|
of the
FLCORLA
MUSEUM OF
NATURAL HISTORY
SIMILARITY AND VARIATION
IN PLANT NAMES
IN FIVE TUPI-GUARANI LANGUAGES
(EASTERN AMAZONIA)
William Bale and Denny Moore
Biological Sciences, Volume 35, Number 4,
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
*l* TIN-ul
GAINESVILLE
Numbers of the BULLETIN OF THE FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY,
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, are published at irregular intervals. Volumes contain about 300
pages and are not necessarily completed in any one calendar year.
F. WAYNE KING, Editor
RHODA J. BRYANT, Managing Editor
Communications concerning purchase or exchange of the publications and all manuscripts should
be addressed to: Managing Editor, Bulletin; Florida Museum of Natural History; University of
Florida; Gainesville FL 32611-2035; U.S.A.
This public document was promulgated at an annual cost of $2900.20 OR
$2.900 per copy. It makes available to libraries, scholars, and all interested
persons the results of researches in the natural sciences, emphasizing the
circum-Caribbean region.
ISSN: 0071-6154
CODEN: BF 5BA5
Publication date: March 6, 1991
Price: $2.90
SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES
IN FIVE TUPI-GUARANI LANGUAGES
(EASTERN AMAZONIA)
William Balde and Denny Moore*
ABSTRACT
This paper examines similarity and variation in plant words in five Tupi-Guarani languages
of eastern Amazonia. These languages are Arawetd, Asurini, Ka'apor, Tembd, and Wayapi. The
paper attempts to explain why words denoting certain plants are nearly the same in most of these
languages whereas words for other plants are highly variable from one language to another. A
total of 625 plant names from these languages were elicited for 167 botanical species, divided
among non-domesticates, semi-domesticates, and domesticates. Plant names are of two basic
types, metaphorical/descriptive and literal. The results show clearly that (1) the more intensively
managed plants have higher rates of similarity in their names from one language to another; (2) a
nomenclatural system appears to intervene between degree of plant management and similarity
of names--the types of names which the nomenclatural system assigns to domesticates strongly
tend to be literal, the types assigned to semi-domesticates show an increasing proportion of
metaphorical terms, and the majority of those assigned to non-domesticates are metaphorical; (3)
the literal plant terms strongly tend to be much more similar from language to language than are
metaphorical terms, regardless of degree of domestication of the referents; and (4) the ratio of
literal to metaphorical plant words, combining names from all plant management types, is not
significantly different between the five languages. It is suggested that cultural factors of plant
management and the plant naming system combine with the linguistic properties of names and
diachronic linguistic processes to produce similarity and variation in plant vocabulary.
RESUMO
O present trabalho investiga similaridades e variac6es de nomes para plants em cinco
linguas Tupi-Guarani da Amaz6nia oriental. Estas linguas sio Arawetd, Asurini, Ka'apor, Temb6
e Wayapi. Faz-se uma tentative de explicar por que palavras que se referem a certas plants sao
muito similares enquanto que palavras para outras plants variam muito de uma lingua para
outra. Foram registrados um total de 625 nomes de plants destas linguas para 167 species
* The senior author is an Associate Researcher and Head of the Departamento de Ecologia at the Museu Paraense Emilio
Goeldi, Av. Perimetral, s/n, Caixa Postal, 399, 66040 Bel6m Para, Brazil. The junior author is Head of the Divisio de
Lingiistica, at the same address. All reprint requests should be addressed to the senior author.
Balde, W., and D. Moore. 1991. Similarity and Variation in Plant Names in Five Tupi-Guarani
Languages (Eastern Amazonia). Bull. Florida Mus. Nat. Hist., Biol. Sci. 35(4):209-262.
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
botlnicas, divididos entire plants nio-domesticadas, semi-domesticadas e domesticadas. Nomes
para plants sAo de dois tipos basicos, metaf6ricos/descritivos e literais. Os resultados mostram
que (1) nomes para as plants mais intensamente manejadas tem taxas mais altas de similaridade
de uma lingua para outra; (2) um sistema de nomenclatura parece intervir entire o grau de
manejo das plants e a similaridade dos nomes os tipos de nomes que o sistema de
nomenclatura compartilha entire plants domesticadas apresentam uma tendencia a serem
literais; os tipos compartilhados entire semi-domesticadas mostram uma proporg5o crescente de
terms metaf6ricos e a maioria daqueles compartilhados entire nio-domesticadas sao
metaf6ricos; (3) os nomes literais para plants demonstram forte tend6ncia a serem muito mais
similares de uma lingua para outra em comparacqo com os nomes metaf6ricos, independent do
grau de domesticacqo dos referentes; e (4) as proporc6es de nomes literais e metaf6ricos para
todos os tipos de manejo nio variam significantemente entire as cinco linguas. Prop6e-se que
fatores culturais de manejo de plants e o sistema de nomenclatura das plants em combinacio
corn as propriedades lingiiisticas de nomes e processes de lingiifstica diacr6nica produzem
similaridades e variaqio no vocabul6rio das plants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.................................................................................................. 210
A know ledgem ents........................................................... ................................ ................. ....... 213
D ata and M ethods................................................................................................................................ 214
D ata Sources............................................................. .......................... ....................... 214
D ata Form at......................................................................... ................ ........... 214
M methods of Com prison .......................................................................................................... 215
Results................................................................................................ . ....... 243
Discussion...... ..................... ............................... ........................ 257
N otes ....................................................................................................... ........................................ 259
Literature C ited...................................................................................... ................................... 261
INTRODUCTION
We may note, in passing, that the double or compound names are the
most doubtful. They may consist of two mistakes; one in the root or
principal name, destined almost always to indicate the geographical
origin, some visible quality, or some comparison with other species.
The shorter a name is, the better it merits consideration in question of
origin or antiquity; for it is by the succession of years, of the migrations
of peoples, and of the transport of plants, that the addition of often
erroneous epithets takes place. (from ALPHONSE DE
CANDOLLE, Origin of Cultivated plants [orig. Fr. 1886]).
Why is it that within a family of genetically related languages (i.e.
descended from a common mother language) words denoting certain referents
or concepts are nearly the same in most of the languages whereas words for
other referents or concepts are highly variable from one language to another?
For example, in the Tupi-Guarani family, the words for 'bacaba' are similar in
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES 211
five languages: Arawetd (Ar) pinuwa-'i, Asurini (As) pinuwa-'iwa, Ka'apor (K)
pinuwa-'4, Temb6 (T) pinuwa-'iw, Wayapi (W) pino. By contrast, the words
for 'moela de mutum' are bewilderingly different: Ar iwa-pedi, As iwa-kaw-
'iwa, K kupapa-'iran-I', T iwa-zu-'iw-ran, W mitil-'ay.
This paper attempts to answer this question, at least partially, for the
semantic domain of ethnobotany, by investigating similarity and variation
among words for a given corpus of plant species in five different languages of
Tupi-Guarani. These five languages are spoken in a broad arc in lower
Amazonia. The possible factors that may a priori help explain why words for
some plant species are similar while words for others vary across languages of
the same family include (1) cultural ones, such as plant utility and/or
management; (2) geographical ones, such as proximity and similarity of
environments; (3) diachronic linguistic ones, such as borrowing and degree of
genetic relatedness, as well as (4) the linguistic properties of the words used to
designate plants, including their morphological or semantic structure. An
investigation of such factors, to our knowledge, has never before been carried
out with regard to South American languages. We have collected data on
similarity and variation of words for 167 botanical species native to the
neotropics in the Arawet6, Asurini do Xingu, Ka'apor, Temb6, and Wayapi
languages of eastern Amazonia (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Although these data were
collected initially for non-linguistic purposes, they are highly appropriate for
the investigation of factors involved in similarity and variation in plant words
among different languages of the same family.
First, the five languages are dispersed in four linguistic sub-groupings of
Tupi-Guarani (A.R. Rodrigues 1984/85; A.R. Rodrigues, pers. comm. 1988),
with only Wayipi and Ka'apor being classified in the same sub-grouping.
Second, these five languages are spoken in three ecologically diverse regions:
the Xingu River basin of north-central Brazil for Arawet6 amd Asurini, the
Gurupi/Turiaqu River basins of extreme eastern Amazonia for Ka'apor and
Temb6, and the Oiapoque River basin of northern Amazonia for WayIpi.
Third, although all five groups are horticultural, they exhibit notable
differences in crop staples and patterns of utilization of non-domesticated
species. For example, the Arawet6 rely heavily on maize, in contrast to the
other groups who are more dependent on tubers; the Asurini traditionally
eschewed hog plum (Spondias mombin L.), which is an esteemed edible fruit
of the other groups. Fourth, collections and determinations of voucher
specimens for most of the 167 species in our sample have been obtained for the
five languages. Finally, the corpus of data is large enough to test statistically
propositions regarding similarity and variation in plant words across the five
languages.
Some years ago, Brent Berlin and his colleagues (Berlin et al. 1973)
published a pioneering paper on the retention of plant words in two Mayan
languages. They proposed that such retention reflected the cultural
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
Map showing approximate locations of Arawetd, Asurini, Ka'apor, Temb6, and Wayapi Indians of
eastern Amazonia.
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES 213
importance of the plants designated by those words. The present study differs
from that of Berlin et al. (1973) in several ways. First, we introduce
comparable data on five languages of the same language family as opposed to
two, yielding comparison of 10 pairs of languages instead of one. Second, the
present study is organized according to botanical referents instead of
indigenous plant words themselves. Whereas Berlin et al. (1973) generally
compared folk generic names for botanical species held in common between
the two Mayan groups and then counted pairs of similar words, we compare
similar and dissimilar words in terms of the botanical species themselves.
Third, the present study shows dissimilar as well as similar names for botanical
species and all these names are glossed morphemically. As such, our data
permit insights into patterns of nomenclature of plants and the relationship of
these patterns to culture. Despite the differences, the findings of this study
independently support the contention of Berlin et al. (1973) that some cultural
process is involved in the similarity of plant words. We suggest, however, that
the analysis of Berlin et al. (1973) may be further refined in terms of
identifying the exact cultural and linguistic processes at work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of
Ethnobiology (Gainesville, 1987), International Congress of Ethnobiology (Belem 1988), and at
the Wenner-Gren Conference "Amazonian Synthesis" (Nova Friburgo 1989). Grateful
acknowledgement is made to the Edward John Noble Foundation, Institute of Economic Botany
(New York Botanical Garden), and the CNPq (National Council on Science and Technological
Development) for funding of this research. We are indebted also to the CNPq, the Museu
Paraense Emilio Goeldi, and the FUNAI (National Indian Foundation) for institutional support
in Brazil. We sincerely thank the botanists who made expert determinations of many plants cited
herein: P. Acevedo-Rodriguez, W. Anderson, R. Barneby, C.C. Berg, B. Boom, R. Callejas, L.
Constance, D. Daly, A. Gentry, C. Jeffrey, J. Kallunki, R.J.M. Maas, A. Mennega, J. Mickel, J.
Mitchell, M. Nee, G.T. Prance, J. Pruski, and C. Sastre. Several species were also determined by
Manuel Cordeiro and Nelson A. Rosa, to whom grateful acknowledgement is made. Helpful
comments on the substance of the paper were generously supplied by Aryon D. Rodrigues, Pierre
and Francoise Grenand, Brent Berlin, and two anonymous reviewers. We wish to express our
most profound gratitude to the native speakers of Arawet6, Asurini, Ka'apor, Temb6, and
WayApi, whose cooperation was indispensable. Whatever shortcomings this article may contain
are attributable solely to the authors.
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
DATA AND METHODS
Data Sources
A total of 625 names for the 167 botanical species were obtained from the
five languages. These data are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Indigenous
plant names are divided among the five languages as follows: 114 (Ar), 90 (As),
160 (K), 125 (T), and 136 (W). All 136 names in W are derived from
Grenand's published study (1980), and these are supported by his voucher
numbers and determinations. Of the remaining 489 names in the other four
languages, 399 are represented by voucher numbers on the series Bal6e
(voucher specimens are deposited at the New York Botanical Garden with
duplicates at the Museu Paraense Emflio Goeldi). In other words, 535 (87%)
of the plant names in our data are supported by voucher numbers, either by
Bal6e or Grenand (1980). Many names that were not documented by voucher
numbers refer to species whose identities were unmistakable in the field,
especially domesticates. Of the 45 Temb6 names not supported by a voucher
number, 42 were obtained from Boudin's published dictionary (1978). Other
names for some of the 19 species in Arawet6 and 17 in Asurini which were not
documented by voucher numbers were obtained from Eduardo Viveiros de
Castro (pers. comm. 1988), Aryon D. Rodrigues (pers. comm. 1988), and
Velda Nicholson (1982). These names tend to refer to extremely well-known
domesticated species. The nine Ka'apor names not documented by voucher
numbers were supplied by Bal6e based on reliable field determinations of
species.
Each plant name associated with a voucher number in the series Bal6e
(for Ar, As, K, and T only) was elicited from several informants by Bale at the
moment of its collection. Each name was later checked for accuracy in the
village. Data were recorded in phonetic transcription. Bal6e is a native
speaker of English, fluent in Portuguese, with reasonable speaking fluency in
Ka'apor; he has some linguistic training.
Data Format
Tupi-Guarani is not phonologically difficult. The accuracy of the
transcription of plant words in these five languages is reasonably high. For
example, the c/1 allophony and the schwa phoneme in Temb6 appeared in
Bal6e's transcription as predicted by Bendor-Samuel (1966). There are
probably some minor errors in transcription, for example, in i vs. a vs. -,
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES 215
full vs. partial nasalization, exact quality of labial vs. bilabial fricatives, and
vowel/glide distinctions.
One standardized orthography is used for the five languages. Stress falls
on the last syllable in As, K, T, and W unless otherwise indicated; stress in Ar
and As is irregular and has been indicated for each word (1).
Morpheme-by-morpheme glosses are given for maximum opportunity to
confirm or counteranalyze our results and to use the data for other purposes.
