan ‘poison mushroom’. They note that though very similar they may be distinguished by examining the color of the flesh beneath the skin of the cap. If the flesh turns green when cut it is judged to be poisonous.

Figure 8

měy–guièt–xtîl [SJM] [5], Pánfilo Santiago Cruz with Boletus aff. pinicola (photo by E. Hunn).

6) Měy-lân is glossed by San Pedro consultants as “hongo tiznado” ‘soot mushroom’. The name refers to the color of scales on the pileus (cap) as well as the color of the spores. Included here are two species, Agaricus silvaticus (Figure 9) and A. campestris. These are close relatives of the common cultivated commercial mushroom (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agaricus). Local consultants distinguish edible and poisonous varieties of měy-lân, Agaricus spp., by noting the color of the gills, blackish for the edible forms, pink for the poisonous ones. The edible species are roasted (SPM).

Figure 9

měy–lân [SJM] [6], Agaricus sylvaticus (photo by E. Hunn).

7) Měy-lúdz-mdzìn ‘deer's tongue mushroom’ (SPM), also known as měy-gûzh ‘needle mushroom’ (SPM), měy-diàg-bîch ‘cat's ear mushroom’ (SJM), or měy-còlìflôr ‘cauliflower mushroom’ (SJM), Hydnum repandum and H. rufescens. This species is related to the chanterelles (cf. měy-bè ) but is distinguished by the needle- or hair-like processes beneath the cap, so that it resembles the inside of a cat's ear, hence that name. San Pedro cooks prepare this in amarillo sauce.

8a) Měy-guiêl ‘maize/milpa mushroom’, Ustilago maydis, huitlacoche, is considered a delicacy of Mexican high cuisine, though sometimes considered a crop pest, as it infects maize ears. In San Pedro it is prepared in two special dishes, agua de pastor and chirmole, a roasted tomato salsa. San Pedro mushroom experts distinguish 8b) měy-guiêl-dò ‘maize tassel mushroom’ from the more usual case where the fungus infects the young ear. Rarely kernels will develop in the tassel which may be infected by this same fungus.

9) Měy-mdzìn ‘deer mushroom’ (SJM), known in San Pedro as měy-yù ‘earth mushroom’ or měy-nquıĭts ‘white mushroom’, Tricholoma magnivelare, the local species of matsutake. Served in amarillo sauce. Apparently uncommon in this area. Note that the term ‘earth mushroom’ is applied to quite a different species in San Juan (see below).

10) Měy-yù ‘earth mushroom’ (SJM), Polyporus tuberaster. Eaten in tamales. Most species of the Polyporales are rather woody, included in the general Zapotec category měy-yâg ‘tree/wood mushroom’. This species is apparently edible when young.

11) Měy-dàc ‘lamb's quarters mushroom’ (SPM), named for a perceived association with Chenopodium album of the Chenopodiaceae; Suillus luteus, reported as edible in SPM. Prepared by roasting. In San Juan we recorded only měy-nrùdz ‘slippery mushroom’ as a general term for this genus, where they are associated with various species of coniferous trees. They are considered to be edible, though not choice. Suillus is related to Boletus, which is reflected in the Zapotec synonym for Boletus edulis, ( = 5) měy-dàc-nìzhniê , ‘red lamb's quarters mushroom’. Another species of the Boletaceae, Xerocomus sp., is likewise associated nomenclaturally, as (12) měy-dàc-làs ‘small/slender lamb's quarters mushroom’ (SPM). It is eaten roasted in San Pedro.

13) Měy-bè ‘oxalis mushroom’, Cantharellus cinnabarinus, chanterelles, named for a resemblance to the red, bell-shaped flowers of certain Oxalis species ( guièe-bè ). In San Pedro it is prepared in amarillo sauce or roasted. A second species of Cantharellus, C. cibarius, is said to be edible by San Pedro consultants (Figure 10). It is known as měy-gùts ‘yellow mushroom’ or as měy-còràlît ‘little coral mushroom’, descriptive terms applied to a variety of yellowish mushrooms. Both species of Cantharellus are found in association with manzanitas (yâg-blàa, Arctostaphylos pungens of the Ericaceae).

Figure 10

měy–gùts = còràlît [SPM] [13], Cantharellus cibarius (photo by E. Hunn).

14) Měy-dùuzh or měy-còrâl ‘string-bean mushroom’ or ‘coral mushroom’, Ramaria botrytis and R. flava. Roasted (SPM). The edible species is white. Some species of Ramaria are poisonous, such as R. formosa. Others are not palatable, such as R. cf. stricta. These and Ramariopsis species of the Clavariaceae may be distinguished as xín-měy-dùuzh ‘relative of string-bean mushroom’ (SJM).

