‘ex ouvage pub das ect de Tord de covison paste try ee a Fors de Man dessin de Tomine ct Pew Sy che Uv of Cambridge. Tous ngut epéemer ot amiss pou ie euvers pr at ‘toed outages ae peuvent purse en pase lenge ‘es ouvages print leet sot dan ane ees ul Man des scesedethomne et Cambridge Urneity Pron ot conven dea eee La “scibucon dan Te monde ene er ser sat pul conantemen: pr fr doe ‘eblaemens tre per Cumbege Univerity Pe ‘Ris ook publi as par ofthe joie pablhing agreement exblibed in 1977 tecween the Fndtion deh Mion descended Pre Syd of the University of Cambri, Tides pad under thi arangnct ay spe in soy Eozopein lngune onthe cw of one of alee ean need engage "New toot wl spp the tne tls o non of the sis whch he Maton dsicience de Tome sd ee Cambridge Urivery Prt ae oad 1 pba Al bokspblied jl by the Mason dcr de Thome he ‘Cambridge Univer re wil be ded byte Pra hoaphon te moi COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS OF NATURAL HISTORY ‘Towards an anthropology of science SCOTT ATRAN ‘chanc ox nrcnerce (CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS ‘Gigs New Vou Pou Gheter Malteame Sydney LA MAISON DES SCIENCES DE L:HOMMEraat ten rn tae “Seer” See seicnittal netercucc (© ine de Sine Hamed Cambie UnveryFen Fe ped pe ‘inline iy Rabo at nl Msn, Wie ns ey aig pn te Cope nb fd ory: vad a Coma ony f Ganges asin pin te ate mbna amen Penn 1. Folk caicaon "Sapient cle, 3, Nae So cpa ys “oo sian CP spn S rite ome oy or my bathe Dea, and my ath, Margaret MeadCONTENTS Introdection PART I FOLKBIOLOGY 2:1 Tn the beginning 2 A basic level 33 Lieforme 24 Excepon hat prove the role 25 Family fagments 4) THE SEMANTICS OF LIVING KINDS 4 Doman speecity 52 Meaning a3 motley 533 Nature and necesiy 5.4 Phenomenal reity and nomic theory 115 Kinds of att hinds PART II ARISTOTELIAN ESSENTIALS 441 Beenie reconsidered 43 “Indacton 11) Fm and mater “{61 Genoe and Eidos 46a Division and assembly 53 Amlogy 5:4 Fare eampl PART Ill FROM HERBALS TO SYSTEMS {61 Back to mature (5 Charing new teriory 153 Specs forever 664 Omni er ovo 2 Prue of reson 73 Trial and eror 73 Areand neon 7 Parade regained PART IV THE SCIENTIFIC BREAKAWAY |THE METHOD OF FAMILIES AND CLASSES 4 Seri and rin 1a And the wal came rumbling down 13 Phong eogeter the Fragments 14 Organization 15 End of seri Ds Savage savy 93 Cognitive “pathogenesis” 93 Specsating 94 Plans 5 animals 95 The analogy of raure 96 Man dethroned 57 Disposition to sceptics CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX. MILESTONES OF NATURAL HISTORY NOTES REFERENCES INDEX 3 13 "7 ns 8 ast 18 5 21 a0 332 ae 270 275 333 PREFACE “The following pages ae intended to revolve a paradox, which a parle ened up. The porte encountered athe sar of gedante study io anthropology ‘mos introductory courses and texts began by proclaiming the psychic unity of Thamankind, oly to proceed tag othe study of elarl variations. Having 10 Tong combated the ethnocentric view of Wester thought as innate oF inevitable, anehropologis had largely come to enounes ll pple atv 2 cently absurd and ideologically pernicious. But in phiowpty p= ‘chology and ngunicsthe argument over univer of man cognition wat ting vigorously pursed. Anew natin ane Re of howe simple retppotton tat most anthropclogiss had eighty downed. Forth prof of people ike myself who were perpleted bythe sue of nivel, conceived debate betreen Nour Chom and Jean Phage then Gn 1973), 4 ow, dcr rexpectve outlooks on univers had the mos fr reaching inlions fo the ady of cori nlading is biologi pec). ‘The meeung was organized by the Royaumont Cente fora Scene of Man (= Royaumont Center 1980). AS the dscasion unfolded T came to think that (Chomsky wa, im the min, right and Plage wrong: o logiel or empiri rounds rappored the cir thatch nate and univer foundations ofan ‘Binking rede to an undiferensnted stelgence, which i esponsble in the same way forall cognitive operations ‘Why, indeed, make the # pr sumption dat all or even some, of the interesting (ce. specerspeie) domains of human knowledge and experience aeseractred alike? ei hardly pausble ha the ch and divene sons of dat ‘mental competence ae induce, learned orconsracted by general procedures {fom the poor and fragmentary experiences of chidhood. Mare key, thee ae 2 varity of fay welbariclted modes of human thinking ~ inherentlyAiferenatd components of human natere acquired over milion of yar of bhologeal and cognitive evalason ‘Now for the paradox, which Piaget sggesed