Glosses for the most part are supplied by Bal6e, except for W words, the
glosses for which come from Grenand (1980). Many suggestions on glossing
and advice on transcription were supplied by A.D. Rodrigues, based on sources
unavailable to us. Word boundaries are undetermined.
Method of Comparison
Measuring similarity and variation of vocabulary between related
languages is different from the procedures of historical linguistics--
reconstruction using the comparative method. This paper asks the question,
given a botanical species, what are the words for it in various languages of the
same family and are these words similar or different? This reflects well the
common sense notion of what is meant by similarity and can be quantified in a
straightforward way. In diachronic linguistics, on the other hand, one searches
for cognate terms showing systematic sound correspondences, allowing, if
necessary, a considerable degree of semantic 'shift' of the referent. There is no
concern with determining non-cognacy, which is difficult with incomplete
collections and without knowledge of the full range of meaning of each word.
In order to determine whether words in two languages are similar or
different it is necessary to specify a comparable range of meaning for them
(such as the biological species) to prevent problems of overlapping (see Alcorn
1984:270). Consider, for example, the Ka'apor and Temb6 names for 'jarana'
and 'cacador,' which are two species in the Brazil nut family:
K T
Lecythis cf. chartacea Berg iwiri-l' iwiri-'iw
Lecythis idatimon Aubl. yali-amir iwiri-'iw-pit&
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
If the range of meaning were not restricted and "looking up and down the list"
were permitted, then from the point of view of Temb6, both words would have
a similar Ka'apor counterpart, on the basis of the head terms, iwiri. But
paradoxically, from the point of view of Ka'apor, only one of the words has a
similar counterpart in Temb6. The situation would become yet more confusing
when considering five instead of two languages. Further, a skewing would
result in that a pair of languages both having relatively complete collections
would offer a greater possibility of finding similar words than would a pair of
languages both having relatively incomplete collections.
So it is necessary to restrict the range of meaning of the referent, then
examine whether the words for it are similar or different. We opted to restrict
referents to the taxonomic rank of botanical species. This is because one may
argue that the botanical species is the most objective level of abstraction for
distinguishing between individual plants. The species is more objective than
higher order units, such as tribes, genera, and families, since "rank is not
inherent in supraspecific groups" (Cronquist 1968:31) [2]. Species are natural
units, not products of mind (see Gould 1980:204-213).
Species, for our purposes, are also more suitable referents for comparing
indigenous plant names than taxa of infraspecific ranks. The classification of
many neotropical cultivars (i.e., varieties) of a single botanical species is far
from possessing taxonomic exactitude. In their taxonomic revision of the genus
Manihot (which includes cultivated manioc, Manihot esculenta Crantz), for
example, Rogers and Appan (1973:34) observed that "It is impossible to apply
formal subspecific taxon epithets to fleeting variants which are not related to
some precise geography or ecological region." In an exhaustive study,
Albuquerque and Cardoso (1980) discussed several possible means of
classifying manioc cultivars. One classification was based on color of the tuber,
yielding only three basic types: white, yellow, and cream. Each of these types
had sweet, bitter, and sweet/watery sub-types. Each sub-type was further sub-
divided into cultivars that had erect stem habits vs. ones that showed branching
stem habits. The total number of phenotypically distinct cultivars based on this
classification, then, would be only 18 (cf. Albuquerque and Cardoso 1980:138-
139). Another proposed classification scheme, based on floral parts, yielded
only 6 possible cultivars. The number of phenotypically distinct manioc
cultivars named and recognized by the Ka'apor, however, is at least 19 (Bal6e
and G61y 1989:138); the WayApi name as many as 29 (Grenand 1980:310). The
lack of correspondence between folk species and botanical infraspecific taxa is
not limited to manioc. With respect to neotropical cotton (Gossypium
barbadense L.), Fryxell (n.d.) wrote: "There are many difficulties in
determining the identity of individual plants among the tetraploids from the
Greater and Lesser Antilles (and elsewhere), where spontaneous and artificial
hybridizations among different taxa have blurred the distinctions between them
and made a rational classification difficult at best." No "correct" taxonomic
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES 217
criteria exist for distinguishing between categories more or less encompassing
than the species (see Gould 1980:206) with the obvious exception of the
individual plant. For logistical reasons, it was not feasible to obtain responses
in the five languages for individual plant specimens.
One of the criteria for including species in our list was that they be of
neotropical origin. This is because names for non-neotropical species, clearly,
would be most likely introduced and hence of non-Tupi-Guarani origin as well.
There is some doubt, nevertheless, about the origins of a few species included
in our analysis, all of which are domesticates. These include papaya (Carica
papaya L.), bananas and plantains (Musa spp.), and bottle gourds (Lagenaria
siceraria Mol.). As for papaya, it has been most recently argued on botanical
grounds that it is a New World cultigen (Storey 1976:23); moreover, Sousa
(1974: 99) refers to its introduction in 16th century Bahia, indicating that it
came from Pernambuco to the north. Although the genetic evidence indicates
a Southeast Asian origin for bananas, Smole (1980) argued that Musa spp.
existed in the neotropics in pre-Columbian times. Early 16th century explorers
noted that the Tupinamba cultivated bananas and called these pakoBa (L6ry
1960:157; Lisboa 1967:122; Sousa 1974:98; Vasconcellos 1865:136), a
reconstructable term in Proto-Tupi-Guarani (A.D. Rodrigues, pers. comm.
1988). Bottle gourds were also cultivated by the aboriginal TupinambB (Sousa
1974:95). The bottle-gourd probably probably arrived in South America via
Africa in remote pre-Columbian times (Heiser 1979:114-116). Although it is
probably not, therefore, a true native to the neotropics, it seems unlikely that it
was introduced by human beings (but see Lathrap 1977). This means that
there is no a prior reason to assume that the name for it in modern Tupi-
Guarani languages was introduced. Our exclusion of "borrowed" plants is, first,
an attempt to exclude borrowed words. All domesticates here included are of
sufficient antiquity in the neotropics (i.e., probably older than the five
languages in our analysis) that they can be considered for historical linguistic
purposes to be neotropical.
One other requirement for species inclusion in our comparison concerns
the number of responses. Only species for which names in three or more of
the five languages were obtained are included. This is to guarantee that each
species occurs in at least two of the three ecological regions. If species were
included where there were only two or more responses, then the ecological
region occupied by proximate groups (the K/T and the As/Ar) perhaps would
be overrepresented in the lists of species. It is plausible, moreover, that
linguistic borrowings are more likely to exist between neighbors. The three-or-
more rule, then, is one more means of controlling the possible occurrence of
borrowed words between the five languages in the sample. As will be seen, we
are able to draw statistically significant conclusions about similarity and
variation in plant words between these languages on the basis of the data.
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
Before either of us had read the Berlin et al. (1973) article, and while
field collections were being made, it seemed that a pattern of similarity and
variation in plant names between these Tupi-Guarani languages was at least
partly a function of degree of human management of plants (Bal6e 1987,
1989a). Patterns of plant nomenclature appear to segregate traditionally
cultivated and non-cultivated plants. These patterns may be summarized as
follows: (1) life-form heads (for example, K mira, ka'a, sipo) are not
incorporated into names for traditional cultigens; (2) animal morphemes are
incorporated into names for traditional cultigens only when the animals are not
ecologically associated with the plants themselves; (3) "obscure" plant names
(i.e., names that do not incorporate plant morphemes, such as K akusi-nami
'agouti-ear,' which refers to a rubiaceous forest herb) do not denote traditional
domesticates; (4) morphemes referring to divinities (such as K kurupir) and to
the state of being 'false' (or 'similar') (K -ran, Ar -rT, As -rana, T -ran, W rd)
are only incorporated into words that do not refer to traditionally cultivated
plants (Bal6e 1989b).
Three basic kinds of plant species can be identified in terms of
management. These are non-domesticates, semi-domesticates, and
domesticates. Non-domesticates typically occur in primary well-drained forest,
archaic vine forests, or swamp forests. These are zones where contemporary
human interference in species composition and dominance is, or recently has
been, negligible. Well-known non-domesticates from Table 1 include wild
cashew (Anacardium giganteum Hancock ex Engl.), Conceveiba guianensis
Aubl., and Capparis. Although some non-domesticates may sporadically occur
in zones of recent human interference, such as swidden fallows, they do not
appear to gain dominance other than in fairly undisturbed forests.
Semi-domesticates, in contrast, do not generally appear to become
ecologically dominant without human interference, usually by horticultural
fires and/or the seemingly random tossing away of viable seeds. A few of
these species (such as Annona montana Macf. var. marcgravii 'araticum' and
Theobroma grandiflorum Schum. 'cupuagu'--see Table 2) are deliberately
planted and carefully protected, by one or more of the five groups, but without
cross-cultural regularity and only sporadically. As such, the category of semi-
domesticates corresponds very well with that of "protected plants" in Berlin et
al. (1973:146). Most of the semi-domesticates in Table 2 are disturbance
indicators as well. By their presence and/or dominance, they tend to indicate
former sites of human habitation and horticultural fields. These species are
also extremely efficient in dispersing themselves and are thus widely
encountered throughout the Amazon basin. Disturbance indicators include
Spondias mombin L. 'hog plum', Jacaratia spinosa A.DC., 'wild papaya'
(Lisboa et al. 1987:55), Didymopanax morototoni (Aubl.) Decne. & Planch
'morotot6' (Huber 1909:161), Maximiliana maripa (Corr. Serr.) Drude 'inaji'
(Pesce 1985:66; Schulz 1960:222), several species of Inga, specifically, Inga alba
TABLE 1: NAMES OF NON-DOMESTICATED PLANT SPECIES IN FIVE TUPI-GUARANI LANGUAGES1
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TBJBE WAYAPI
ANACARDIACEAE (Cashew family)
001 Anacardium giganteum Hancock ex Engl
cajueiro do mato
002 Aslronhum lecoimte Engl
muiracatiara
003 Thrysodrum cl spruceanum Benth
castanha do porco
004 Tapira gulanensis Aubl
talapiririca
ANNONACEAE (Custard apple family)
005. Anaxagorea dolichocarpa Spragueel Sandw
006. Dugueta sp
envira pindaiba
007. Fusaea longlfoha (Aubl.) Safl
envira preta
008 Guattena chrysopetala (Steud.) Miq,
envira
009, Xylopia ntida Dun
bitterwood, envira cana
APOCYNACEAE (Dogbane family)
010 Aspidosperma sp
araracanga
takar6-me'e-'a-'i (9)
?-some fruil-tree
(81669)
iwiri-amute (M)
tree-other
(B2063)
t eiwi-'i (L)
I tree
(81752)
y6w-*i (L)
L-tree
(B2062)
iwir ra-'i (L)
Lt1ree
(8165)
ka'a-tai-'iwa (M)
forest spicy Iree
(B2449)
waruwa-'irnna (M)
relleclor-similar
(B2364)
yawl-iwa (L)
L-Iree
(B2549)
pepemfra (o )
0B2491)
akayu-i (L)
L-tree
(82282)
ara-kanei-'+ (M)
macaw-resln-tree
(B2209)
tatu-mira (M)
armadillo-lree
(8437)
tayahu-m+ra (M)
while lipped peccary
tree (81069)
teremu-mira (M)
0-tree
(B937)
pina-'+ (M)
hish hook-tree
(B2664)
karitu'i-'+ (L)
L-tree
(82885)
tata-iron-'+ (M)
fire-similar tree
(8231)
yawi-' (L)
L-(ree
(B344)
akazu-rw-ete (L)
L-tree-true
(81122)
zarakaci-'aran-'w (M)
Jaracatia-smilar-tree
(B1512)
manume-ran-'tw (M)
Ageneiosus sp (a fish)-
similar tree
(81493)
tata-pirlrik-'i w (M)
fire-crackling-tree
(81203)
pira-iwa-pihun (M
fish iruiltblack
(81560)
pina-'iw-hu (M)
fish-hook-tree-big
(81349)
tupa-wira (M)
Ihunder-tree
(81103)
aarar-ika-'+w (M)
macaw-head-tree
(B1083)
akayu-u (L)
Anacardlum occidentale
big (G220)
an+la-wisi (M)
bal-leces
(G224)
tata-pilili (M)
fire-crackling
(G253)
sa'i-melu-ka'a (M)
grandmother he.uy-
herb (G249)
pinai.--tay (M)
lish hook-tree spicy
(G248)
yiaw -kala (M)
tortoise-yam
(G267)
rwl (M)
lashing material
(G231)
yaw.-'+ (M)
torIlose-tree
(G267)
palakuta-pine (L)
L black
(G244)
to
C
C
z
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TE WAYAPI
011 Lacmellea aculata (Ducke) March
pau de colher
012. Parahancornia amapa (Huber) Ducke
milk tree, amapa
013 Tabernaemonlana angulata Mart
ARECACEAE (PALMAE) (Palm family)