A few edible species are less widely recognized:

15) Měy-diâg ‘ear mushroom’, Auricularia auricula-judae, jelly-ear fungus. Roasted (SPM). Not specifically named in San Juan.

16) Měy-nîz ‘maize cob mushroom’, or just nîz ‘mazorca’, Morchella esculenta, morel. Eaten in soup (SPM). This species was not recorded in San Juan.

17) Měy-gù ‘potato mushroom’, Scleroderma sp., is reported as edible only in SPM. These are more often used medicinally, the spores applied to stanch wounds, as is widely reported for the superficially similar puffballs (Lycoperdon spp.). It is eaten raw, as is Montagnea arenaria (Agaricaceae), for which we have no Zapotec name.

We have mentioned above how poisonous look-alike species are distinguished. These are classified as měy-ncuàan ‘toxic mushroom’, an intermediate taxon that includes diverse species, such as certain white- and red-capped Amanita species (A. muscaria, A. pantherina) and toxic species of the Agaricaceae, including Chlorophyllum molybdites, and Boletaceae. Some, such as Amanita muscaria, měy-guièdz ‘boil/hives mushroom’, have their own names; others are just known as měy-ncuàan , though these may be further distinguished by color (e.g., měy-ncuàan-mòrâd ‘purple toxic mushrooom’, applied to a Russula) though such specifications are likely nonce forms.

Other Useful Species

A few species have medicinal applications. Best known are the puffballs (Lycoperdon marginatum, L. perlatum, L. umbrinum; Figure 11), the spores of which are applied to wounds both as an antiseptic and to stop bleeding and promote healing. These are known by a welter of synonyms.

Figure 11

měy–x–quìdiè [SJM] = dzìt–mtoĭ [SPM] [18], Lycoperdon perlatum (photo by E. Hunn).

18) Měy-x-quìdiè ‘ash mushroom’ and měy-gòx ‘smoke mushroom’ describe the cloud of spores that is expelled when the skin of the puffball is ruptured. Měy-dòop ‘fart mushroom’, měy-x-tòop-duênd ‘elf's fart mushroom’, and měy- duênd ‘elf mushroom’ indicate again the explosion of spores and suggest an association with forest spirits. Less picturesque are descriptive terms such as měy-càfê ‘coffee mushroom’, for the color of the spores, měy-guièts ‘spiny mushroom’, for the prickly surface of several species, měy-ló-rîd ‘mushroom for wounds’, from the Spanish herida “wound.” Dzìt-mto˘ ‘quail's egg’ alludes to the way puffballs hide beneath a layer of pine needles on the forest floor.

Finally, a related species, Astraeus hygrometricus, an earth star, may be distinguished: 19) měy-x-quièe-duênd ‘elf's flower mushroom’ (SPM). It is used in the same way as the puffballs.

One species is used as a colorant for dying wool, which is then used for weavings on the back-strap loom: 20) Měy-rguì ‘dye mushroom’ or měy-tînt , from Spanish tinte, Lactarius indigo, a milkcap mushroom. When cut, the stalk exudes a bright blue milk, which turns green on exposure to air. Other species of Lactarius are recognized only as měy ‘mushroom’.

Several species are notable as indicators of the weather or of ecological associations. The general association of fungi with rain is, of course, well known. More specifically, it is said that měy-lân Agaricus campestris appears one week after the first rains (SPM). The unusual bird's-nest fungi, Cyathus berkeleyanus, C. olla, and C. striatus, known as (21) x-chòb-guièt-lí ‘the Virgin's tortilla basket’ or x-chòb-zhí-ndıĭin ‘little frog's tortilla basket’ (Figure 12), consists of a tiny cup holding what appear to be miniscule eggs, which explode in a cloud of spores when hit by a rain drop. Local mushroom experts assert that if these “nests” hold a larger number of “eggs,” there will be abundant rain and a good crop:

Figure 12

x–chòb–guièt–lí = x–chòb–zhí–ndıĭin [21], Cyathus cf. striatus (photo by E. Hunn).

Ndĭn refers to things like little frogs [the “eggs”] that jump when it rains. They are the color of coffee…when full of “seeds” it is a signal that there will be a good harvest and the tortilla basket will be full (Lucila, SPM).

The subtle distinction made in San Pedro between two very similar species of Neolentinus that are associates of different species of pine has been noted. We have also noted the association recognized between chanterelles and manzanitas (Arctostaphylos pungens) and the explicit association of Ustilago maydis with either the maize ear ( měy-guiêl ) or tassel ( měy-guiêl-dò ). San Pedro consultants note that the morel is found only in the coldest locations with temperatures near freezing.