sock reasoning len to. Suppre, n Chorky' fabion, tha each fundamental eype of human kxow- Tedge aes rom speilized cognitive spite; ten science, which patently theca from ote forms of human knowledge, shold sho be sanately ‘rounded in some specal "scenceforming fal” But suppose alo tht, Sence integrate the varios domains of human knowledge and in ways ‘contingent upon nforeen sight nto the rations between domains From ‘hs lier supposition i fallowa that sence cannot exit spar from (loge ‘or prior fo} contitaent domains ence, cannot const a distinc aay. Inston undencore the paradox: i i car ehat the groweh of scentc Knowledge, whether oa cute or individ! mind, lacks the guas-anromatic character evident inthe aequion of sch ordinary forms of knowledge 2 Tings competence, sata apprection, facial recognition, color pere=pion onthe apprehension of ving kgs Bar the paradox gos depot undermining the distinctiveness of ondary Focms of knowledge awe. face does aly integrate the vaio ordinary domain therfore oblerts dhe Boundaree and integrate the upp teil fined and spec characters Spring thatthe copmivly matting dul thinks 4 woulbe sient, den tak ofthe mature sndividual ening any ‘peclzedcopntive clues no longer Seems to make much sense "The paradox disappears belive, when one dops the elated presapposons that scence ends to thortghly integrate the domains of ordinary human ‘knowlege and thet cognitive maturation nec process inthe decom of ‘entific rewoning. fa fc, science scarcely fect ordinary thinking abot (Gatomary matten, and most adults Become highly competent culsal per- {mers without any sientisc knowledge. Culecn etl peoples, moder Iuyflk~ even scents sm ther nonworking hours ~ realy pation the ‘oninary range of man experience according to cognitive domine that ae prety much the same acrow cltres By and large, thee domains remain [Krstur able and are adogete for dealing withthe phenomenal word of ordinary human experienc. "To iltate ths rather spontaneous and steadst acquisition of "common sense” analy folk knowledge of ving kinds. The development of cence ‘vinet no auch spontaneity and stably. There appears to be no spedlly ontiuted “siene-orming-facely,” although thew: may be mote genel “regulative” penile on rational explanation and inligibity. Rate, ceri science ser ited to spec common-sense domain. This book kes the example of systematic ~ the sence of biological casition ~ which ‘merged ar anclaborason of nivenalcogitive chem common all and only ‘lkbiologial exonomies [Natural hizory, ike natural plulosophy, wanscended the bounds of common serie by cling upon various representational techniques tat inreased the depth and exent oft coverage ofthe act Although by no mean resid 0 ‘hi that domain of common tne, sich techies til had to operate with ‘he materials of this that domain in mind. The mora: theories analogies that allow us to speculate beyond common-sense domains mu ongialy be formulated interme ofthe, tht i, with pointed reference to the agave “piven” of our pecs Perhap the peyhologiel codon that ence inilly be compatible with common-sense univesals imposes insurmountable aries to some line of Sint advance. Even so, there would be litle case eo lament the roe of ‘common ens in the prow and undentanding af cece, Fortis owing othe ‘contrainte of common sen that science develope at all and can be made ‘ccesibeto the cilden of contemporary Stone Age peoplesjust realy 280 ‘er own sone and daughter. The present book endeavor to make ti obvious ‘A good deal of the subject mater iterated into this book was ongzally ‘catered in caer prenatons. Pare I draws on thee wurees "Covert fragments andthe origin ofthe boancl fly” (Man, 131-7, 198), "The satere of folkbotariclbfe-orm (American Antoplot 8298-315, 1985). “Ondiary conursins on the semantics of living Kinds). commonsense lkerative to recent treatments of mtrs-objec terms” (Mind and Language, 227-43, 197), "Do natural kind concepts form 3 natural Kind?” (Paper ‘elvered to the second seuion of the Fanco-Brtsh Project on "Language, ‘Communication and Cognition”, Londen, May 198 "Basic conceptual do= mais” (Mind and Langage, «7-16, 1989),) Many ofthe argument fr Par I inially appeared sm "Pretheoretcl aspect of Arian definition and ‘daeiGcation of animale the ete for common emi” (Stadler dn History nd Philsphy of Scene, 6113-163, 1988). Part I contain Meas fom an aril, “Origins ofthe species and genus concep: a anthropological perspective” (ural