014 Astrocaryum munbaca Mart,
mumbaca
015 Bactns maraja Mart
maraja
016 Geonoma baculifera (Poit.) Kunth
ubim
017 Geonoma sp
018 Iriartea exorrhiza (Mart) Wendl
paxluba
019 Maunta flexuosa Mart.
moriche palm, burili
020 Syagrus sp.
pati
BIGNONIACEAE (Bignonia family)
021 Arrabidaea sp
cip6 cruz
wtra-kuzer (M)
tree-spoon
(81091)
amapa-ci- w (L)
L-white tree
(81193)
pka-'a-tipt (M)
paca-fruil-
(81555)
amend wao-'i (')
?-tree
(B1759)
yAra-'i (L)
L-tree
(B1764)
mariya-'l (L)
L-tree
(B1955)
pici-i (L)
L-tree
(B2068)
muruci (L)
L
irirl (L)
L
(B960)
yuwara-hipa (7)
?-vine
(81956)
kuyeri-- (M)
spoon-tree
(B26)
apa-'L-tuw r (L)
L-tree-while
(B2895)
kagwaruhu-mrra (M)
paca-tree
(81015)
yu-'+ (M)
spine tree
(81021)
maraya-'+ (L)
L-tree
(B824)
owi (L)
L
(B922)
owi-ran (L)
L similar
(B2965)
pasi-'+ (L)
L-tree
(B3541)
mirlsi (L)
L
marari-'t (L)
L
(B2303)
musu-sipo (M)
ee lvine
(B2225)
tapele-yuwa (')
old village-'
(G252)
amapa (L)
L
(G223)
yapukuliwa (L)
L
(G266)
patali (L)
(G301)
alawale (L)
(G297)
owl (L)
L
(G300)
owi-la (L)
L-similar
(G300)
pasl-'+ (L)
L-tree
(G301)
m tlsi (L)
(G300)
malariapu (L)
L
(G299)
kurfma (9)
(B24421
marai-zrwa-'+w (L)
L-fruit-tree
(81406)
maraza-a (L)
L-fruit
(MB131)
uwl (L)
L
(B1549)
uwi-ran (L)
L-similar
(B1591)
paci-'-w (L)
L-lree
(B4026)
murici (L)
L M 6)
(MB166)
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TEBE I WAYAPI
022 Pachyplera slandleyt (Steyerm) Gentry
023 Tabebuta serratifolia (Vahl) Nichol
greenheart, pau d'arco amarelo
BOMBACACEAE (Bombax family)
024 Ceiba pentandra Gaertn
kapok tree, sumaumeira
BORAGINACEAE (Borage family)
025 Cordia scabnfolia A DC
aloewood, frei]6
BURSERACEAE (Bursera family)
026, Protium aracouchin (Aubl) March
acouchi tree, breu
027 Protrum giganteum Engl
incense tree, breu branch
028 Tetragastrs alitssima (Aubl) Swart
cedar of Guiana, breu-manga
029. Trattinicka bursenlfoia Mart
incense tree, breu sucuruba
CAPPARIDACEAE (Caper family)
030 Cappans sp
caper tree
hipa-karM (M)
(vine-yam)
(B2021)
taylpi (L)
L
taiwi-'i (L)
L-tree
(B799)
plni-i-ca (L)
L-tree-black
(81660)
pini-'i-ah a (L)
L-lree big
(81769)
iciri-'i (L)
L-Iree
(81779)
yapa-tai-'i (M)
crested oropendola-
spicy-tree
(B1828)
ipa-rimu (M)
vine-creeper
(B2471)
ii-'6 (L)
L-truit
(B2347)
tarawiri-rdna (M)
lizard-similar
(B2425)
apiterew-fwa (M)
bald-tree
(B2567)
waruwa-'fwa (M)
retleclor -ree
(82572)
ih+k-irfwa (M)
resin-tree
(B2369)
+wrra-tai (M)
Iree-spicy
(82534)
tayi-po (L)
L-other
(B2189)
wa~Tgi (L)
L
(B2260)
ape-'i-tuw+r (L)
L-tree-white
(B2655)
yawa-mira (M)
jaguar tree
(8969)
kanei-'+-tuw+r (M)
resin-tree-white
(B1061)
waruwa-'i (M)
reflector tree
(B8)
kirit -hu-'+ (L)
L-big tree
(B876)
sawya-mi-ra (M)
rat-lree
(B998)
taz-w (L)
L
(MB249)
iwi'um-'iw (L)
L-tree
(B4022)
waruwa-iran-'iw (M)
reflector-similar tree
(81530)
hi+keft-'w-ci (M)
resin Iree-while
(81111)
iwa-pe-pirag-'+w (M)
fruit-flat-red-tree
(81376)
ki-ri-wa-'i-w (L)
L-fruit-tree
(81408)
ywiw-lem (M)
tortoise-penis
(G295)
tay- (L)
(G253)
(G253)
kumaka (L)
L
(G236)
yaya-' (L)
L-tree
(G267)
waluwa-'i-si (M)
reflector-iree-white
(G258)
PLANTS 2 ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TEMBE WAYAPI
CARYOCARACEAE (Butternut family)
031 Caryocar glabrum (Aubl) Pers.
bats souarl, piqularana
032 Caryocar villosum (Aubl) Pers
butternut tree, piquia
CECROPIACEAE (Mulberry family)
033 Pourouma gulanensis Trec.
sucuba
CHRYSOBALANACEAE (Tropical rose family)
034. Hirtella racemosa Lam var racemosa
caralperana
035. Licanoa apetala (E Mez) Fritsch
pottery tree, caraipe
036 Lscana canescens R. Ben.
macucu
037. Licania heteromorpha Benth. var,
heteremorpha
macucu de sangue
CLUSIACEAE (Garcinia family)
038 Clusua sp
strangler vine, apui
039 Rheedia sp
bacurizinho
ydna-'i (M)
spider-tree
(B1656)
taclpe-'i (L)
L-Iree
(B1861)
tata-pap6nan-i (M)
armadillo-claw-
similar-tree
(B1804)
anT-adapeka-'i (M)
(B1899)
kara-petfmi-'i (M)
divinity tobacco tree
(B1647)
takipe-ci-'-wa (L)
L-white-tree
(82499)
kurdpi-ti-' wa (M)
divinityplace-tree
(B2319)
pirk+'a-rani-' (L)
L-similar-tree
(B113)
ptkr'a-'+-te (L)
L-tree true
(B1038)
ka'a-me-'t (L)
forest- -tree
(B2690)
mukuku-'-wl (L)
L-tree-little
(B1058)
wa-pini-'+-tuwir (M)
fruitlstriped-tree-
while
(B245)
mukuku-'- (L)
L-tree
(B175)
apo-'+ (L)
L-Iree
(B964)
pakuri-sos5-' (L)
L-?-tree
(B2997)
pik+'a-ran-'tw (L)
L-similar-tree
pi-k 'a-ete (L)
L-true
(MB197)
ama-'iw-ci (L)
L-tree-while
(B1331)
wari-ruwal-ran (M)
howler monkey-tail-
similar
(81550)
takipe-'tw (L)
L-tree
(B1107)
iwa-pin-'tw (M)
Iruil-striped-lree
(B1439)
apu.''w-pihun (L)
L-tree-black
(81231)
peke'a-la (L)
L-similar
(G246)
peke'a (L)
L
(G246)
kale-te (M)
rugged very
(G233)
yanu-'+ (M)
spider-tree
(G264)
pa-yula (M)
paca-stairs
(G246)
wila--mi-.' (M)
tree-dark sap-tree
(G259)
ani--pipi (M)
divinity-claw
(G270)
kulu-pita (M)
divinily-red
(G235)
PLANTS2 ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TEMBE WAYAPI
040 Symphonla globulilera L
doctor's gum, anani
041 Tovomrla sp
sapatelro
COMBRETACEAE (Combretum family)
042. Buchenavia sp
cularana
DILLENIACEAE (Dllenia family)
043 Doliocarpus c. guianensis (Aubl) Gilg
water vine cip6 d'gua
EUPHORBIACEAE (Spurge family)
044. Aparnshmium cordatum (Juss) Baill
mamelelro
045 Conceveiba guianensos Aubl
046 Mabea caudata P et H
pau de cachimbo
047 Sapium marmien Huber
tallow tree, murupita
murucl-ti-ipe (M)
Maunlta Ilexuosa
grove-vine
(B1957)
ka-'i (M)
latex-tree
(B2061)
g-a-i-une (M)
Inga -ree black
(B2570)
yuwa-'fwa (M)
bird Irme-lree
(B2355)
i rate-'i (M)
wax ( ree
(B2973)
trats -'-w (M)
wax-tree
(MB78)
yapu-mira (M) magi-' w-ran (M)
crested oropendola-tree mango-tree-similar
(B938) (B260)
yakuoiri-'+ (L)
L-lree
(B1bj;
tirro -rmo ( )
(B321)
ara-ki-' (M)
macaw chili pepper
(B2696)
arapuha-m-ra (M)
brocket deer tree
(B280)
kasima-'+ (M)
pipe-lree
(B2152)
wakura-m+re-hu (M)
nighthawk-tree-big
(B2227)
wmkmwa-' tw-ran (M)
laughing lalcon-tree-
similar
(B1435)
zapekuramog (M)
L
(B1247)
uruku-ran (M)
Bixa orellana similar
(B1159)
wi ra-kti'w-ran (M)
tree chil pepper
similar
(B1221)
kacimi-'tw (M)
pipe -ree
(B1326)
wnaani (M)
wax
(G258)
pasi'.-wapo (M)
Irartea exorrhiza tree
root
(G245)
kwata-kaya (M)
Ateles vulva
(G237)
tameyu-'i (L)
L tree
(G289)
a'W-meyu (M)
sloth-manioc bread
(G219)
a'W-mintyu (M)
sloth cotton
(G220)
awalapuna (L)
225)
(G225)
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI .KAAPOR TE WAYAPI
FLACOURTIACEAE (Flacourtia family)
048 Caseana javitensis H B.K.
Brazlilan snakeroot, plabinha
HELICONIACEAE (Heliconia family)
049. Heiconia sp
bastard plantain, bananeira do mato
LAURACEAE (Laurel family)
050 Ocotea caudata Mez
louro
LECYTHIDACEAE (Brazil nut family)
051 Couratan sp
tauari
052 Eschweilera conacea (A P de Candolle)
Mart ex Berg
matamatd branch
053 Lecythis c chartacea Berg
jarana
054 Lecythis idafmon Aubl
cagador
LEGUMINOSAE-CAESALPINIACEAE (Pea family)
055 Bauhinia acreana Harms
ybna-'i (M)
spider-tree
parfri (L)
L
(B1987)
dyu-' (L)
L-tree
(B1662)
p6timi-'i (M)
tobacco-Iree
(B1855)
iwf-tir-i (M)
lashing matenal- -tree
(B1701)
yap6pa-ti (?)
?-white
(B1778)
pepemiwi-'fwa
?-tree
(B2460)
parirl (L)
L
(B2430)
ayu-'fwa (L)
L-tree
(B2383)
iwi-tirr-fwa (M)
lashing materlal-?-tree
(B2332)
y '+-r6na (L)
L-tree-similar
(B2406)
yapupaci-n6ma (?)
?-lenid
(82498)
arakwa-mi'u-'t (M)
little chachalacha-food-
tree
(B2659)
tayahu-pako-ro (M)
white lipped peccary-
banana-bitter (B845)
ayu-' -pihun (L)
L-tree black
(B2958)
p+t+m-inem-'i (M)
tobacco-fetid-tree
(8187)
parawa-'t (M)
mealy parrot-tree
(B10)
i-w ri-'+ (M)
lashing material-tree
(B19)
yasi-amir (M)
tortoise-deceased
(866)
akusi-yu-'p (M)
agouti-spine-tree
(82887)
3 ________ k _______ 3 ________ L _______
palil (L)
(G284)
aiu-i'-witowa (M)
(kind of] tanager-lree-
open nut
(G226)
yemi-'+ (M)
masked-lree
(G267)
tala-i-wi (M)
Connarus sp -lashing
material
(G251)
azu-'Tw-pihun (L)
L-free-black
(B1579)
twa-wiha-'tw (M)
fruit-?-tree
(B1588)
iw. ri-'rw (M)
lashing malerial-tree
(81380)
iwi ri-'w-plt a (M)
lashing malerial-tree-
red
(81280)
PLANTS2 ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TEBBE WAYAPI
056 Bauhnia guranensis Aubl hipa-p6-pe (M) waperer-upbp (M) yesi-stpo-pe (M) +wipo-pew (M) ana-yulu (M)
escada de o aboil vine-trailllat ?-river bed lortoise-vine-flal vine lat divinity stairs
(B1808) (B2608) (B2750) (81611) (G271)
057 Cassia fastuosa Willd acicl-rapi (M) aman-putir-'i (M) mallmali (L)
mart-marl howler monkey-bow rain-flower-lree
(B1748) (B2150) (G238)
058 Copaifera sp kupa-'- (L) kupa-'iw (L) kupapwa (L)
purple heart, copaiba L-tree L tree L
(81022) (MB109) (G236)
059 Dems amazonica Killq acI-ipa (M) 'simo-ran (L) cimo-ran (L)
timborana headline L-similar L-similar
(B2010) (B1003) (81078)
060, Zollerma paraensis Huber yaplmi (M) iyapem-'fwa (M) tamaran-'+ (M)
pau sanlo war club-tree war club-lIree war club-Iree
(81791) (B2350) (B2672)
LEGUMINOSAE-FABACEAE
061 Alexa sp wirA-'i (M) ari-a-rana (M) ani (L)
melancieira tree-lltle divinity-similar L
(81634) (B2391) (G224)
062, Dipteryx odorata (Aubl) Willd kumaru-'+ (L) kumaru-+w (L) munu-' (M)
tonka bean, cumaru L-tree L-tree peanut-lree
(B972) (81113) (G241)
063 Machaenum flonbundum Benlh u'i-ruwapa-hi (M) marlma-rana (L) i- niiamu-yiwa (M)
arrow-7-generalor ? similar tinamou-sachel
(B2011) (B2648) (G272)
064 Taralea opposlitdolia Aubl kururu-' (M) kumaru-'iran-' w (L) pala-+-wirih (M)
cumarurana toad Iree L simlar-tree Jacaranda Iree hard
(81036) (81100) (G244)
LEGUMINOSAE-MIMOSACEAE
065 Newtoma suaveolens Miq k-i-k+i- (L) cimo-i-w (M) wila-le (M)
faveira folha lina L-tree Derms utlts-lree tree-lelld
(B2701) (81237) (G259)
066 Parkia pendula (Willd) Benth ydpa-'i (L) yupi-' (L) yolulu (L)
nilta tree, visgueiro L-Iree L tree L
(81850) (B3547) (G268)
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TEMBE& WAYAPI
067 Pithecellobium cauliflorum Mart
ingarana
068 Tachigali myrmecophila Ducke
taxi preto
MARANTACEAE (Arrow rool family)
069. Ischnosiphon arouma (Aubl) Koern
aruma, guaruma
MARCGRAVIACEAE (Marcgravia family)
070. Souroubea gulanensis Aubl
rabo de arara
MELIACEAE (Mahogany family)
071 Carapa guranensis Aubl
crab wood, andirobelra
072 Cedrela tissrhs Velt
Brazlilan cedar, cedro da mata
073 Trtchiha cf lecomnte Ducke
pt6 minm
MENISPERMACEAE (Moonseed family)
074 Abuta grandifoha (Mart) Sandw
abuta
arap6-yi-i-hete (M)
eel-' tree-true
(B2012)
thci-i (M)
Azteca-ant-tree
(81795)
urti-i (M)
baskel-tree
(B2066)
pla-'i (L)
L-lree
(B1698)
Ihipl-ra-ti (M)
vine-'-while
(B2009)
pira--ga-'ewa (M)
fish-lnga-tree
(B2575)
taci-'iwa (M)
Pseudomyrmax-anl -ree
(B2481)
tata-kaci-'iwa (M)
fire-vapor-tree
(B2574)
+Wira-pi tk-'+wa (M)
tree-0-tree
(B2546)
tair-iga-'i (L)
blue headed parrot-
Inga tree
(B2825)
tasi-' (M)
Pseudomyrmax-ant-tree
(B39)
waruma (L)
L
(B825)
araruhu-wai-r+mo (M)
red and green macaw-
lail-creeper
(B839)
yane-ro-'+ (M)
oil-bitler-tree
(B2821)
rrart (L)
L
(8965)
yakusiri-' (L)
L-tree
(B2257)
aputa (L)
L
(B728)
taci-'ew (M)
Pseudomyrmax-ant- ree
(81508)
uruwiw (L)
L
(B4019)
trakwa-w-po-pirag (Mj
Camponatus ani-vine-
red (81300)
zan -ro-tw (M)
oil-biter-tree
(81244)
waruwa-'iran-'iw (M)
reflector-similar-tree
(81096)
(G290)
moyu-alaFa-luwiy (M)
anaconda-macaw tall
(G281)
yant (M)
oil
(G263)
kaisu (L)
(G233)
yane-ppo (M)
Carapa guianensisvine
(G294)
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR T EBE WAYAPI
MORACEAE (Mulberry family)
075 Brosimum acutifolum Huber
cow Iree, murure
076 Helcostylis tomentosa (P & E) Rusby
inhare
077 Perebea guianensis Aubl
caxlingubarana
MYRISTICACEAE (Nulmeg family)
078. Virola michelh Heckel
ucutba da terra firme
NYCTAGINACEAE (Four-o'clock family)