Other species not otherwise recognized may be named by reference to a characteristic host tree. It is not always clear if these terms are established names for recognized types of mushrooms or simply descriptions of where they were found (e.g., měy-yâg-lbìis for the oak, Quercus laurina; měy-yâg-zhòg-xìid for the oak, Quercus castanea; měy-yâg-zhòg [Laccaria laccata] for another oak, Quercus crassifolia; měy-yâg-guiăl ‘alder mushroom’).

Other species are named for their characteristic substrate. (22) Měy-x-quiè-bûrr ‘donkey's dung mushroom’ is found on donkey or cattle dung. The shaggy ink-cap, Coprinus comatus, is one so-named, as is Psilocybe sp. and Stropharia aff. semiglobata. Some consultants have listed in addition (23) měy-x-quiè-měcw-xıĭil ‘sheep's dung mushroom’ and (24) měy-x-quiè-mdzı`n ‘deer's dung mushroom’. This last association is with a native ungulate and thus suggests a certain antiquity to the recognition of these associations.

25) Měy-yàg ‘wood mushroom’, names a broad category of mushrooms that grow on dead or rotten wood, focused on the Polyporales sensu lato, including collections of Byssoporia terrestris, Fomitopsis pinicola, Ganoderma sp., Gloeophyllum mexicanum, Stereum ostrea, Trametes hirsuta, Trichaptum abietinum, and T. biforme (Figure 13). Several of these species are considered decorative (e.g., Humphreya coffeata). Měy-yàg could be considered an intermediate taxon, as some consultants include apparent folk generics within it (cf. Lampman's analysis of the Tzeltal Mayan case [2004, 2007]). Trametes versicolor is further specified in San Pedro as (26) měy-nàd ‘hard mushroom’ or měy-x-còts-mèr ‘turkey's tail (or ray, as of the sun) mushroom’ (Figure 14), for the pattern of concentric rings of this fan-shaped fungus.

Figure 13

měy–yàg [25], Polyporales grouping (photo by E. Hunn).

Figure 14

měy–nàd = měy–x–còts–mèr [26], Trametes versicolor (photo by E. Hunn).

The majority of the folk taxa described above correspond to a single scientific species or to a small number of scientific species of a single genus. Exceptions to this generalization are měy-x-quìdiè and měy-yàg , which include a number of species of several genera or families, though the Western scientific taxa so named correspond roughly to “natural,” that is, phylogenetic, groupings. Měy-ncuàan is a “special purpose” category and thus, predictably, includes a wider diversity of fungi.

There remains a large “residuum” of small and/or insignificant species that are not consistently distinguished except by reference to some superficial characteristics. For example, there are eight kinds of mushrooms named for a prominent color, typically of the cap ( guìc měy ‘mushroom head’): měy-azûl ‘blue mushroom’; měy-còràlît ‘little coral mushroom’; měy-còyûch or měy-càfê ‘brown mushroom’; měy-gùts ‘yellow mushroom’; měy-mòrâd ‘purple mushroom’; měy-ngăs ‘black mushroom’; and měy-nquıĭts ‘white mushroom’. Some of these terms may be valid names such as, 27) měy-nguiă ‘green mushroom’, Hygrocybe psittacina, a distinctive green mushroom, and 28) měy-rôs ‘rose-colored mushroom’ for a species of Russula (Figure 15; SPM). Others are cited as synonyms of well-established taxa (e.g., měy-nquıĭts ‘white mushroom’ for Tricholoma multivelare, also known as měy-mdzìn ‘deer mushroom’ or měy-yù ‘earth mushroom’). There are also several terms descriptive of size or shape such as, 29) měy-làs ‘small/slender mushroom’ and 30) měy-nî-nôol ‘long-foot mushroom’ (SJM). 31) Měy-msì ‘hawk mushroom’ is perhaps better glossed ‘barred/striped mushroom’, for an unidentified Amanita species (SPM). It is not clear on the basis of present evidence if some or all of these are valid names. These terms have “descriptive force” (Hunn 1996) but may or may not be applied consistently to name distinctive categories of mushrooms. They may be on-the-spot inventions offered to satisfy the ethnographers’ curiosity. However, if valid, they label categories that are psychologically subgeneric. They might thus be considered “unaffiliated folk varieties” immediately included in the life form.

Figure 15

měy–rôs [SPM] [28], or just < měy , Russula emetic (photo by E. Hunn).

