This paper argues that ethnoscientists interested in folk biological class@cation have paid insufficient attention to the practical significance of such systems of cultural knowledge in their pursuit of general logical and/or perceptual principles governing the f o r m and content of folk biological taxonomies. It is suggested that ethnoscientists adopt a n adaptationist stance in recognition of the,fact that cultural knowledge is used to guide behavior. The implications of such a shift in emphasis on folk biological classqication theory are assessed. Present theory is rent by a fundamental contradiction between a .formal taxonomic hierarchy model and one based on the contrast between a general purpose, biologically natural taxonomic core and special purpose, biologically artificial peripheral taxa. T h e natural core model is advocated us both superior in explanatory power and explicit in recognizing the purposes of classzyication. C. Brown's lzye-f o r m universals are criticized f o r confounding the fundamental contrast between general purpose and special purpose lzye-form taxa. In conclusion, there is a discussion of the dtyficulty of developing a valid measure of the practical significance o f a taxon, suggesting as a first step toward that goal the systematic description of each taxon's unique "activity signature. " S u c h actim'ty signatures are then to be evaluated in the context of a culture2 system of "routine action plans" which link cultural knowledge and adaptive behavior. T h e desired result is a new ethnoecology integrating ethnoscientific and ecological theory. [ethnoscience, taxonomy, folk biology] 1976; Kay 1971Kay , 1975Rosch 1978). However, the fact that cultural knowledge of the EUGENE HUNN is Associate Professor,

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

No abstract

There is an emerging recognition that the diversity of life comprises both biological and cultural diversity. In the past, however, it has been common to make divisions between nature and culture, arising partly out of a desire to control nature. The range of interconnections between biological and cultural diversity are reflected in the growing variety of environmental sub-disciplines that have emerged. In this article, we present ideas from a number of these sub-disciplines. We investigate four bridges linking both types of diversity (beliefs and worldviews, livelihoods and practices, knowledge bases and languages, and norms and institutions), seek to determine the common drivers of loss that exist, and suggest a novel and integrative path forwards. We recommend that future policy responses should target both biological and cultural diversity in a combined approach to conservation. The degree to which biological diversity is linked to cultural diversity is only beginning to be understood. But it is precisely as our knowledge is advancing that these complex systems are under threat. While conserving nature alongside human cultures presents unique challenges, we suggest that any hope for saving biological diversity is predicated on a concomitant effort to appreciate and protect cultural diversity.

I propose a program for cross‐cultural research seeking semantic universals in place–name systems. Over 1000 place‐names in the Sahaptin Indian language of northwestern North America are analyzed for syntactic, semantic, and distributional regularities. Comparisons are drawn with Dena'ina Athabaskan, Yurok, and local English place‐name systems. Binomial place‐names are rare in Sahaptin, though common in other languages. Sahaptin place‐names very frequently are descriptive of biological and topographic features of sites. Many Sahaptin place‐names describe features of land and water as if in motion. Place‐names are sacred in origin; thus no places are named for persons. Quantitative analysis of the spatial distribution of place‐names unexpectedly reveals a striking correlation between place‐name density and population density which holds for a sample of 14 languages. This appears due to a tendency for an individual's repertoire of place‐names to be limited to approximately 500.