ofthe History of Bile Sevigi-ang, tot), and fom 3 paper, "The commonsense bass of Bufons Mathie nae (divered othe "Callogue Iteration Bufo 8," Pars— “Montbard~ Dijon, ne 1988. Much ofthe material n Pare 1V derives rom the following: see of erere ven othe Department of Socal Aniropolgy. Cambridge University (tthe invitation of Jack Goody, winter term 984), my couse "Culture and Communication” (aught oily with Dan Spsber a the cole det Haste adr en Sciences Socal n Pars, 1985-1986), and the Paper “Whiter the new ethnography?” (delivered to the Kings College Research (Cente Confrence on "Complex Culture Categorie,” Cambridge University, March 198). Tam pariclarly grate co Clemens Heller, Presiden ofthe Maison des, ences de Homme, or dhe iaitona sppor that ceed me chrough te lean years, when much wain question. Other iesatons helped along the way: Colum University, the Fondation Fyuen, the Frit Thysen Stifang and, ‘specially the Centre National de ls Recherche Scenigue and dhe Navona SaenceFoundstion Scholar's Awad Program inthe Hixor an Pilsophy of Scence (Grant No, SES-407896). Profewor Jacques Barra, of the MuseumNational Histoire Naturelle de Pai, kindly offered what proved to be 3 rewarding and biting sociation wit the Laboratowe d'Ethnobounigue et ‘EF Ethnoroologic (now the Labonte dthnobilogie-BiogSogrphi). The ‘wy formed Groupe de Recherche nur la Cognition (CREA CNRS) athe coe Plytciniqae provided he forum of ideas and technical means for dhe final edlization of this work, 'A deep itlectal debe is owed Dan Sperber, whose knowledge and science cacouraged my swatenes of erin fandsmenta ics ested here and serve te harness some of the wilder hypotheses. {ave ao profited greatly from ‘cal dacunions and corespondencss with Alexander Alland, Brent Bern, ‘Chine Predberg, David Hil Jonatian Hodge, Pre Jacob, Ernst Mayts Georges Métil, Philip Slo and Peter Steves. Generous yeas of advice fiom Lawrence Hnchiid and the affection bestowed by my fly were Indispensable the doggcines and completion of my eterprie A very special ‘hanks goes tomy daupiten, Tatiana and Laura, and tomy son Eman, fOr ruck of the oy that anumstes ny Ip and work a COMMON SENSE: ITS SCOPE AND LIMITS, Phones Fam nen, Hy, spe homo ene of be ‘efor a of my tn, At he gery ‘Re on dle athe gare and al ou a ee an fe im rd, he peer (Batiop Geom Berkey, Tid Dis eee Tig Pnoe, 89) Ever since Pato, many philorophers have hel common seni in poor eee. ‘This ispaicalary notable in scenic ce, which end vo dais the popular tssumption tha people do Know mos of wha they ordinal think they know Bra vesige of "Stone Age metaphysis". Science, i appar, isthe only ‘eusworthy cimant co ate comprehension of the world, wheres common seme bu fithworeny for svages, cir andthe unedcatt abe Tes ‘avfortonae that plenophes and Norte of sence have old common ene So short. For once ts proper scope and mits ate understood, moch tha seems ‘baci in the development of ence becomes psn “Tre, there much ip quantum mechanic and relativity eheory. 2 in cvolasonary theory and molealr biology, thats counte-inetive, oF a east Ihe no predentin everyday thought. But a comprehension of he base ‘concept frameworks of, ay, cel mechanic and ae sysemas Was {nvrumental nthe ritcl frelon ofthe corresponding modem scenic ‘hone. Manipulation of dese frameworks, in ttm, pivoted on awarencs of {he cape and limits of common sense. ‘Common seni i sed here with systematic ambiguity to sfer both othe ‘esas and proces of certain spc kinds of ordinary thinking: what all {cits considered, and it cognitively responsible for dhe consideration of, manifeey perceivble empirical fact Uke he fc tht gras green hen it ‘rally pereived tobe gor). Inerpeeted inthis way, common sense abo Includes statements pertaining to what i play an snatly grounded, and secispecfi, appreension of the spatio-temporal, geomet, chroma,chemical and orgie world in which we, an all ther human beings, live out ‘al ves (GE Moore puts the mater in dhs ight* “The "Common Sense view ofthe world... “in certain fundamental fextare” wholly ru. Wha is meant by saying that sorand-o is feature ote in "the Common Sense view ofthe world"? Something ike i “That i isa thing which every or very necy every sane adult who as the se ofall his sess (eg was not born ind oe deat), believes or knows (ere “believes” and "knows" ae wed dipoiionly). Docs one need 0 44; And of which, for many centuries, would have bean ere to thi? Coosa) CCommon-snte