An ethnobotanical investigation of tree identification by the Aguaruna Jívaro of the Peruvian Amazon

Journal of Ethnobiology

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 107-125

  Jernigan, Kevin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Aguaruna; Amazonian flora; covert categories; ethnobiology; identification

Indexed keywords

EID: 44949201471     PISSN: 02780771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2993/0278-0771(2006)26[107:AEIOTI]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Anderson, E. 2000. Maya knowledge and "science wars." Journal of Ethnobiology 20:129-158.
2. Atran, S. 1999. Itzaj Maya folkbiological taxonomy: Cognitive universals and cultural particulars. In Folkbiology, eds. D.L. Medin and S. Atran, pp. 119-203. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
3. Atlas. 2004. Atlas regional del Peru Tomo 5: Amazonas. Quebecor World Perú S.A., Lima.
4. Berlin, B. 1976. The concept of rank and ethnobiological classification: Some evidence from Aguaruna folk botany. American Ethnologist 3:381-399.
5. -. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
6. Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, and P.H. Raven. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal plant classification. Academic Press, New York.
7. Berlin, E.A. and E.K. Markell. 1977. An assessment of the nutritional and health status of an Aguaruna Jávaro community, Amazonas, Peru. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 6:69-81.
8. Carneiro, R. 1978. The knowledge and use of rainforest trees by the Kuikuru Indians of central Brazil. In The nature and status of ethnobotany, ed. R.I. Ford, pp. 201-216, Anthropological Papers no. 67, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
9. Chumap Lucáa, A. and M. Garcáa-Rendueles. 1979. Duik Muun . . . : Universo Mático de los Aguaruna. 2 vols. Centro Amazónico de Antropologáa y Aplicacio ́n Práctica, Lima.
10. Davis, W. 1996. One river: Explorations and discoveries in the Amazon rain forest. Simon and Schuster, New York.
11. Dougherty, J.W.D. 1979. Learning names for plants and plants for names. Anthropological Linguistics 21:298-315.
12. Ellen, R. 1993. The cultural relations of classification: An analysis of Nuaulu animal categories from Central Seram. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13. Gentry, A.H. 1993. A field guide to the gamilies and genera of goody plants of Northwest South America (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
14. Gollin, L.X. 2004. Subtle and profound sensory attributes of medicinal plants among the Kenya LeppòKe of east Kalimatan, Borneo. Journal of Ethnobiology 24:173-201.
15. Holdridge, L. 1967. Life zone ecology. Tropical Science Center, San Jose, Costa Rica.
16. Hunn, E.S. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist 84:830-847.
17. López Zent, E. 1999. Hoti ethnobotany: Exploring the interaction between plants and people in the Venezuelan Amazon. Ph.D. Dissertation (Anthropology). University of Georgia, Athens.
18. Posey, D.A. 1984. Hierarchy and utility in a folk biological taxonomic system: Patterns in classification of arthropods by the Kayapó Indians of Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology 4:123-139.
19. Shepard, G.H. 2002. Nature's Madison Avenue: Sensory cues as mnemonic devices in the transmission of medicinal plant knowledge among the Matsigenka and Yora of Perú. In Ethnobiology and biocultural diversity, eds. J.R. Stepp, F.S. Wyndham and R.K. Zarger, pp. 326-335. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
20. Stuessy, T. 1990. Plant taxonomy: The systematic evaluation of comparative data. Columbia University Press, New York.
21. Stross, B. 1973. Acquisition of botanical terminology by Tzeltal children. In Meaning in Mayan languages, ed. M.S. Edmonson, pp. 107-141.
22. Mouton, The Hague. Uwarai, Y., I. Abel, P. Suikai, and J. Regan. 1998. Diccionario Aguaruna Castellano: Awajún Chichám Apáchnaujai. Centro Amazónico de Antropologáa y Aplicacio ́n Práctica (CAAAP), Lima.