079 Neea sp.
joao mole
OLACACEAE (Olax family)
080 Mmquartia guianensis Aubl
acarlquara
PIPERACEAE (Pepper family)
081. Piper ct oltonoides Jun
jambira
POACEAE (GRAMINAE) (Grass family)
082 Olyra sp
taboca
mitaci-'i (C)
?7-tree
(81738)
iwlkb-'i (C)
I'-ree
(81754)
depe-ri-ri (M)
rabbit- lree
(B2111)
yaml-aha (L)
L-blg
(B2087)
ta'dka-cT (L)
L-while
(B2083)
murure-etm (L)
L-true
(B2523)
yapatawl-rana
L similar
(B2468)
tepeci-kuruw-r (M)
rabbitl-7-ree
(B2443)
yamira (L)
L
(B2651)
murure-'n (L)
L tree
(B3006)
akau-i (L)
L tree
(B333)
akad-'c (L)
L tree
(B2277)
tukwan-mi'u-'n (M)
toucan-lood-tree
(B255)
tapisi-kirt -' (M)
rabbil-t-tree
(B2274)
yfwoy-i (M)
boa conslrictortree
(81028)
(L)
(B2678)
takuwar-+-pinim-u (L) takwar-. (L)
L-water-slriped-big L water
(82567) (B789)
murure-ran-'w (L)
L similar ree
(81085)
hoku-'iw-ran (?)
7 tree similar
(B1345)
w6kaw-' tw (M)
laughing falcon tree
(B1300)
wakar-'tw (M)
kind ol fish-tree
(B1437)
zamira (L)
L
(B1592)
taken (L)
(G251)
twa-pe (M)
tree-flat
(G230)
yuwa-pi-so (M)
Couma sp -sol-like
(G268)
wololo (L)
(G262)
inimo-po'i-ipi (M)
thread-thin gliding
(G272)
wakali-'+ (M)
kind ol fish-tree
(G256)
yemi-la (L)
Similar
(G296)
sowo (L)
L
(G287)
PLANTS2 ARAWETE ASURINI KA'APOR ME WAYAPI
QUIINACEAE
083 Lacunara jenmanl (Oliv) Ducke
moela de mutum
RUBIACEAE (Madder family)
084. Psycholna cl poepptgiana M Arg.
erva de ralo
SAPINDACEAE (Soapberry family)
085 Cupanta scrobiculata L.C, Rich.
086. Pseudima frutescens Radlk.
087 Serjania sp
limbo
SAPOTACEAE (Sapote family)
088 Manllkara huben (Ducke) Standl.
cow tree ol Para. maqaranduba
089. Pneurella cf cunefiolia Pierre
ablurana vermelha
SIMAROUBACEAE (Quassia family)
090 Simaba cedron Planch
rattlesnake's bean, serve pra tudo
iwd-pedi (M)
fruit-?
(81814)
akuci-wiri (M)
agouti-tree
(82039)
pearr'ne-'i (?)
t-tree
(81678)
cimi (L)
L
(B1984)
+wa-kaw-iwa (M)
fruil-vessel-tree
(B2340)
yawci-fja (M)
tortoise-lnga
(B2593)
awe-te-'r-r8na (M)
person-true-tree-
similar
(B2501)
arapua-rena-iwa (M)
brocket deer-sitting
place-tree
(B2477)
cimi (L)
L
(B2613)
ari-kara-'twa (M)
"-yam -ree
(B2345)
kupapa-'iran-'r (L)
L-similar-tree
(B2880)
tapi'l-ka'a (M)
tapir-herb
(B3100)
tupiyarima-m+ra (M)
long tailed tyrant-tree
(B223)
ag-waiya-mira (M)
soul-enemy-lree
(81017)
kururu-s+mo (M)
toad-Ders utilhs
(B889)
rriki-wa-'- (L)
L-tree
(B2926)
kupapa-'iran-'+ (L)
L-similar-tree
(B2243)
pere-pusi-'i (M)
skin eruption remedy
tree
(B2219)
mitu-'ay (M)
curassow-crop
(G240)
Twa-zu-' w-ran (M)
fruit-yellow-tree-
similar
(81463)
ka'a-rah- (M)
herb-poison
(81545)
kururu-cimo (M)
toad-Derrs utlls
(81590)
masaranu-'cw-ete (L)
L-tree-lrue
(81157)
twa-zu-'rw-ran (M)
Iruit-yellow-tree-
similar
(81346)
akuci-wi-ra (M)
agouli-lree
(81094)
kalima-'r-si (L)
L-Iree-white
(G234)
yf-kisI'i'o (L)
(G267)
twi--l iL)
L similar
(G232)
wi-la-pele (L)
tree-'
(G260)
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TBE WAYAPI
091 Simaruba amara Aubl
bitter damson tree marupa
STERCULIACEAE (Slerculia family)
092 Stercula prunens (Aubl) Schum
lacacazeiro
THEOPHRASTACEAE (Joewood family)
093 Clavla lanciolia Benth
TILIACEAE (Linden family)
094 Apeiba tlbourbou Aubl
penle-de-macaco
ULMACEAE (Elm family)
095 Ampelocera edentula Kuhlm
VIOLACEAE (Violet family)
096 Rinorea cf passoura (DC.) Kuntze
branquinha
ZINGIBERACEAE (Ginger family)
097 Renealmia flonbunda K Sch
wild ginger, cana brava
tapi'i-eop6imi-'i (M)
lapir -tree
(B1740)
yani-a6pli (M)
o-egg
(B1941)
ape-'f (L)
L-Iree
(B1820)
yaci-pApe-'i (M)
tortoise claw-lree
(B1816)
y6no-i (M)
spider tree
(81887)
kanl-6ah (I)
O-big
(B2071)
tukurl-' wa (M)
grasshopper Iree
(B2566)
twese-'i (M)
manioc grater tree
(B262)
tapi'i-pamir (M)
tapir-'
(B2)
yawci-rupi'a-renA (M) karume-p+tag-'T
lorloise egg place torloise-red -ree
(B2423) (B991)
iwi-paye (M)
earth-shaman
(B2454)
wayaw-a'Ty (M)
guava seed
(B2654)
ape-'i (L)
L-tree
(B2681)
tapi'likwape-'r (M)
while bearded manakin
tree
(B2707)
piwa-'+ (M)
[kind of] arrow point-
tree
(B2686)
kurupi-ki (M)
divinily-sugar cane
(81011)
marupa-h w (L)
L-lree
(B1152)
iwe-' (M)
manioc grater free
(G231)
tapi'ira-pawmi-'tw (M) nwi-si (M)
tapir -ree lashing material-while
(B1260) (G232)
azag-kiwa-tw (M)
divinity comb free
(MB47)
powa-'tw (M)
[kind of) arrow point
tree
(81172)
ape-'i (L)
L Iree
(G225)
kulimako-u (L)
o big
(G277)
WORDTYPE ARAWETE ASURINI KA'APOR TEMBE WAYAPI LINE TOTALS
L 22 12 42 27 35 138
M 29 29 50 39 38 185
? 8 4 0 1 1 14
COLUMN TOTALS
92
67
337
(Total no indigenous
names in Table 1)
NOTES TO TABLE 1
1 Symbols in parentheses to the right of each indigenous name indicate word type: M = metaphorical word; L = literal word; ? = indeterminate word type. Entries
immediately below each indigenous name are morpheme-by-morpheme glosses (morpheme boundaries being indicated by hyphens): L indicates a literal plant morpheme;
? indicates either a non-literal plant morpheme for which a gloss is unknown or a word for which morpheme boundaries, if any, are unknown. Although there are
syntactic and minor semantic differences between free and bound forms for "tree" [e.g., mira vs. (K) (BalBe, 1989b)], for considerations of space, these differences
are not distinguished in glossing. Entries in parentheses below glosses indicate voucher numbers on the series Balee if preceded by "B"; volume and page numbers in
Boudin (1978), where the gloss is given, if preceded by "MB," (T only); and page numbers in Grenand (1980), where the gloss is given, if preceded by "G" (W only).
2. Plant species are listed in alphabetical order by family, genus, and species. Words below each species name are English and/or Portuguese equivalents.
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES 231
(Sandw.) Willd., Inga auristellae Harms, and Inga thibaudiana DC. (Ducke
1949:29), Astrocaryum vulgare Mart. 'tucumd' (Bal6e 1988:47; Wessels Boer
1965:132), Orbignya phalerata babassuu' (Anderson 1983), Theobroma
speciosum Willd. ex Spreng. 'cacauf (Ducke 1953: 14), Dialium guianense
Benth. 'jutaipororoca' (Ducke 1949: 112), Solanum spp. (Lisboa ct al. 1987:55),
and Trema micrantha (L.) Blume 'trema' (Lisboa et al. 1987:55). Neotropical
plant domesticates (Table 3) are completely dependent on human
management for their long-term propagation; most, if not wholly incapable of
setting seed, are producers of minuscule quantities of viable seed. These
species are often parthenocarpic as a result of human interference--that is,
their genotypes have been altered through domestication.
To measure the degree of similarity between two languages, we look at
pairs of words such that the word in A and the word in B refer to the same
species. The number of such pairs which are "similar" and the number which
are "different" are then tabulated, the ratio between them being the degree of
similarity.
In order to define "similarity" adequately, it is necessary to distinguish
"literal" plant words from "metaphorical/descriptive" (henceforth called simply
metaphorical) plant words, a distinction which proves to be of crucial analytical
importance. In our usage, "literal" plant words are those which contain a literal
plant morpheme; they may contain other morphemes as well. Literal plant
morphemes are here defined as those which have as their sole referent a
specific plant, excluding thereby general life form morphemes such as 'tree' or
'herb.' The word 'oak' in English, for example, refers only to this kind of tree
and to nothing else--the association between the word and its referent is purely
arbitrary. The terms 'live oak', 'post oak', and 'oak tree' are also literal since
they contain the literal morpheme 'oak'. Likewise, in the Tupi-Guarani
languages under study, the words for Inga nobilis Willd. (Table 2) are literal in
the three languages for which terms were collected: Ar ifia-pa ka-'i 'Inga-long-
tree', As yurupi-rana-iga 'throat-similar-Inga' and K 4ga-howi-'i 'Inga-blue-
tree', since they all incorporate the literal morpheme ifia/iga 'ingA'.
Two literal plant words are considered to be similar if their literal plant
morphemes are similar, regardless of the other morphemes occurring in the
word. Thus, the three words for 'ingA' above constitute three pairs (Ar-As, Ar-
K, As-K) of similar words.
In our usage, "metaphorical" names are those which do not contain a
literal plant morpheme, or if they do contain a literal plant morpheme, it is
being used metaphorically (i.e., the class of plants designated by the whole
metaphorical term is not a subset of the class designated by the literal
morpheme.) In English, 'dogwood' is an example of a metaphorical plant term,
since neither 'dog' nor 'wood' refer to a specific plant, as does 'oak.' The term
'poison oak' is also metaphorical, since it is not botanically a kind of oak at all.