Discussion

Mixtepec Zapotec Mushroom Classification and Berlin's Taxonomic Framework

The standard analytic framework for ethnobiological classification presumes that living things are classified into one of two “kingdoms” (i.e., the floral and faunal domains each of which incorporates a hierarchical taxonomic structure). Berlin (1992) defines three to five “universal taxonomic ranks” within each of these domains. The folk generic rank is the heart of each domain, including in the neighborhood of 500 folk generic taxa, which represent the most perceptually salient “natural” kinds within the experience of the local community. Moving down through the hierarchy, one may find polytypic folk generic taxa subdivided by specific (and perhaps varietal) taxa. Moving upwards one finds that the majority of folk generic taxa are subsumed by a few life-form (and perhaps intermediate) taxa. The kingdom is often left unnamed.

An unintended consequence of this emphasis on these two major domains of living organisms is the neglect of living things that are neither animal nor vegetable, notably fungi, considered by academic scientists to constitute a third major domain of life, but, as noted above, one less conspicuously variable to the naked eye. One might say that these fungi “have fallen through the cracks” in the Berlinian taxonomic scheme. With a few exceptions, systematic ethnomycological studies are few and far between (but cf. Lampman 2004, 2007; Mapes et al. 1981; Montoya Esquivel 1998; Morris 1984).

To adequately deal with how the fungal domain is classified and named in these Zapotec communities requires some novel adjustments to the universalist perceptual/taxonomic scheme proposed by Brent Berlin (Berlin 1992), while retaining many aspects of the taxonomic and nomenclatural regularities recognized by Berlin, in particular, his characterization of obligatory folk taxonomic ranks and the cognitive and linguistic patterns associated with those taxonomic ranks (Berlin 1992).

Actual folk taxonomies exhibit a number of “irregularities” that require some theoretical refinements of this basic scheme. For example, it has long been recognized that some folk generics will be “unaffiliated” with any life form. These unaffiliated generics are directly included in the “unique beginner,” the kingdom plant or animal. This is attributed to either the perceptual aberrancy of the unaffiliated taxon or some extraordinary cultural significance of the taxon, such as might be associated with domestication (Berlin 1992). Motivated by peculiarities of a Zapotec ethnobiological classification system, Hunn has suggested that we need to recognize that folk specific and even varietal taxa may be unaffiliated at one or more superordinate ranks (e.g., a folk specific that is directly included in a life form or a varietal directly included in a folk genus or life form; Hunn 1999). These “holes in the taxonomic fabric,” we suggest, indicate that Berlin's formal taxonomic structure does not adequately capture the psychological reality of folk biological classification (cf. Hunn 1977, 1982).

The present analysis of a Zapotec classification of fungi motivates an extension of unaffiliated status to life forms with respect to the kingdom rank. The Mixtepec Zapotec category měy ‘mushroom’ could be analyzed in three ways: 1) as an exceptionally large, heterogeneous folk generic taxon; 2) as a small life form; or 3) as a third kingdom, on a par with the plant and animals kingdoms. The first two options raise the issue of where the generic or life-form fits, whether within the plant or animal domain or somehow “unaffiliated” with either. Lampman (2007) has argued in favor of the third option in his detailed analysis of Tzeltal Mayan ethnomycological classification. We are not convinced that is the optimal analytic solution and we will argue below in favor of option two and in the process will argue in favor of recognizing that life-forms may also be “unaffiliated,” that is, the Zapotec fungal life-form is affiliated with neither the plant nor the animal kingdoms. If the Berlinian analytical framework were simply an arbitrary, if convenient set of terminological distinctions, it would not matter a great deal how we treat the fungal domain. However, we believe that this framework should offer a theoretical analysis of the conceptual basis for ethnobiological classification. As such it is essential that the terminological distinctions be applied as consistently as possible with respect to the psychological basis for such folk classifications. We believe our interpretation of the fungal domain as conceptually a life-form best represents the cognitive process involved in this folk classification.

Comparisons with the Ethnomycology of the Purépecha of Michoacán

Mapes et al. (1981) summarize the classification and nomenclature of the Purépecha (also known as Tarascan) indigenous communities of the Lake Pátzcuaro Basin of Michoacán State in west central Mexico. They treat mushroom classification as “an aspect of ethnobotany which is little studied” (Mapes et al. 1981:231), though they note that “the Purépecha consider mushrooms as something apart from plants and animals” (Mapes et al. 1981:232). They apply a single unanalyzable term to name all mushrooms, terekua (singular), terekuicha (plural), which may be abbreviated in binomial compounds as tereko or teko (Mapes et al. 1981:232); for example, pantereko, literally ‘bread mushroom’ (< Spanish pan + tereko ‘mushroom’), applied to various species of the Boletales.

