User:Paigebodnar/Folk taxonomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Draft[edit]

Lead[edit]

Article body[edit]

Linnaeus, Theophrastus, and Folk Taxonomy[edit]

Linnaean Taxonomy is a scientifically ranked based classification system of living organisms. Developed by Carl Linnaeus, the classification system biologically distinguishes all differentiable species that have been discovered into subcategories[1]. Linnaean Taxonomy was a radical idea developed from similar biological Folk Taxonomy developed by Aristotle and Theophrastus. This biological naming system designed to classify all biological taxa into sub groups of the smallest category of specificity[1]. This method of sub-categorically ranking taxa was designed to explain the theory of evolution, but the principal of classification could be applied to everyday phenomena[2].

Some cultures use folk taxonomies more or less specific, or in direct correlation with modern Linnaean Taxonomy in reference to biological taxa. In areas that the direct biological distinction of plants are more important, such as crops used for food or firewood, some cultures will have a one to one ratio of plants to their Linnaeus counterpart[3]. The use of each group of taxa (species: words) from 2:1 to 1:1 to 1: many, define the cultural significance of each species and the level of specificity they use is their form of a culturally influenced folk taxonomy[3]. Native Tzeltal speakers in the Mayan region of Mexico were found to have developed such divisions towards the crops they most frequently use in everyday life[3]. The cultural significance determined the number of words that the Tzeltal group had for each crop, such as the leguminose legume (Phaseolus vulgaris L. at its most specific Linnaean taxa) was differentiated in Tzeltal into five specific words. This legume is a large farm crop that is extremely present in day to day life in this region[3].

Folk taxonomy precedes the Linnaean taxonomy chronologically. The 9/10 remaining volumes of Historia Plantarum, written by Theophrastus, early philosopher, botanist, and student of Aristotle, describe an initial vernacular naming system of plants. This taxonomy has been developed, but its principal of division was widely accepted until biological theories of evolution evolved[4]. The books list around 500 species of plant native and present in ancient Greece[2]. Theophrastus used sources such as Diocles for herbal information and a naming system similar to Aristotle's classification of animals. The books divide all plants into specific taxa that were used as early folk taxonomies to describe everyday plants in Greece and explain the anatomy of the following groups of taxa: Trees, Wild Trees, Shrubs, Pot-Herbs, Cereals, Legumes, and Herbals (medicinally used plants) as well as the unknown subject of a 10th Volume[4]. These taxa were used in everyday life as a man-made vernacular naming system for local taxa. Though biologically revolutionary at the time, these taxa were also linguistically revolutionary by defining plants in groups larger than themselves. Theophrastus was influenced by preceding local folk taxonomy in his naming system, but also added biological features to the names of many plants such as phylla(leaves), karpoi (fruits), and poai (seasonal herbs)[4]. Terms like phylla are still used in Linnaean and modern naming systems for trees today[1].

Level of Specificity[edit]

The levels of folk taxonomy start out very broad and then slowly get more and more specific. Biological folk taxonomy has five set levels of depth. Level zero, the unique beginner, is extremely broad and has categories like plant or animal. Level one is the life form level and usually features one word categories. The generic level is known to be the most important level of biological folk taxonomy. It's the most widely used and the first level to be learned by children. Classifications like maple tree, blue jay or tulip are made at this level. It's a very important stepping stone for all folk taxonomies. Specific and varietal are the final two levels. The categories get far more distinct and at least two words are necessary to describe them.[5]

The number of depth levels and systems for classification can vary for nonbiological folk taxonomy. The first time a folk taxonomy hierarchy was published which did not feature plants or animals was in 1961 by Charles Frake in disease diagnosis of Mindanao in the Philippines. Frake's classification had four levels. [6] The number of levels is often anywhere between three to five.

An example of how these levels of specificity work in day to day life can easily be seen when talking about a car. On the broadest level, it is a vehicle. On the next, it's a car. Sometimes it's even more distinct and it's called a Toyota or a Toyota Highlander. All these words were used to talk about the same thing, the wording just became more and more specific as we went through folk taxonomy levels.

Human Taxonomy[edit]

In the 18th century, a botanist by the name of Carl Linnaeus proposed what we now know as human taxonomy, the idea that like within botany, human beings could too be classified taxonomically.[7] Linnaeus distinguished groups of human beings upon the basis of their apparent race in addition to several outliers such as wild children (Homo sapiens ferus).[8] However, as anthropology has developed Linnaeus' classifications have proven incompatible with the reality of human differentiation stemming from a cultural basis. Humans tend to be distinguishable, and distinguish themselves, according to their cultural norms, principally language, dress, aesthetics, and social attitudes.[8]

Folk Taxonomy and Linguistic Injustice[edit]

Folk taxonomy in the sense of linguistic culture, and thus injustice, is a divided subject built upon a variety of distinct theories and methods of analysis. Still, there is apparent data that some languages, such as those of Native Americans, have tendencies to favor certain folk taxonomic classifications over others giving the speakers false impressions as to the reality of the subject of classifications.[9]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Reid, Gordon McGregor (2009). "Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): His Life, Philosophy and Science and Its Relationship to Modern Biology and Medicine". Taxon. 58 (1): 18–31. ISSN 0040-0262.
  2. ^ a b Clutton-Brock, Juliet (2015-05-26), "Naming the scale of nature", Taxonomic Tapestries: The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research, ANU Press, retrieved 2023-04-28
  3. ^ a b c d Berlin, Brent; Breedlove, Dennis E.; Raven, Peter H. (1966-10-14). "Folk Taxonomies and Biological Classification". Science. 154 (3746): 273–275. doi:10.1126/science.154.3746.273. ISSN 0036-8075.
  4. ^ a b c Coonen, L. P. (1957). "THEOPHRASTUS REVISITED". The Centennial Review of Arts & Science. 1 (4): 404–418. ISSN 0008-901X.
  5. ^ Wolff, P (1999). "The Evolution and Devolution of Folkbiology" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ Brown, Cecil H.; Kolar, John; Torrey, Barbara J.; Truong-Quang, Tipawan; Volkman, Phillip (1976-02). "some general principles of biological and non-biological folk classification 1". American Ethnologist. 3 (1): 73–85. doi:10.1525/ae.1976.3.1.02a00050. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Kirkup, Gill (2000). The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-22091-0.
  8. ^ a b Marks, Jonathan (2007-05). "Long shadow of Linnaeus's human taxonomy". Nature. 447 (7140): 28–28. doi:10.1038/447028a. ISSN 1476-4687. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ Duranti, Alessandro (2003-06). "Language as Culture in U.S. Anthropology: Three Paradigms". Current Anthropology. 44 (3): 323–347. doi:10.1086/368118. ISSN 0011-3204. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)