Similarly, in the Tupi-Guarani data, the Ka'apor word for Tapirira guianensis
TABLE 2: NAMES OF SEMI-DOMESTICATED PLANT SPECIES IN FIVE TUPI-GUARANI LANGUAGES1
PLANTS 2 ARAWETE ASURINI KA'APOR TBfBE WAYAPI
ANACARDIACEAE (Cashew family)
098. Spondias mombin L
hog plum, caja
ANNONACEAE (Custard apple family)
099 Annona montana Macf var, marcgravit
sour sop, araticum
APOCYNACEAE (Dogbane family)
100 Htmatanthus of arliculatus Woods
janaguba
ARALIACEAE (Ginseng family)
101 Didymopanax moroltoton (Aubl) Decne
match wood, morotold Plance
ARECACEAE (Palm family)
102 Astrocaryum vulgare Mart.
lucuma, lucumd comum
103 Euterpe oleracea Mar
assai, aCai
104 Maximiliana maripa (Corr. Serr) Drude
inaja
105 Oenocarpus dislichus Mart
bacaba
106 Orbignya phalerata Mart
babassu, babagu
akiya-'i (L)
L-tree
(81897)
tayah -'i-'i (M)
white lipped peccary-
fruit-tree
(81884)
& murete-twi-'i (L)
L--tree
(81709)
act-'i (L)
L-tree
(81872)
npya-'i (L)
L-tree
(81637)
pinuww-'i (L)
L-tree
n6ta-'i (L)
L-tree
(B1776a)
kayuwa-'iwa (L)
L-tree
(B2569)
Tw+ra-tapi-cT (M)
tree-?-white
(B2578)
yui-Fwa (L)
f-tree
(B2568)
inayd (L)
L
pinuwa-'fwa (L)
L-tree
(B2500)
marfta-'twa (L)
L tree
taper-Twa--' (M)
old village-fruil-tree
(B2212)
araiiku-'r (L)
L-tree
(B997)
kuyeri-'iran-'i (M)
spoon-similar-lree
(B832)
moroto-'i (L)
L-Iree
(B528)
tukumi-'t (L)
L-tree
(B2173)
wasai-'t (L)
L-tree
(8531)
inaya-'i (L)
L-tree
pinuwa-'+ (L)
L-iree
(82824)
yetahu-'+ (L)
L tree
tawe-wa-'tw (M)
old village-fruit-tree
(B4032)
araciku-'+w (L)
L-tree
(MB37)
tukuma (L)
L
(MB273)
waca-'+W (L)
L-tree
(MB288)
naza-'+w (L)
L-tree
(MB176)
plnuwa-'tw (L)
L-tree
(81101)
iwa-hu-'nw (M)
fruil-big tree
B(40301
akaya (L)
L
(G220)
melekene (L)
L
(G239)
molototo (L)
L
(G240)
awala (L)
L
(G298)
wasey (L)
(G303)
inaya (L)
L
(G298)
pino (L)
L
a ____________ I ____________ ____________ I ____________
PLANTS2 ARAWETE ASURIN KAAPOR TBE WAYAPI
BIGNONIACEAE (Bignonia family)
107 Jacaranda copaia (Aubl) D Don
paraparauba
CARICACEAE (Carica family)
108 Jacarafa spinosa A DC
mamao do mato
CECROPLACEAE
109. Cecropa sp
cecropia, imbauba
CONVOLVULACEAE (Morning glory family)
110 Ipomoea sp
morning glory, balatarana
111 Merremia macrocalyx (Ruiz & Palva) D. Dunn
batatarana
EUPHORBIACEAE (Spurge family)
112 Manihot quinquepartila Huber
wild manioc, mandioca do veado
FLACOURTIACEAE (Flacouria family)
113 Lndackena latifolia Benth
HAEMODORACEAE (Bloodwort family)
114 Xyphidium caeruleum Aubl
arakicl-'l (L)
L Iree
(81691)
Ama-'i (L)
L-tree
(81830)
yiti-rT (L)
Sweel potato-similar
hlpa-yl (M)
vine durable
(B2000)
mAyi-'iri (L)
manioc-slem-similar
(81995)
eh wal-'irT (L)
?-similar
(81875)
tuci-na'T-hA (M)
toucan seed-generalor
(B2002)
apara-'iwa (L)
L tree
(B2565)
yarakaci'd (L)
L
ama-'twa (L)
L-lree
(B2373)
y-tl-r6na (L)
Sweet potato-similar
(B2599)
para-' (L)
L tree
(81060)
mama-ran-i (L)
L-similar-lree
(B2158)
ama-'+ (L)
L-tree
(B1809)
yt-l k-ran (L)
Sweet polato-slmilar
(B879)
arapuha-mani-' (L)
brocket deer-manioc-
stem (8811)
anria-ki-wawa -'wa I kupa-'arani-r (I
divinity-comb-tree L-similar-tree
(82433) (B2214)
irakahu-ka'a (M)
weasel-herb
(B2967)
para-' w (L)
L tree
zarakaclt-a--w (L)
L tree
(81569)
ama-' w (L)
L tree
(MB24)
zitfk-ran (L)
Sweet potato-similar
(81512)
zlt--k-ran (L)
Sweel potalo-similar
(81557)
pala-t (L)
L tree
(G244)
yalakasi (L)
L
(G263)
amae-' (L)
L- ree
(G223)
yaet-la (L)
Sweet potalo-similar
(G297)
musukupl (L)
(G282)
mani-' (L)
manoc stem
(G279)
tupifpi (L)
(B290)
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI KA'APOR TEMBE WAYAPI
LECYTHIDACEAE (Brazil nut family)
115. Bertholletia excelsa Humboldl & Bonpland
Brazil nut tree, caslanheira-do-Para
116. Gustavia augusta L,
geniparana
117 Lecylhis prisons Cambess
monkey pot tree, sapucaia
LEGUMINOSAE-CAESALPINIACEAE (Pea family)
118 Otalium gulanense Benth
wild tamarind, jutaipororoca
119. Hymenaea parvifolia Huber
copal tree, jutal
LEGUMINOSAE-MIMOSACEAE
120 Acaca multipmnata Ducke
Juquirl
121 Ingaalba (Sandw.) Willd
Inga-xixica
122 Inga aunstellae Harms
123. Inga capitata Desv.
inga-agu
124 Inga nobilis Willd
inga
ya-'i (L)
?-tree
(81770)
yanipa-rdni-' (M)
genipapo-similar-tree
(81841)
ya-pdkai-'i (L)
L-scream-tree
(81802)
yanlta-'i (L)
L-tree
(81702)
ydita-'i (L)
L-tree
(B2093)
yu-me'e (M)
spine-it has
(B1960)
cici-'i (L)
?-tree
(81744)
inl -paka-'i (L)
L-long-lree
(81730)
ii6-paka-'i (L)
L-long-tree
(81725)
ini-paka-'i (L)
L-long-tree
(81782)
ya-'-wa (L)
?-tree
(B2579)
yanipa-ran-twa (M)
genipapo-similar-lree
(B2410)
ayuru-mupe-'fwa (M)
mealy parrot-?-tree
(B2469)
yeta-'+wa (L)
L-tree
yu-'ema-'Awa (M)
spine-0-tree
(B2530)
+ga-+-Ona (L)
L-tree-black
(B2510)
yurupi-rana-i-a (L)
throat-slmilar-L
(B2584)
kururu-f i (L)
toad-L
(B2352)
yurupi-rana-rg (L)
throal-similar-L
(B2527)
kitii-'+ (L)
L-tree
mitu-pusu-'r (M)
curassow-crop-tree
(8193)
ya-pukai-'k (L)
L-scream-tree
(B2248)
yurupepe-'i (L)
L-Iree
(81040)
yeta-'+ (L)
L-tree
(8880)
yl-kTri-sipo (L)
L-vine
(B2738)
fIa-i'slik (L)
L-smooth
(B2281)
i-a-how+-'+ (L)
L-blue-tree
(B2213)
i-a-hu-'I (L)
L-big-tree
(B297)
i-a-how+-'T (L)
L-blue-tree
(B2226)
zapukaza-'i (L)
L-tree
(MB301)
zanepa-ran-'+w (M)
genipapo-similar-tree
(B3939)
za-pukai--+w (L)
L-scream-tree
(MB303)
Iwa-popok-'tw (M)
fruit-dehiscenl-tree
(81146)
Zuta-'i- 'w (L)
L-little-tree
(B3998)
+ja-pi-'tw (L)
L-thin-tree
(81307)
+ga-pl'iw-hima (L)
L-thin-lree-slippery
(81080)
tapi'i-riga-'-w (L)
lapir-L-tree
(81102)
na (L)
(G242)
a'+-wali-p (M)
sloth-manioc beer pot
(G220)
ya-pukay (L)
L-scream
(G265)
w-la-takulu (M)
tree-stone
(G261)
yita-' (L)
L-tree
(G268)
yemo-'i (M)
penis-small
(G296)
A+a-sili (L)
L lhin
(G229)
+ga-mulua-ya (L)
L-pregnant-owner
(G229)
PLANTS 2 ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TBuE I WAYAPI
125 Inga rubigmosa (Rich ) DC
inga
126 Inga thbaudiana DC
inga
MELASTOMATACEAE (Melasloma family)
127 Bellucia grossularanodes (L.) Tnana
Guiana missel tree, golabinha de anla
MORACEAE (Mulberry family)
128. Bagassa guianensis Aubl
tatajuba
MYRTACEAE (Myrtle family)
129. Eugenia patlns Vahl
pitanga, linla
PHYTOLACCACEAE (Pokeweed family)
130 Phytolacca nvinordes Kunth & Bouche
caruru bravo
RUBIACEAE (Madder family)
131 Genipa americana L
genipapo
132 Uncana guranensis (Aubl) Gimel
iai-paka-'i (L)
L long Iree
(B1665)
iri-pake-'i (L)
L-long-tree
(81663)
tariikef-'i (L)
L-tree
(81771)
me'e-'a-'i (M)
some Iruiltree
(81902)
yanlpa-'i (L)
L-tree
iwir-'a-t T (M)
tree Irult white
(B2097)
iga-pe- 'wf (L)
L-flat-lree-little
(B2427)
muruwi-yawa-ig
7-jaguar-L
(82487)
tarawlre-'dwa (L)
L-tree
(B2370)
yanipa-A-wa (L)
L tree
fga-'+-pi-ta (
L-lree-red
(B977)
mu-'i (L)
'-tree
(B1073)
tareka-'+ (L)
L-Iree
(B2298)
arikwa-m+ra (M)
httle chachalacha-lree
(B2208)
ka'a-riru (M)
herb-carrier
(8896)
yenipa-'r (L)
L-tree
(8800)
parawa-s-po (M)
mealy parrot-vine
(B3423)
+ga-wizu-'tw (L)
L free
(81513)
tapater (L)
(81622)
toraka-' w (L)
L-lree
Iwa-u-',w (M)
Iruil black-tree
(81539)
ka'a-piw (M)
herb thin
(81562)
zanipaw-'+w (L)
L-Iree
(MB300)
akki--rga (L)
howler monkey-L
(G221)
alkwa -ga (L)
Illlle chachalacha-L
(G223)
pisulu (L)
(G248)
pakasa (L)
L
(G243)
twa-pita (M)
fruit-red
(G231)
ka'a-lulu (M)
harb-tumescent
(G274)
yanipa (L)
L
(G264)
alainapa (L)
(G269)
PLANTS ARAWETE ASURINI KA'APOR TBVBE WAYAPI
SAPOTACEAE (Sapote family)
133 Richardella nvcoa Pierre
cuttiribe
SOLANACEAE (Nightshade family)
134 Physalis capsicifolia Dunal
ground cherry, camapu
135 Solanum rugosum Dunal
lurubeba
136 Solanum stramonifotum Jacq
lurubeba
STERCULIACEAE (Sterculia family)
137 Theobroma grandiflorum Schum.
cupuagu
138, Theobroma speciosum Willd ex Spreng
cacaul
ULMACEAE (Elm family)
139 Trema micrantha (L) Blume
trema, perquitinho
URTICACEAE (Nelle family)
140 Fleurya aestuans (L) Gouv
nettle, urtiga
kanapu (L)
(B1994)
me'e-ra-ti-'i (M)
some-fruit-white-lree
(81927)
kupi-'l (L)
L-tree
(81670)
kurumi-'i (M)
infant-tree
(B2045)
pini (L)
L
(B2055)
akuci-tr r-iwa-'fwa ( akui-tir-iwa-' r
agouih-food-fruit -ree agouti-lood-ruit-
(B2327) (B2682)
aka-wiwa (L)
L-tree
(B2338)
ptnu (L)
L
(B2625)
kamamu (L)
L
(B3050)
ka'a-yuwar (M)
herb-itchy
(B923)
yu-ruwe (M)
spine-7
(B1031)
kupt-hu-'A (L)
L-big-tree
(B478)
kaka-'iran-'r (L)
L-tree
(81025))
kuru-mi'u-' (M)
boy-food-tree
(B788)
purake-ka'a (M)
electric eel-herb
(B815)
akuci-t+r-iwa-'tw (M)
agouti-food-fruit-tree
(M823)
kamamu-hu (L)
?-big
(B1562)
zu-ruwe (M)
spine-?
(81565)
zu-ruwe-cT (M)
spine-?-white
(B1559)
kupi-'a-'tw (L)
L-fruit-tree
(B1117)
aka'u-'rw (L)
L-Iree
(B3968)
ulu-k+i'y (M)
marbled wood quail-chill
pepper
(G290)
yp-pinO (M)
spine-black
(G269)
kapeai (L)
L
(G234)
aka-'t (L)
L-tree
(B228)
kulani-'r (L)
?-tree
(G234)
.5 ___________ I- __________ ___________ I __________ __________
WORDTYPE ARAWETE ASURINI KA'APOR TEMBE WAYAPI LINETOTALS
L 26 22 29 23 28 128
M 10 6 13 10 8 47
COLUMN TOTALS
NOTES TO TABLE 2
1. See note 1, Table 1
2. See note 2, Table 1.
PLANTS 2 ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TEMBE WAYAPI
VERBENACEAE (Verbena lamily)
141 Lantanacamara L n6ma-'l (M) kan)am ran (M arakwa-wira (M) yakale-pill (M)
lanlana, chumbinho nolhing-lree Cbadium sylvestre- little chachalacha -ree caiman aromatic plan
(81929) similar (B1624) (G294)
(B3030)
175
(Total no indigenous
names in Table 2)
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
Aubl., tayahu-mira 'white lipped peccary-tree,' is metaphorical since its
constituent morphemes do not refer to a specific plant, and the Wayapi word
for Conceveiba guianensis, a'i-miniyu 'sloth-cotton,' is metaphorical because
this tree of the spurge family is not a kind of 'cotton.' The relation between a
metaphorical plant term and its referent is, in a sense, less arbitrary than that
of a literal term to its referent, because some culturally given interpretation of
the plant intervenes between the metaphorical term and its referent.