They treat the mushroom domain as a kingdom, though they note that it is anomalous in comparison with the plant and animal kingdoms in being named with a “single term,” which they note is not unique to the Purépecha. We might note also that the Purépecha mushroom category is also quite unlike the plant or animal kingdoms of most well-documented ethnobiological classification systems in the small number of included folk generic categories just 11 according to Mapes et al. (1981:236, though 12 are listed in their Figure 1 [Mapes et al. 1981:235]), all of which may be named with binomials incorporating the general term for mushroom as the head element, though these names may also be abbreviated.

They report that local consultants group these 11 folk generic taxa into three higher-order categories: 1) gilled mushrooms; 2) pore mushrooms; and 3) a residual category of mushrooms with neither gills nor pores (Mapes et al. 1981:233). They consider these to be “life-forms” within the mushroom “kingdom.” Given that these three broad categories are not named, they would appear to us to be more appropriately analyzed as “intermediate” taxa within an unaffiliated mushroom “life-form,” an analytic strategy we have suggested above.

The Purépecha folk generic taxa correspond rather closely with phylogenetic groupings recognized by academic mycologists, though there are exceptions. The following are examples that, in some cases, are quite similar to Mixtepec Zapotec categories. Tepajkua terekua ‘meadow mushroom’ includes edible and toxic species of the genus Agaricus, cf. Zapotec měy-lân ‘soot mushroom’. Tiripiti terekua includes edible and toxic species of Amanita. The “good” tiripiti is equivalent to Zapotec měy-yùp . Note that Purépecha does not distinguish a special purpose toxic mushroom category, such as Mixtepec Zapotec měy-ncuàan , which is included as “bad” tiripiti by the Purépecha. Pantereko refers to several species of Boletus including B. ferrugineus, plus Suillus species, all of the order Boletales. The Purépecha name is equivalent to the San Juan Zapotec designation for edible boletes, měy-guièt-xtîl . Furthermore, the close relationship among these genera is recognized in the San Pedro Mixtepec term měy-dàc (Suillus), with the allied categories měy-dàc-làs ‘slender měy-dàc ’ (Xerocomus) and měy-dàc-nìzhniê ‘red měy-dàc ’ (Boletus). Tataras terekua is a category focused on the puffballs of the genus Lycoperdon (cf. Mixtepec Zapotec měy-x-quìdiè ), which are considered to be the “genuine” examples, but tataras includes two species of different genera, Vascellus and Arachnion, named burkuatsita, and a Calvatia cyathiformes, called patarata. All are edible when young and used medicinally. All were classified in the now obsolete family Lycoperdaceae (this complex of species might best be treated as a named intermediate inclusive of three folk generics, which would increase the Purépecha folk generic total to 14). Tamanda terekua is the most diverse Purépecha folk generic, characterized as fungi that grow on tree trunks and rocks. It is focused on the slime mold Fuligo septica, which is not a fungus but a colony of amoebae. It is considered edible (though recognized as a mushroom in Zapotec, it is not otherwise noted). Also included in tamanda are shelf fungi of the Polyporaceae family, including the anomalous “gilled polypore” Lenzites betulina, jelly fungi such as Tremella mesenterica, as well as lichens, which may be distinguished as t'sakapu ts'ipata ‘rock flowers’ or as anatapu ts'ipata ‘tree/wood flowers’. These are called ‘rock scab’ and ‘tree/wood scab’ in San Pedro Mixtepec.

Jelly fungi and lichens are separated from mushrooms in Mixtepec Zapotec. Note also that the “corn smut” fungus parasitic on maize, Ustilago maydis is not considered a mushroom by Purépecha consultants, but rather a part of the maize ear. However, the Spanish term, hongo de milpa is known and the fungus is considered edible and marketed in Pátzcuaro. Thus, the outer limits of the Purépecha mushroom “life-form” differ slightly from that of the Mixtepec Zapotec.

Polytypic Purépecha folk generic taxa frequently take the form of a “good” example of the category (typically edible) and one or more “bad” examples, which are toxic or at least considered inedible. Such bad examples may sometimes be distinguished at the folk specific level or referred to as “relatives of” the good example (e.g., the “good” tepajkua terekua, literally ‘meadow mushroom’, is the edible Agaricus campestris, while the “bad one,” the toxic Agaricus xanthodermus is “a relative of the [meadow] mushroom”). A third option is to distinguish “good” and “bad” examples without nomenclatural distinction (e.g., the “good” tiripiti terekua are mushrooms of the Amanita caesarea group, which are widely regarded as edible and choice, while the “bad” tiripiti include Amanita gemmata and A. muscaria, the last the notorious fly agaric [Mapes et al. 1981:233-34], set apart as měy-guièdz [“brothers of the měy-yùp ”] in Mixtepec Zapotec).

