Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPhaka, Fortunate M.
dc.contributor.authorNetherlands, Edward C.
dc.contributor.authorKruger, Donnavan J.D.
dc.contributor.authorDu Preez, Louis H.
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-25T08:17:53Z
dc.date.available2019-04-25T08:17:53Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationPhaka, F.M. et al. 2019. Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 15(1): Article no 17. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3]en_US
dc.identifier.issn1746-4269 (Online)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/32270
dc.identifier.urihttps://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0294-3
dc.description.abstractBackground We use taxonomy to organize the world into recognizable units. Folk taxonomy deals with the naming and classification of organisms through culture. Unlike its scientific counterpart, folk taxonomy is mostly undocumented, the Zoological Code of Nomenclature does not regulate it, and the resulting names are specific to each culture. A growing body of literature is steadily shedding light on the principles underlying this pre-scientific taxonomy. Vernacular names can be an instrument to increase participation of non-scientists in biodiversity matters. In South Africa, great strides have been made in standardizing and increasing relatability of vernacular amphibian names in English and Afrikaans. However, there is a need to achieve the same with the country’s autochthonous languages which are used by a majority of the population. Methods This study investigates amphibian-related folk taxonomy using a semi-structured interview process in KwaZulu-Natal’s Zululand region and pilots methods of applying folk taxonomy principles to compile a comprehensive list of standardized indigenous frog names. Results Folk taxonomy in Zululand is systematic, developed, and bears similarities to other indigenous taxonomies around the world. Similarities also exist between folk and scientific taxonomy. Six uninomial indigenous names were found to be used for the 58 amphibian species occurring in the study area. The 58 species were assigned individual indigenous names using folk taxonomy guidelines supplemented with guidelines for modern taxonomies. Conclusions There is a gap in the documentation and investigation of amphibian folk taxonomy in South Africa. Standardization of indigenous frog names is required to increase their universality. Similarities between folk and modern taxonomies allow for supplementation of indigenous guidelines when compiling a comprehensive indigenous species list. Through this study, social inclusion in wildlife matters is increased, indigenous knowledge systems are promoted, and a contribution is made to the development of an indigenous South African languageen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBMCen_US
dc.subjectAnuraen_US
dc.subjectEthnotaxonomyen_US
dc.subjectIndigenous knowledgeen_US
dc.subjectMaputaland-Pondoland-Albanyen_US
dc.subjectTaxonomyen_US
dc.titleFolk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.researchID21714363 - Netherlands, Edward Charles
dc.contributor.researchID12308218 - Du Preez, Louis Heyns
dc.contributor.researchID20428405 - Kruger, David Johannes Donnavan
dc.contributor.researchID25985469 - Phaka, Fortunate M.


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record