It is more complicated to judge the similarity of metaphorical plant terms
since these may incorporate several morphemes, and some degree of
arbitrariness is unavoidable. Two metaphorical terms are deemed similar (1)
if they share two morphemes which are similar in sound and in meaning (e.g.,K
yagi-sipo-pe 'tortoise-vine-flat' and T 4wipo-pew 'vine-flat') or (2) if one of the
principal nominal components is similar in sound and in meaning, excluding
life-form morphemes or common plant part morphemes (e.g.,T zani-ro-'iw
'oil-bitter-tree', W yani 'oil', referring to the tree of the mahogany family,
Carapa guianensis Aubl.).
Phonetic resemblance between forms must be apparent for them to be
considered similar (such as iiia and iga 'inga' above). Given the number of
languages involved in this study, the lack of descriptive work on two of the
languages, the uncertainty of phonetic details, and the limited size of the
corpus, it is not in general possible to reconstruct the Proto-Tupi-Guarani
forms with certainty and then identify borrowings by the fact that they do not
show the same systematic sound correspondences as do the reconstructable
words.
Borrowing, however, appears to have been very minimal. Berlin et al.
(1973:152) also observed that borrowing of words between Tzeltal-Tzotzil was
a "relatively rare occurrence." First of all, names for domesticates would be the
most likely of the three categories of names to be borrowed, yet these names
strongly tend to reconstruct in Proto-Tupi-Guarani (Aryon Rodrigues,
personal communication). It is very doubtful that much borrowing occurred,
since a society would have had to lose the domesticate and the word for it and
then regain the plant plus a new word. It seems unlikely this would have
happened often. Second, if borrowings were extensive from language A to
language B, then these two languages should be conspicuously more similar to
each other than to languages C, D, and E, but among these Tupi-Guarani
languages, no such significant pairings were found. There has been minor
Portuguese influence (K kuyer-'t and T wira-kuzer 'spoon-tree' from colher
[#11, Table 1], K kanei-'i-tuwir 'resin-tree-white' from candeia [#27, Table 1],
and the words for 'wild cacao' and 'cacao' [#138, Table 2 and #167, Table 3).
It should be noted that the referents of these words are of neotropical origin.
The similarities between the languages for these words probably reflect
independent borrowing from Portuguese in the remote past.
TABLE 3: NAMES OF DOMESTICATED PLANT SPECIES IN FIVE TUPI-GUARANI LANGUAGES1
PLANTS 2 ARAWET ASURINI KAAPOR MBE WAYAPI
ANACARDIACEAE (Cashew family)
142 Anacardium occidental L akayi (L) akayu (L) akau (L) akayu (L)
cashew, cajO L L L L
(B866) (MB23) (G304)
ARACEAE (Arum family)
143 Xanthosoma sp taya (L) taza (L) ta-si (L)
coccoyam, laja L L L horny
(B3554) (MB249) (G314)
ASTERACEAE (Sunflower family)
144 Chbadium sylvestre Aubl kanami (L) kunami (L) kunami (L)
fish poison plant cunuml L L L
(B3045) (MB108) (G308)
BIGNONIACEAE (Bignonia family)
145 Crescentia cufete L. kEi (L) kuyi (L) kwi (L) kwi (L) kwl (L)
calabach, cula L L L
(B814) (MB118) (G309)
BIXACEAE (Annatto family)
146 Bixa orellana L itik L (L) uruku (L) uruku (L) uruku (L) ululu (L)
annallo. urucu L L L L L
(B2054) (B801) (MB283) (G315)
BROMELIACEAE (Pineapple family)
147 Ananas comosus (L) Merril nnni (L) pararawi'w (L) nana (L) nfnA (L) nana (L)
pineapple, abacaxi L L L L L
(81020) (B1568) (G312)
148 Neoglaziova variegata L kurawa (L) krrawa (L) kurawa (L) kulawa (L)
curralow, caroa L L L L
(B2046) (B953) (MB110) (G308)
PLANTS2 ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR I TBVBE WAYAPI
CARICACEAE (Papaya family)
149. Canca papaya L
papaya, mamao
CONVOLVULACEAE (Morning glory family)
150 Ipomoea batatas Lam
sweet potato, batata doce
CUCURBITACEAE (Gourd family)
151 Cucurbila moschata (Lam) Poir
musk melon, lerimum
152 Lagenaria sicerana Mol
bottle gourd, cabaga
DIOSCOREACEAE (Yam family)
153 Dioscorea ct nhida L
yam, inhame
154 Manihot esculenta Crantz
manioc, manova
LEGUMINOSAE-FABACEAE (Pea family)
155 Arachis hypogaea L
peanut, amendolm
156. Phaseolus lunatas L
lima bean, leilao comum
157 Vigna sp
black eyed pea, feilao da col6ma
mama (L)
L
yitf-hete (L)
L-tree
(B2085)
yurumu (L)
L
kara (L)
L
(B2086)
mania (L)
L
kamana-'i (L)
L-little
yarakaci'a-u (L)
L big
y+tika (L)
L
(B2633)
yerimu (L)
L
(B2631)
kara (L)
L
(B2629)
mani-'iwa (L)
L-stem
komani (L)
(B2628)
mima (L)
L
(B954)
yittk (L)
L
(B805)
yurumu (L)
L
(B3046)
kawasu (M)
container-big
(B906)
kara (L)
L
(81012)
mani-' (L)
L
(B848)
manuwi (L)
L
(B894)
kamana (L)
L
kamana-'i-tuwir (L)
L ittie-while
(B3099)
zarakaci'a-hu (L)
L-big
(MB299)
zetik (L)
L
(MB342)
zurumu (L)
L
(MB338)
+'akwa (L)
L
(MB59)
kara (L)
L
(B1551)
mani-'w (L)
L-stem
(81573)
munuwi (L)
L
(MB163)
kumana (L)
L M0)
(MB108)
mau (L)
L
(G311)
yetr (L)
L
(G316)
asikala (L)
L
(G305)
mulutuku (L)
L
(G312)
kala (L)
L
(G306)
mani-'i (L)
L-stem
(G309)
munuwi (L)
L
(G312)
kumina (L)
L
(G308)
kumina-'i (L)
L little
(G308)
PLANTS 2 ARAWETE ASURINI KA'APOR TBiBE WAYAPI
MALVACEAE (Mallow family)
158 Gossyplum barbadense L
cotton
MUSACEAE (Banana family)
159 Musa paradisaca L
plantain, banana
160 Musa sapientum L
banana, banana
MYRTACEAE (Myrtle family)
161 Psidium guaava L
guava golaba
PASSIFLORACEAE (Passion Ilower family)
162 Passillora cf eduls Sims
passion fruit, maracuja
POACEAE (GRAMINAE) (Grass family)
163 Gyneum sagillttaum Beauv
arrow cane, flecha
164 Zea mays L
maize, milho
SOLANACEAE (Nighlshade family)
165 Capsicum frutescens L
chili pepper, malagueta
mintyu (L)
L
patsitsi (L)
L
pltsitsi (L)
L
kuyawi (L)
L
awaits (L)
L
(B2144)
kL i (LI
aminiyu (L)
L
(B2640)
paki (L)
L
paku (L)
L
marlkuyd (L)
L
awaci (L)
L
(B2644)
tk,'tya (L)
L
maneyu (L)
L
(B849)
pako (L)
L
pako (L)
L
walya (L)
L
(B903)
murukuya (L)
L
(B810)
uB--wa (M)
arrow-
(B917)
awasi (L)
L
ki+'-awi (L)
L-needle
(B910)
manizu (L)
L
(B1544)
pako (L)
L
(MB183)
pako (L)
L
(MB183)
wazap (L)
L
(MB288)
murukuza (L)
L
(B1553)
u'iwa-a (M)
arrow r?
(MB281)
awaci IL)
L
(MB43)
kr-+y (L)
ML 1
(MB103)
mintyu (L)
L
(G311)
pako (L)
L
(G313)
pako (L)
L
(G313)
kuya (L)
L
(G308)
mulukuya (L)
L
(G282)
w-wa (L)
(G316)
awasr (L)
L
(G305)
kti-y (L)
G307
(G307)
WORDTYPE ARAWETE ASURINI KA'APOR TEMBE WAYAPI LINE TOTALS
L 19 17 24 24 26 110
M 0 0 2 1 0 3
COLUMN TOTALS
NOTES TO TABLE 3
1. See note 1, Table 1.
2. See note 2, Table 1.
PLANTS2 ARAWETE ASURINI KAAPOR TEMBE WAYAPI
SOLANACEAE
166 Nicottana tabacum L p6ti (L) pettm (L) p-ttm (L) petrm (L) makule (L)
tobacco, tabaco L L L L L
(B2627) (B935) (MB191) (G309)
STERCULIACEAE (Slerculia family)
167 Theobroma cacao L 3ka-'i (L) aka-'iwa (L) kaka-'r (L) aka-'+w-ete (L) walapulu (L)
cacao, cacau L tree L-tree L tree L tree-true L
S.. (MB22) (G315)
113
(Total no indigenous
names in Table 3)
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES
Similarity between literal plant terms must, in general, be due to their
retention in the languages since splits in the proto-language. This is probably
also the general cause of resemblances between metaphorical terms, though in
some cases resemblance may be due to independently similar cultural
interpretations of the plant. No effort is made here to exclude these, because
there are no clear means of identifying such cases and their contribution to the
overall proportion of similarity is certainly extremely limited (3).
RESULTS
The results show clearly that the more intensively managed plants have
higher rates of similarity in their names from one language to the other.
Combining data from all 10 pairs of languages:
All Word
Management Type Pairs Similar Dissimilar Source
Non-domesticates 441 136 (30.8%) 305 (69.2%) (Table 4)
Semi-domesticates 278 164 (59%) 114 (41%) (Table 5)
Domesticates 198 159 (80.3%) 39 (19.7%) (Table 6)
The differences between the three categories of plants--non-domesticates,
semi-domesticates, and domesticates--in terms of degree of similarity (30.8%,
59%, and 80.3%, respectively) are very significant (X2 = 146.483, 2 df, p <
.0001). In other words, lexical similarity between the 10 pairs of languages very
significantly increase along a scale of increasing human management of plants
(see Fig. 1).
The results also show that the type of plant name, literal or metaphorical,
is also strongly influenced by the degree of domestication:
243
TABLE 4: Pairs of word types for Non-domesticated plant species among the five languages. Similar pairs
indicated by asterisk. M = metaphorical and/or descriptive word; L = literal word; ? = indeterminable
word type; -- = no data.1
AR = Arawete; AS = Asurini; KA = Ka'apor; TE = Tembe; WA = Wayipi. Data from Table 1.
SPECIESNO
(F Tabl) AR / AS AR / KA AR / TE AR / WA AS / KA AS,'TE AS /WA KA / TE KA / WA TE / WA
001 L -L L L L L LL LL' LL'
002 -M W -M E N M M M M-
003 -M M -M M El V ni MM M W M
004 t M MM M M M M AI NM MMI
005 -M -M -M M M -M LM MM MMl
006 M- M M- E M -M M- MM -M
007 - -L M M L M -M LM LM MM
008 L- LM L- LM' -M M M- tv M
009 LL' LL' LM LM LL' LM LM' LM LM'
010 L' L- LM LL 9- WM 7L -M -L M
011 -M M -M M MM" MW
012 L L -L -L L L LL LL LL'
013 MW M 7L -M M -L M EL ML
014 L- LM LL LL -M L L L ML LL
015 L- LL' LL LL -M L -L LL LL LL
016 -L L L L L L LL' LL' LL'
017 -L L L -L L -L LL' LL' LL
018 L- LL' LL* LL -L L L LL' LL' LL'
019 L- LL' LL' LL -L L L LL LL LL'
020 L LL L LL -L -L L- LL' L
021 97 9 M 9 9? M M
022 M M M tM M- M- M M
023 LL LL LLL LL" LL LL LL LL' LL LL
SPECIES NO
(FSPCIEO AR / AS AR / KA AR / TE AR / WA AS / KA AS / TE AS / WA KA / TE KA / WA TE / WA
(From Table 1)
024 -M L L L ML ML IL LL LL LL
025 LM LL L L M. M- M L L
026 L- LM LM L M -M M M M-
027 M M M M MM M MM M- M
028 L- WM LL -M M L M. M-
029 LM LL' LL' LM ML rL M LL' LM LM
030 M MM M M M M M M. M
031 L L L L L L LL LL' LL'
032 L L L L L L LL LL' LL"
033 L L M L -L M LL LM LM
034 M- IL Mw MM' L -M M LM M M
035 LL' L- LL' L L LL' L L L
036 -M M M M M M MM" M IM
037 M- NM M- M L M L LM M
038 M- EL ML MM' L L M LL" LM LM
039 MM' ML L MM' ML M- MM' L LM M
040 -M M M L -M M MMI SM MS
041 -M M M M M M MM MM MM
042 L M M M M M LM LM M
043 M. M ML MEL M L L LL ML LL
044 M -M M M M M M
045 M M M M MM MM SM MM
046 M M L M M L MM ML ML
047 MM M M- M- M M- M M M-
048 P MM M MV- MM M M M
SPECIES NO
(From Table 1) AR AS AR KA AR/TE AR/ WA AS KA AS /TE AS/ WA KA/TE KA/ WA TE /WA
049 LL' LM L- LL L LM L- LL' M ML
050 LL' LL" LL' LM' LL' LL LM' LL' LM LM'
051 M- MM" M- -M M M- -M
052 LL M M M MM M- MM M M-
053 L -M M LM LM L MM" M- M
054 -M -M -M M M -M MM MM'
055 7. 7. 7 M M
056 NM MM MM" M 4M M MM MM* M MM
057 M M- M -M L M- ML L
058 L L -L -L L -L LL LL' LL'
059 M- tL M M- L L LL' L- L
060 MM MM M- M- m M M M M-
061 M M M- L M- M- L L L
062 L L M -L L -M LL" LM LM
063 EL M- M- L L- LM M -M
064 1-M L -M M M L M ML M LM
065 L -M -M -L -M M LM LM M4
066 L LL' L LL L L L- LL L
067 6M ML M. M. MM M L
068 MM' M MM' M- MM MM" M MM" M- M-
069 M- ML LL ML -L L L LL LL LL'
070 -M -M -M M M -M wM MM' Ml
071 M -M M -M M M MMI MM* MM'
072 -M -L L L 7 L L LL L
073 LM LL LM L M MM M LM L M-
SPECIES NO
SPECIESO AR / AS AR / KA AR / TE AR / WA AS / KA AS / TE AS / WA KA / TE KA / WA TE / WA
(From Table 1)
074 M- ML M- MM L M L LM -M
075 L L L LL L LL L LL L
076 7- L L VM L L M LL LM LM
077 L L M LL L LM L LM M
078 M "7 L M 7 L ML M 7L
079 MM' MM MM M M MM' MM MM
080 -M M M M M M MM MM MM'
081 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL LL*
082 LL LL' L- LL LL L LL L LL L
083 -MM M M N" M M M LM LM 4M
084 MM M5M M M- MM MM M- MI M M
085 'M M ? 'L M4 M NL M ML L
086 -M M L MM M ML M it L
087 LL' LM' LM' L- LM' LM' L MM' M M
088 L L -L L L L LL LL LL
089 L M L L M M L LM LL M
090 -M M M M I M M M MM M M
091 -M M L M WM M M W ML MM' LM
092 M- MM. MM' Mv M M M MM' MM M
093 MIM %M M M- M M M- M M
094 L- LL LM LL' L M L LM LL' MS
095 M MM M M- MM M M- M M-
096 MM 4 MM MM M M
097 '" L M L M L L
PAIR TYPE AR /AS AR / KA AR/ TE AR WA AS/KA AS TE AS /WA KA / TE KA WA TE/ WA LINE TOTALS
LL 1 3 1 7 2 1 3 7 10 4 39
LL' 7 11 8 6 5 3 2 16 12 13 83
M81 11 12 6 10 18 11 7 17 16 18 126
MM 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 11 4 3 39
ML&LM 4 14 9 5 9 5 7 14 25 13 105
ML & LM' 0 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 13
M&M 2 7 2 2 6 2 1 1 24
?M' & M' 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 5
'L L? 1 1 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 9
L* & L' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?? 1 1 0 0 O O O O 2
??' 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
COLUMNTOTALS 33
24 j 24 65 I 70 I. _____ 1. _____ 1. _____ t _____
441
(Total no pairs)