Berlin described this core-periphery classificatory scheme for Tzeltal ethnobotany and it is replicated in ethnobiological classifications schemes of many languages from around the world (Berlin 1992).

Comparisons with the Ethnomycology of the Tzeltal Maya of Chiapas, Mexico

Lampman (2004, 2007) provides a comprehensive analysis of mushroom classification, management, and use in “cold country” hamlets of the Tzeltal Mayan communities of Tenejapa and Oxchuc in the Central Highlands of Chiapas. As a student of Brent Berlin his analysis is informed by Berlin's theoretical approach, as we have noted above, with certain caveats of our own.

Lampman describes a basic dichotomy in the Tzeltal mushroom classification, between chejchew in the restricted sense of “mushrooms of the earth” with chikin te’ ‘tree/wood ear’ (Lampman labels these as “life-forms” though they could as well be construed to be named intermediates within a mushroom life-form). In Mixtepec Zapotec we have měy-yàg ‘wood mushroom’, which includes many of the species considered to be chikin te’ by the Tzeltal but lacks the consistent internal nomenclatural differentiation of the Tzeltal category.

Tzeltal also makes extensive use of a head term lu’ literally, ‘genitalia’, to characterize a number of useless or toxic mushroom species. Lampman treats this as a “special purpose” or functional category. In that respect it is quite like Mixtepec Zapotec měy-ncuàan ‘toxic mushroom’, though broader in its extension. Though both categories lack well defined internal differentiation, the Tzeltal term lu’ is incorporated into 19 generic mushroom names.

One fundamental conclusion of Lampman's analysis clarifies a long-standing controversy in the ethnobiological literature, that of the contrast between “intellectualist” and “utilitarian” explanations for observed regularities in ethnobiological classification systems around the world (Berlin 1992:3-5). Berlin (1992:7) has vigorously defended an intellectualist position, credited initially to Levi-Strauss, criticizing the utilitarian bias ascribed to Malinowski. Lampman characterizes the “Tzeltal ethnomycological classification (as focused) on natural patterns of similarity and dissimilarity (Lampman 2004:329),” in accord with the intellectualist claim, but he continues:

Classification through recognition of natural patterns is not enough, however, to fully explain how the Tzeltal categorize and label the macro-fungi in their local environment. The Tzeltal clearly place importance on the cultural utility of macrofungi (Lampman 2004:329).

He notes that:

Of the 72 species collected for this dissertation, approximately 40 received consistent Tzeltal linguistic designations that were widely known throughout the highlands. At least 75% of these linguistically recognized species were considered edible, medicinal or otherwise considered useful…the remaining 25% of linguistically recognized species are abundant in the landscape, large or otherwise morphologically salient, or highly toxic…In the majority of cases, culturally useless species received no name at all…unknown mushrooms are lumped together into a large group that is generally labeled lu’ , which can be glossed as ‘genitalia’ (Lampman 2004:327-28).

We find a very similar situation with respect to Mixtepec Zapotec ethnomycological classification and nomenclature. Local residents clearly recognize that consistent morphological and ecological contrasts characterize the fundamental units that they name and classify as kinds of měy and subtle distinctions between closely allied species may be recognized and named. However, given the very large number of species of macro-fungi presumed to occur locally, some selective criteria must be applied to reduce the number of distinctions recognized to something more manageable. Clearly, the primary criterion for selecting which species to recognize and name is cultural utility. The most consistently recognized and named mushrooms are those prized most highly as food or medicine. The relatively few species of mushrooms of no obvious utility which are named are notably “odd,” such as the bird's-nest fungus, or grouped in broadly inclusive categories based on toxicity ( měy-ncuàan ) or substrate ( měy-yàg ), characterized as “relatives of” ( xín-à ) some better known (and more useful) species, or given inconsistent descriptive invented “names.” This is precisely what Lampman found among the Tzeltal Maya communities.

As Hunn (1982, 1999) has argued, the great majority of basic folk biological taxa (i.e., folk generics and many folk specifics, following Berlin [1992]), are motivated by the phenotypic distinctiveness of the organisms classified, that is, by “natural discontinuities.” However, the selection of which “natural discontinuities” to recognize and name is driven more by cultural utility. Thus, exclusive emphasis on either “intellectual” or “utilitarian” factors will fail to capture the complex reality. We note also that the “good” examples of most Purépecha folk generic mushroom taxa are edible.

As is the case for Mixtepec Zapotec and Purépecha, mushrooms are considered to be living things apart from plants and animals (Berlin 1992:15). Tzeltal distinguishes several verb stems which we would translate as “to eat,” depending on the texture or taste of what is eaten. One such verb stem is ti’ ‘to eat meat’. That term is used also for eating mushrooms, but not beans or tortillas, for example. However, though they are said to “taste and feel like the meat of animals,” they are “rooted in the earth like plants” (Berlin 1992:15).

As in our two comparison cases, Tzeltal Maya apply a single “unanalyzable primary lexeme” to name the mushroom domain, chejchew (singular; chejchew-etik , plural). This term is polysemous in that it may be used in a more restricted sense to name mushrooms that grow in the earth in contrast to those that grow on wood, and more restrictive still to name a prominent folk genus. Furthermore, they never include in this category an organism which is not a mushroom from the perspective of academic mycology. Though the Tzeltal Maya also may name the plant kingdom ( te'ak’ , literally, ‘tree-vine’) and the animal kingdom ( chanbalam , literally, ‘snake-jaguar’), these terms, by contrast, are analyzable compounds (Berlin 1992:14). While the number of folk generic plant and animal taxa recognized by the Tzeltal approximate 500 each, the number of folk generic mushroom taxa is about 50.

Mycophilia versus Mycophobia

Morris (1984) characterized a basic dichotomy among the world's societies between mycophilic and mycophobic cultures, in the first instance naming and using a significant variety of mushroom species, in the second recognizing just a handful of useful species and dismissing the vast majority as “toadstools,” or some local variant of that concept. Clearly, both the Mixtepec Zapotec communities and those of the Tzeltal Maya qualify as mycophilic, as are the Purépecha (Mapes et al. 1981) and Tlaxcalan (Montoya Esquivel 1998) communities that have been carefully documented to date.

However, it is no simple matter to count the number of named categories of mushrooms recognized within a given society, a fundamental criterion for distinguishing mycophiles from mycophobes. As noted above, the consistency of recognition of folk categories varies along a continuum from those universally or widely and consistently recognized and named (as measured by sampling free-lists or by extensive interviewing) through the tail of a distribution characterized by considerable ambiguity as between accepted names and idiosyncratic or invented terms with limited cultural currency. Where to draw the line between “countable” and invalid names is rarely entirely clear. The distinction between “folk specific” and “folk generic” taxa is also problematic.

Lampman describes for the Tzeltal Maya “at least 51 monotypic taxa at the genus rank and at least three polytypic taxa at that rank” (2007:22). By comparison, the 30 folk generic taxa we record for Mixtepec Zapotec and the 11 (or 12 or 14) reported for the Purépecha suggest a considerably more intense focus on mushrooms by the Tzeltal. However, the intensity of Lampman's research accounts for much of the numerical superiority of the Tzeltal data. We might have been able to include for Mixtepec Zapotec an indeterminate number of additional folk categories if we had been able to establish the validity of distinctions named by reference to color, shape, or host tree species.

Differences of interpretation and/or contrasting nomenclatural styles may also play a role. For example, unlike Tzeltal, most Purépecha “folk generics” are polytypic, in that “good” examples are distinguished from “bad” examples. How should these be counted? Also, in both the Purépecha and Zapotec classifications “relatives” of various categories are recognized. Finally, the boundaries of the mushroom domain vary, with, for example, Mixtepec Zapotec separating “mushrooms” from “lichens.”

Conclusions

Our studies of Mixtepec Zapotec ethnomycology confirm the major findings of contemporary ethnobiology, to wit, that communities living close to the land, depending directly upon locally harvested resources for life's necessities, apply their human cognitive and linguistic powers to make sense of the diversity of life within their immediate environment and that they apply this “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” to the necessary tasks of making a living, maintaining health, and satisfying their curiosity about their place in the world.