- Total similar pairs: 136
STotal dissimilar pairs: 305
NOTE TO TABLE 4
1. Entries with no data symbol (--) excluded from calculated totals.
44 24 24 65 70 54
TABLE 5: Pairs of word types for Semi-domesticated plant species among the five languages. Similar pairs
indicated by asterisk. M = metaphorical; L = literal word; -- = no data.1
AR = Arawete; AS = Asurini; KA = Ka'apor; TE = Temb6; WA = Wayapi. Data from Table 2.
SPECIESNO
omTaS 2) AR / AS AR / KA AR /TE AR /WA AS / KA AS / TE AS WA KA /TE KA WA TE WA
098 LL' LM LM LL' LM LM LL' MM' ML t
099 M- ML L M- L L LL' L L
100 M M L W M ML M- ML L
101 L- LL' L- LL L L L LL L
102 L L L L L LL' LL LL
103 LL LL' LL' LL' LL LL LL LL' LL' LL'
104 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL LL LL LL' LL LL'
105 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL LL LL LL LL LL '
106 LL LL LM L LL LM L LM L- M
107 -L -L -L L LL' LL' LL LL' LL' LL
108 LL" LL LL' LL' LL LL' LL' LL LL LL'
109 LL* LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL LL'
110 LLL LL' LL' LL' LL' LL* LL' LL L LL LL'
111 M M- ML M-t -L L L -L LL
112 L- LL L- LL L L L LL' L
113 LM LL L L M_ M M L L
114 M M M M. M L M- L L
115 LL LL LL LL L LL LL LL LL LL
116 MM' M MM' M M MM' M MM MM MM
117 L- LL' LL' LL' L L L LL' LL' LL'
118 LM LL LM LM ML' MM M LM LM lM
119 LL E LL' LL' LL' LL' LL LL LL' LL LL'
120 MM' ML M MM ML M MM L LM M
121 LL LL LL L LL' LL" L LL' L L
SPECIES NO
From Table 2) AR /AS AR / KA AR/TE AR /WA AS / KA AS /TE AS /WA KA /TE KA /WA TE / WA
122 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL'
123 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL'
124 LLU LL' L L LL' L L L L
125 LL' L L LL' L L- LL' L L
126 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL'
127 L L L L L -L LL LL LL
128 LL LL' LL LL LLL L LL LL' LL LL
129 M- M I2 MM -M M M M t vl
130 -M M M -M M M Vl2 MM" IM
131 LL' LLU LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL'
132 M- wM M- M -M L M- -L
133 -M -M -M MM MM' M MM' M- M-
134 L- LL LL LM L -L M LL' LM LM
135 M- 8M SM M -M -M M- M-
136 -M -M M -M -M M MM MM
137 L- LL' LL' LL' -L L L LL' LL' LL'
138 LL' LL LLU LL' LL LL' LL' LL LL LL'
139 M- MM' M- Lt -M -L M M L
140 LL' L L L LM L- L M- M
141 M- MM MM M -M M M MM S M
PAIR TYPE AR /AS AR / KA AR/TE AR / WA AS / KA AS / TE AS / WA KA / TE KA / WA TE / WA LINE TOTALS
LL 4 8 3 1 6 3 2 4 6 5 42
LL' 16 16 15 19 12 13 15 18 15 15 154
S0 6 3 4 2 1 3 7 4 6 36
MM* 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 9
ML&LM 2 4 5 6 4 2 1 2 8 2 36
ML* 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
COLUMNTOTALS 24 35 27 30 26 21 21 32 1 34 1 28
278
(Total no pairs)
-Total similar pairs: 164
-Total dissimilar pairs' 114
NOTE TO TABLE 5
1. See note 1, Table 4.
TABLE 6: Pairs of word types for domesticated plant species among the five languages. Similar pairs
indicated by asterisk. M = metaphorical word; L = literal word; -- = no data.1
AR = Arawetd; AS = Asurini; KA = Ka'apor; TE = Tembe; WA = Wayapi. Data from Table 3.
SPECIES NO
(From Table 3) AR /AS AR / KA AR /TE AR /WA AS / KA AS / TE AS WA KA / TE KA / WA TE / WA
142 L LL* LL' LL -L L -L LL' LL' LL'
143 L L L L L L LL' LL' LL'
144 L L L L L -L LL LL' LL'
145 LL LL* LL LL LL LL LL' LL L LL LL'
146 LL* LL" LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL'
147 LL LL' LL' LL' LL LL LL LL' LL' LL'
148 L- LL' LL' LL' LL' -L -L LL' LL LL*
149 LL LL' LL LL" LL LL' LL LL LL' LL
150 LL' LL* LL' LL' LL' LL LL LL' LL' LL*
151 LL' LL* LL' LL LL' LL' LL LL' LL LL
152 -M L -L -M -L -L ML M. LL
153 LL' LL* LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL'
154 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL* LL' LL*
155 -- L L L -L L L LL' LL' LL'
156 L- LL' LL' LL' -L L -L LL' LL' LL'
157 -L L -L -L L LL' L- LL -L
158 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL'
159 LL LL LL LL LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL'
160 LL LL LL LL LL' LL" LL* LL' LL' LL'
161 L LL LL LL' -L -L L LL LL LL
162 L L L -L LL' LL LL' LL' LL' LL'
163 M -M -L M M -L MM ML' ML'
164 LL' LL' LL' LL' LL' LL* LL' LL LL' LL'
PAIRTYPE AR/ AS AR / KA AR TE AR / WA AS / KA AS / TE AS / WA KA TE KA WA TE WA LINE TOTALS
LL 4 4 4 5 3 1 4 2 4 6 37
LL' 11 15 15 14 14 15 13 21 20 18 156
MM* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
ML 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
198
(Total no pairs)
-Total similar pairs: 159
-Total dissimilar pairs: 39
NOTE TO TABLE 6
1. See note 1, Table 4.
COLUMNTOTALS 15 19 1 19 19 17 1 16 1 17 1 25 2 26 25
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
All
Management Type Words* Literal Metaphorical
Non-domesticates 323 137 (42.4%) 186 (57.6%)
Semi-domesticates 175 128 (73.1%) 47 (26.9%)
Domesticates 113 110 (97.3%) 3 (02.7%)
The 14 indeterminate words, indicated with ? (Tables 1, 2, and 3), are excluded.
The differences between the proportions of metaphorical words in the three
categories of plants (57.6%, 26.9%, and 2.7%) are very significant and show
that these words were taken from fundamentally different populations (G
heterogeneity = 143.482, p < .0001). In other words, the proportion of
metaphorical words declines considerably as a function of increasing plant
management (see Fig. 2).
Another finding is that the literal plant terms are much more similar from
language to language than are metaphorical terms. Overall, the similarity of
pairs of literal words compared to metaphorical words is:
Total Similar Dissimilar
Literal Word Pairs 511 393 (77%) 118 (23%)
Metaphorical Word Pairs 211 49 (23.2%) 162 (76.8%)
It is important to note that the overall proportions of similarity of literal plant
name pairs for each of the three management types are not significantly
different (68% for non-domesticates, 78.6% for semi-domesticates, and 80.8%
for domesticates).
The ratio of literal to metaphorical plant words, combining words from all
management types, is not significantly different between the five languages (X2
= 1.7, df=4,p > .05).
BALIE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES
LEXICAL SIMILARITY
FOR PLANT CATEGORIES
30.8
_i
41
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FIGURE 1
"1" "2" "3"
SIMILAR E DISSIMILAR
1 = non-domesticates
2 = semi-domesticates
3 = domesticates
19.7
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
Metaphorical/Literal Words
Among the Five Languages
Degree of domestication of plants
-- Literal words
Metaphorical words
1 = non-domesticates
2 = semi-domesticates
3 = domesticates
FIGURE 2
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES 257
DISCUSSION
The above results are generally in accord with Berlin et al.'s (1973)
pioneering hypothesis that cultural importance influences the retention of plant
names in sister languages:
Degree of Cultural Importance Degree of Retention
But our results suggest that this process can be further elucidated by
recognizing as analytical variables (1) the degree of plant management
(domesticated, semi-domesticated, non-domesticated); (2) a widespread
nomenclatural pattern among these languages, in which words for traditional
domesticates tend to be literal, words for non-domesticates tend to be
metaphorical, and words for semi-domesticates tend to lie between these
extremes; and 3) the much higher stability of literal, as opposed to
metaphorical, plant names. In this model, the types of names which the
nomenclatural pattern assigns to domesticates strongly tend to be literal, the
types assigned to semi-domesticates show an increasing proportion of
metaphorical terms, and the majority of those assigned to non-domesticates
are metaphorical. For some reason, literal terms are more stable over time
and hence are more apt to be similar from language to language. That is, to
answer the question posed in the beginning, cultural factors of plant
management and the plant naming system combine with the linguistic
properties of names and diachronic linguistic processes to produce similarity
and variation in plant vocabulary:
(1) SYNCHRONIC FACTORS:
Degree of Plant Management + Nomenclatural System Proportion
of Literal/Metaphorical Terms
(2) DIACHRONIC PROCESSES:
Differential Retention of Literal/Metaphorical Terms -- Similarity
and Variation of Terms
In spite of the somewhat different methods, the results of Berlin et al.
(1973) are consistent with ours. Although we cannot say whether metaphorical
names are proportionally more represented in the "wild" vs. "protected" and
"cultivated" categories of Berlin et al. (1973), since non-cognates and their
glosses in these categories are not shown, it is possible to indicate what
proportion of the cognates is literal and what proportion is metaphorical and in
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
which categories. The literal vs. metaphorical distinctions by our criteria can
be obtained from the glosses of Tzeltal plant words given in Berlin et al.
(1974). It is interesting that 79 Tzeltal plant names cognate with Tzotzil names
are literal, while only 32 are metaphorical (Berlin et al. 1973, cf. 1974). This
supports indirectly our contention that literal plant words tend to be cognate at
a higher rate than metaphorical plant words. Second, although we cannot test
significance of literal/metaphorical word proportions between the four
different categories of plants given in Berlin et al. (1973) because of insufficient
sample size, it is possible to test significance for the combined categories of
cultivated and protected vs. wild-useful and wild-useless plants (see Tables 1-4
in Berlin et al. 1973). For the 111 cognate sample, 43 are cultivated and
protected, while 68 are wild. Of the names for cultivated and protected plants,
37 are literal while only 6 are metaphorical. Of the 68 names for wild plants,
42 are literal while as many as 26 are metaphorical. In other words, the ratio
of literal to metaphorical cognates (37 to 6 or 6.2 to 1) in the cultivated and
protected categories combined is about four times higher than the
corresponding ratio (42 to 26 or 1.6 to 1) for the combined "wild" categories.
This difference is very significant atp < .01, X2 = 7.0, df = 1). In other words,
a nomenclatural pattern similar to that which we have observed for five Tupi-
Guarani languages appears to exist as well with respect to Tzeltal/Tzotzil plant
names. In addition, a nomenclatural pattern that lexically distinguishes
between cultivated and non-cultivated plants has been explicitly noted for
Mayan speakers of the Yucatan peninsula (Marin et al. 1976:472).
The factor of plant management correlates very highly with the retention
of plant words in Tzeltal and Tzotzil. Although the sample proportion of
cultivated to protected plants in Berlin et al. (1973) is too small to test
significance of cognacy rates, it is possible to test overall significance of the
proportion of cognacy for cultivated and protected vs. wild plants. Of the 52
word pairs obtained for cultivated and protected plants (see Table 5 in Berlin
et al. 1973:161), 43 are cognates. Of the 205 word pairs for wild plants, only 68
are cognates. That is, managed plants have a cognacy ratio about two and a
half times higher than non-managed plants.
The question remains whether plant utility, aside from plant
management, as we have defined it, would more economically explain the
proportion of similar plant words among the five Tupi-Guarani languages in
our sample. We quantified the uses of non-domesticated species (see Prance
et al. 1987) for the Ka'apor. The uses were (1) food, (2) construction material,
(3) tool, weapon, utensil or container, (4) medicine, and (5) adornment. Fuel
and game food were excluded as uses, since these are extremely widespread
among forest species. Each use is of two types: major or minor. A major use
has a value of 1.0, a minor use of 0.5, and no use, 0 (cf. Turner 1988). Given
that literal plant words tend to be cognate in other languages, while
metaphorical words tend not to be cognate in other languages, we asked
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES 259
whether literal plant words in Ka'apor refer to highly useful plants in a higher
proportion than Ka'apor metaphorical plant words. We limited this question
to the non-domesticated plant category, where the factor of use can be isolated
from that of plant management. A high use value for any species would be 1.0
or above; a low use value would be 0.5 or below. Of 92 names in the Ka'apor
sample of non-domesticated plant names, 25 refer to plants with a high use
value and 67 refer to plants with a low use value. Of the names denoting plants
with a high use value, 13 are metaphorical, while 12 are literal. Of names for
plants with a low use value, 37 are metaphorical while 30 are literal. The
relative proportions of literal to metaphorical plant names in the two
categories, high and low use value, do not significantly differ (X2 = .08, p >
.05, df = 1). This means that the usefulness of a plant is not a factor in why its
name is literal or metaphorical and, by inference, in why its name is retained or
not.
Why are literal plant terms more stable? One hypothesis is that of
Alphonse de Candolle: they are shorter. While there may be some truth in
this, there is probably more to it, since the shorter metaphorical words in our
sample (one morpheme excluding any life-form or common plant part
morpheme) do not seem to have a higher similarity rate than the longer words
(two or three morphemes, excluding any life-form or common plant part
morpheme). Another possibility is that the literal terms endure because of
their arbitrariness--the metaphorical terms involve a cultural interpretation of
the plant which is susceptible to change. In spite of the strong correlations
observed in the section on results, there still remains some degree of
unpredictability and possibly still unidentified factors at work in determining
naming patterns. For example, some undomesticated species (in particular,
several palms) show stable literal names. It is not yet clear what causes such
exceptions.
The general patterns explained above, however, appear to be also present
in the Mayan Tzeltal and Tzotzil as well as in the Tupi-Guarani languages
studied. Perhaps this is the general case in Neolithic societies. It would be
instructive to see whether similarity and variation in other semantic fields, such
as birds, fish, or mammals, can be analyzed along the same general principles.
NOTES
1. The standardized symbols for consonants are as follows: p, t, k,
kw labializedd velar stop), glottall stop), b, d, g, c (dental
affricate), c (alveopalatal affricate), s, 9, z, d (voiced interdental
fricative), h, m, n, fi, g velarr nasal), gw labializedd velar nasal) w,
r, 1, and y. The vowel symbols are: i, e (mid or low-mid front
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
vowel), (high central vowel), a (mid central vowel) a, u, and o
(mid or low-mid back vowel). In all of these languages, the
nasals have homorganic prenasalized voiced stops as
subphonemic variants, e.g. m is sometimes [mb].
The Wayapi phonemicization (Grenand 1980) is retained,
although the symbols are standardized. The (surface) phonemes
are: p, t, k, ', s, m, n, fi, g, w, I, y, i, e, a, u, o,4, and nasalization.
The Ka'apor data are presented in the phonemicization by
Kakumasu (1986:399-401): p, t, k, kw, ', s, s, h, m, n, g, gw, w, r, y,
i, e, i, a, u, and o. The phonemicization for Temb6 is taken from
Bendor-Samuel (1966) recognizing as phonemes the following: p,
t, k, kw, ', c (alveolar or alveopalatal affricate), z (alveolar or
alveopalatal affricate or palatal continuant), h, m, n, g, gw, w, r, i,
e, 4, a ,a, u, and o.
For the Asurini language, we have only a very tentative
phonemicization (Irmazinha Edith 1987:5-7) and some
unpublished transcriptions by Sidney Facundes of the Museu
Goeldi. Although the sounds ii, and y are possibly allophones
of the same phoneme, as are g and g, we employ a broad
phonetic transcription rather than risk an undifferentiated
preliminary analysis. The symbols, then, are: p (bilabial stop,
fricative, or affricate), t, c, k, ', j, g, m, n, f, g, w (bilabial
semivowel or fricative), r, y, i,-i-, e, a, u, and nasalization.
There is no phonemicization available for Arawet6,
although some information appears in Viveiros de Castro
(1986:145). The broad phonetic transcription for Arawet6 uses
the following symbols: p, t, k, ', b, d, c, c, h, d; m, n, i, w, r, y, T,
a, e, i, i, a, u, o, and nasalization.
2. Cronquist (1988:18) later reaffirmed this, stating that:
"It is perfectly clear that natural, recognizable
groups of species, and groups of such groups, exist.
The ranks at which these groups should be received
are not inherent in the nature of the group, but depend
on subjective individual judgment . any evaluation
of the importance of the characters marking a
[supraspecific] group is likely to be difficult and subject
to unresolvable differences of opinion."
3. It is interesting to compare this with Berlin et al. (1973), whose
methods differ somewhat from ours. They explicitly intended to
exclude as possible cognates "compound names which appear to
260
BALEE & MOORE: SIMILARITY AND VARIATION IN PLANT NAMES 261
be the result of identical responses to the same stimuli"
(1973:153). Careful study of glosses of Tzeltal plant names in
Berlin et al. (1974), however, shows this not to be entirely the
case. Example #88 from Table 4 (Berlin et al. 1973:159), ifil?ak
in Tzeltal, is glossed as 'itchy vine' in Berlin et al. (1974:374).
They stated "The sap derived from the leaves is a well-known
skin irritant, hence the plant's name" (Berlin et al 1974:374). As
such, the similarity between Tzeltal and Tzotzil names for this
species could be a result of "identical responses to the same
stimuli" and, by this criterion, should have been excluded from
comparison. Other examples include #29, V'is te (Berlin et al.
1973:156), a thorny plant elsewhere glossed as 'spine tree' (Berlin
et al. 1974:191) and #41, tus?'ak, the word for wild onion,
elsewhere glossed as 'stink grass' (Berlin et al. 1974:458). In fact,
our analysis explicitly includes such names, as long as the
referents are of neotropical origin.
LITERATURE CITED
Albuquerque, M., and E.M.R. Cardoso. 1980. A mandioca no tr6pico 6mido. Editerra, Brasilia.
Alcorn, J.B. 1984. Huastec Mayan ethnobotany. Univ. Texas Press, Austin.
Balde, W. 1987. Cultural forests of the Amazon. Garden 11(6): 12-14, 32.
1989a. The culture of Amazonian forests. Advan. Econ. Bot. 7:1-21.
1989b. Nomenclatural patterns in Ka'apor ethnobotany. J. Ethnobiol. 9(1): 1-24.
,and A. G61y. 1989. Managed forest succession in Amazonia: The Ka'apor case. Advan.
Econ. Bot. 7:129-158.
Bendor-Samuel, D. H. 1966. Hierarchical structures in Guajajara. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ.
London.
Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, R.M. Laughlin, and P.H. Raven. 1973. Cultural significance and
lexical retention in Tzeltal-Tzotzil ethnobotany. Pages 143-164 in M. S. Edmonson, ed.
Meaning in Mayan languages. Mouton, The Hague.
and P.H. Raven. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal plant classification. Academic Press,
New York.
Boudin, M.H. 1978. Dicionfrio de Tupi modern. Vols. I and II. Conselho Esta. Artes Cien.
Humanas, Sao Paulo.
Cronquist, A. 1968. The evolution and classification of flowering plants. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston.
S1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants. Second Edition. The New
York Botanical Garden, Bronx.
Ducke, A. 1949. Notas sobre a flora Neotr6pica II: As leguminosas da Amaz6nia brasileira.
Bol. T6c. Inst. Agronom. Norte 18:1-248.
1953. As esp6cies brasileiras do g8nero Theobroma L. Bol. Tdc. Inst. Agronom. Norte
28:1-20.
Fryxell, P. n.d. The natural history of the cotton tribe (Malvaceae, Tribe Gossypieae). Texas A.
& M. Univ. Press, College Station.
Gould, S.J. 1980. The panda's thumb. W.W. Norton and Co., New York.
Grenand, P. 1980. Introduction a l'6tude de l'univers Waydpi: Ethnodcologie des Indiens du
Haut-Oyapock (Guyane Franqaise). SELAF, Paris.
Heiser, C.B. 1979. The gourd book. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman.
BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 35(4)
Huber, J. 1909. Mattas e madeiras amazonicas. Bol. Mus. Goeldi (Museu Paraense) Hist. e
Ethnogr. 6: 91-225.
IrmAzinha Edith. 1987. DicionArio experimental Asurini de Koatinemo. Ms.
Kakumasu, J. 1986. Urubu-Kaapor. Pages 326-403 in D.C. Derbyshire and G.K. Pullum, eds.
Handbook of Amazonian languages. Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam.
Lathrap, D. 1977. Our father the cayman, our mother the gourd: Spinden revisited, or a unitary
model for the emergence of agriculture in the New World. Pages 713-752 in C.A. Reed, ed.
The origins of agriculture. Mouton, The Hague.
L6ry, J. 1960. Viagem A terra do Brasil. Trans. S. Milliet. Livraria Martins Editora, Sao Paulo.
Lisboa, C. 1967. Hist6ria dos animals e Arvores do Maranhio. Publicaq6es do Arquivo
Hist6rico Ultramarino e Centro de Estudos Hist6ricos Ultramarinos, Lisbon.
Lisboa, P.L.B., U.N. Maciel, and G.T. Prance. 1987. Perdendo Rond6nia. Ciencia Hoje
6(36):48-56.
Marin, A.B., A.B. Vazques, and R.M.L. Franco. 1976. Nomenclatura etnobotinica Maya: Una
interpretaci6n taxon6mica. Institute Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Centro
Regional del Sureste, vol. 36. Coleccion Cientifica, Mexico City.
Nicholson, V. 1982. Breve estudo da lingua Asurini do Xingu, no. 5. Summer Institute of
Linguistics, Brasilia.
Pesce, C. 1985. Oil palms and other oilseeds of the Amazon. D.V. Johnson, Trans. and ed.
Reference Publications, Algonac, Michigan.
Prance, G.T., W. Balee, B.M. Boom, and R.L. Carneiro. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the
case for conservation in Amazonia. Cons. Biol. 1(4):296-310.
Rodrigues, A.R. 1984/85. Relaq6es internal na familiar linguistica Tupi-Guarani. Rev. Antropol.
27/28:33/53.
Rogers, D.J., and S.G. Appan. 1973. Manihot, Manihotoides (Euphorbiaceae). Flora Neotropica
monograph 13. Hafner Press, New York.
Schulz, J.P. 1960. Ecological studies on rain forest in northern Surinam. N.V. Noord-
Hollandesche Uitgevers Maatschappij, Amsterdam.
Smole, W. 1980. Musa cultivation in pre-Columbian South America. Geosci. Man 21:47-50.
Sousa, G.S. 1974. Noticia do Brasil. Departamento de Assuntos Culturais do MEC, Sao Paulo.
Storey, W.B. 1976. Papaya, Carica papaya (Caricaceae). Pages 21-24 in N.W. Simmonds, ed.
Evolution of crop plants. Longman, London.
Turner, N.J. 1988. "The importance of a rose": Evaluating the cultural significance of plants in
Thompson and Lilloet interior Salish. Amer. Anthropol. 90(2):272-290.
Vasconcellos, S. 1865. Chronica da Companhia de Jesu no Estado do Brasil. A.J. Fernandes
Lopes, Lisbon.
Wessels Boer, J.G. 1965. Palmae in J. Lanjouw, ed. Flora of Suriname, vol. V, Part 1:1-172.
E.G. Brill, Leiden.
Contributions to the BULLETIN OF THE FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, may be in any field of biology. Manuscripts dealing with
natural history or systematic problems involving the southeastern United States or the New
World tropics are solicited especially. Manuscripts should be of medium length--circa 35 to 200
pages (10,500-60,000 words). Examination for suitability is made by an Editorial Board.
The BULLETIN is distributed worldwide through institutional subscriptions and
exchanges. It is considered the responsibility of the author to distribute his paper to all inter-
ested individuals. To aid in this the authors) receives) 50 copies free, and he(they) may
purchase additional separates at cost if ordered when page proof is returned. The author is also
responsible for any charges incurred for alterations made by him on galley or page proofs. The
Museum will send an invoice to the author for this amount upon completion of publication.
PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPT
Contributors should consult recent numbers of the BULLETIN for preferred style
and format. Highly recommended as a guide is the CBE Style Manual, 3rd Edition, 1972
(American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, D.C.).
Manuscripts must be submitted in duplicate and satisfy the following minimal
requirements. They must be double-spaced throughout, including tables, figure captions, and
literature citations. Figure legends and tables should be typed on separate sheets. Also, please
submit a copy of the complete text and tables on one or more 5Y" flexible diskettes.
All illustrations are referred to as figures. They must comply with the following
standards: Photographs should be sharp, with good contrast, and printed on glossy paper. If the
background of photographs (especially those of specimens) is not desired, amberlith should be
cut out and used to cover the background. Drawings should be made with dense black
waterproof ink on quality paper or illustration board. All figures should have a cover sheet. All
lettering will be medium weight, sans-serif type (e.g. Futura Medium, News Gothic) in cutout, dry
transfer, or lettering guide letters. Make allowance so that after reduction no lower case letter
will be less than 1 mm high (2 mm is preferred) nor any capital letter greater than 5 mm high.
The maximum size for figures is 9" x 14" (twice BULLETIN page size); figures should not be less
than typepage width (4YV"). With soft lead pencil on the back of each illustration, designate the
top and identify each by author's name, manuscript title, and figure number.
All manuscripts not submitted in BULLETIN format will be returned to the author
for retyping.
Manuscripts and all editorial matters should be addressed to:
Managing Editor of the BULLETIN
Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville FL 32611-2035
U.SA.
|