Our ethnographic efforts summarized here provide but a sketch of a complex conceptual and material engagement by the citizens of San Juan and San Pedro Mixtepec with their natural environment. Their knowledge is distilled from a millennial occupation daily renewed, of the Sierra de Miahuatlán. Today their young people are confronted by global forces that present new challenges and opportunities. How they apply their knowledge and wisdom to meet these challenges remains an open question. Meanwhile, we hope that by documenting one piece of their extensive and subtle environmental understanding, we may inspire a deep appreciation of the value of their homeland now and in the future.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the welcome we have received from the citizens of San Juan and San Pedro Mixtepec and the interest that our Indigenous colleagues in these two communities shared with us in our studies. In San Pedro, Venegas Ramírez and Vásquez Dávila give special thanks to the Samuel Mendoza family for their hospitality and teachings about mushrooms at home and on field trips. Hunn's ethnobiological research in San Juan has been funded by the United States National Science Foundation, the University of Washington, and the Jacobs Research Funds. His research was generously supported in kind by the Sociedad para el Estudio de los Recursos Bióticos de Oaxaca, A. C. (SERBO) and by staff at the Instituto Tecnológico del Valle de Oaxaca (ITVO). Hunn wishes to thank Ricardo Valenzuela of the Universidad Autonoma de México and Ing. Hugo León Avendaño and Biol. Alfonso Aurelio for assistance in identifying specimens and the late biologist Donato Acuca Vásquez for friendship and inspiration. Venegas Ramírez's and Vásquez Dávila's research in San Pedro was supported by El Colegio de la Frontera Sur and ITVO.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials are available online at BioOne (http://www.bioone.org/loi/etbi). Members of the Society of Ethnobiology can access these materials through the society's website at . The electronic version of the journal is also available through many university libraries.

References

Berlin

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

Blackwell

2011. The Fungi: 1, 2, 3… 5.1 million species? American Journal of Botany 98:426–438.

Hawksworth

D. L.

2001. The Magnitude of Fungal Diversity: The 1.5 Million Species Estimate Revisited. Mycological Research 105:1422–1432.

Hunn

E. S.

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

Hunn

E. S.

1982. The Utilitarian Factor in Folk Biological Classification. American Anthropologist 84:830–847.

Hunn

E. S.

1996. Columbia Plateau Indian Place Names: What Can They Teach Us? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 6:3–26.

Hunn

E. S.

1999. Size as Limiting the Recognition of Biodiversity in Folk Biological Classifications; One of Four Factors Governing the Cultural Recognition of Biological Taxa. In Folkbiology, edited by Medin

D. L.

and Atran

, pp. 47–69. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hunn

E. S.

2008. A Zapotec Natural History: Trees, Herbs, and Flowers, Birds, Beasts, and Bugs in the Life of San Juan Gbëë, with CD Rom. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI), XIII Censo General de Población y Vivienda, 2010: Oaxaca. Resultados Definitivos. Datos por Localidad (Integración Territorial). Aguascalientes. INEGI (http://www.inegi.org.mx/).

10.

Kirk

P. M.

Cannon

P. F.

Minter

D. W.

and Stalpers

J. A.

.2008. Dictionary of the Fungi. Tenth Edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

11.

Lampman

A. M.

2004. Tzeltal Ethnomycology: Naming, Classification and Use of Mushrooms in the Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, GR.

12.

Lampman

A. M.

2007. General Principles of Ethnobiological Classification among the Tzeltal Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 27:11–27.

13.

Mapes

Guzmán

and Caballero

N J.

.1981. Elements of the Purepecha Mycological Classification. Journal of Ethnobiology 1:231–237.

14.

Montoya Esquivel

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

15.

Mora

Tittensor

D. P.

Adl

Simpson

A. G. B.

and Worm

.2011. How Many Species Are there on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biology 9, e1001127.

16.

Morris

1984. The Pragmatics of Folk Classification. Journal of Ethnobiology 4:45–60.

17.

Mueller

G. M.

Schmit

J. P.

Leacock

P. R.

Buyck

Cifuentes

Desjardin

D. E.

Halling

R. E.

Hjortstam

Iturriaga

Larsson

K-H.

Lodge

D. J.

May

T. W.

Minter

Rajchenberg

Redhead

S. A.

Ryvarden

Trappe

J. M.

Watling

and Wu

.2007. Global Diversity and Distribution of Macrofungi. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:37–48.

18.

Reeck

1991. A Trilingual Dictionary in Zapotec, English and Spanish. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Universidad de las Américas-Puebla, San Andrés Cholula, Puebla, MX.

19.

Scheffers

B. R.

Joppa

L. N.

Pimm

S. L.

and Laurance

W. F.

.2012. What We Know and Don't Know About Earth's Missing Biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:501–510.

20.

Smith Stark

T. C. n.d

. “Algunas Isoglosas Zapotecas.” Trabajo Preparado para Las Actas del III Coloquio Internacional de Lingüística “Mauricio Swadesh”, que se Llevó a Cabo en el Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, UNAM, México, D. F., el 29 de agosto de 2001. Manuscrito Inédito.

21.

Venegas Ramírez

, 2013. Etnomicología Zapoteca de San Pedro Mixtepec, Sierra Sur de Oaxaca, México. Unpublished Master's Thesis, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, MX.