tlt are beyond dsp nos because they happen to acco rately derrbe the fc, bu esas that ert che way man are const rally daposed to think of dings OF coune, this docs not define the erm ‘common sense” preciely nor expesly gay what atthe common-sense Beli, "Common sense” isl i not likely « maerabkind predicate ofthe scence of cognitive pychology~ piece oferebralachitecrre that fncion i behavior ‘eth awl replant. Bue, as wesbal se, cognitive psychology and anchropo- Jogy can lseate common ease, fr instance plain thinking about the werld in terms of universal color shemata gid bodies, biological taxa and so forth The actual realzaton of thee cognitive univer depends upon he Fag mented and imited experience avaiable vo us, But ach experience doy not 0 ‘ich spe our belt a activate our native dispositions fo extend particular Encounter to generalized et of commplenyreltd ene to beable to dvde the ‘word ino eats nd dogs, one most experience eats and dogs; bu ison prior ogntive disposition to categorize animals with animals and species members ‘with species members hallows wo ding sch expeiones uct 2nd dogs. ‘As such, common srs isnot to be confounded with "god sense” (or the sens cmmuais of the Roman oraon). That i the mental eapacity for ‘aempliving proper jadgmen, when we sy of wie or handy man ha he ‘how: good common sti in his choices” The will or pragiate) kind of Judgmene implied s unequally shared within a culture ad is rena may vary ‘eros cltures. But what conceras us here i equally accesible to the sige and ‘he jgnorames dhe sill an he clay, no mater what he clkure Tes very phusbly 2 pate of our evolutionary hartge, ike the human disostion ‘stegoicllyditingish an atic fom a ving kind. No speculation can pos conte the grounds for this common-sense view of things bce all Speculation mast wart om ie There js sno other pce co begin to chink oat che world Speclative reason (Cats hon ens thus unable wo cu the umbilical cord that binds to common ene, nd undermine Stil, one can go beyond our ordinary ways of thinking about things. Speculation can revel the bounds of such thinking and thereby prevent common sense fom excoding i proper thority ~ fr common see etn aid only slong a ti rented co the ‘maniely visible dimensions of the cveryay worl hat i to phenomena elit. Sted reflection and measured experimentation, however, can lead 0 Knowledge of anoeer world ~ 4 nonphenomenal world of atronomicl, smirencopic nd evoltionaty dimensions ~that an ony be vaguely pecived, ‘fa all, with the pparatar of elt-eviden imuisons ds belongs common ‘Common snc, then, it an indubtble source of truth for knowledge of the readily experienced lol worl, but file st » means of insight ito the Seienete universe. This, opines eice (193), what the eghtenth-cenary ‘Scots commonsense phlopher id not fly appreciate” “The Scotch ile to recogni. tha he original elif only remain indobable in thee apphtion c afi hat reemble dhe prmitve mode fife... Modem scene, with io microscopes and telescopes, wih its ‘hemitsy and electric, and with iw enrely new applianes of i, hat ot usin quite another World: almost 6 much oa if had anspor Sur race to another plnet, Some ofthe ol belie have no applieion| ‘excepted in extended senses, pd in such extended Sess they ae some- ‘ime dabiable snd subject o crises (Gus. 5519) “Ths white the Scots may have overrated che validity of common sense, ters have cetinlyunderated i This book i an effort fo ere the balance ‘of knowledge beoween common sene and ronnce by renerprenng the ‘eltonhipn light of new evidence and recent research in anthropology and yehology Ie approacher i objet, not fom the mare eadioalpilsophi {3 hizonclorsocolopealpenpecives, but om vantage hat think sore bic and neceay tall f thet: that of cogition. By “cognion,” I mess quite simply the interal sactere of ideas by which the word concepeaied Everyone who has ever done or thought about scence ht entertained cognitive clans about how the world can or shold be thought of. Bt ‘arouse tenon hat been pdt the conceptual origin and suctae of ‘hoe chims - whats about the human mind that makes our species, ‘Gpuble of thinking scinticlly. should Tike to apply shi “cogmtve™ ‘eipetve with view twatdexpining the sccoive enti nemo, {Tasformations and matasons of what Hume elle "chat oxgial ck of ‘eas," which human imapinaion may deed exceed but never be alkogeter fee of In this scenario, common sense dos ot precude, but niher does ic inl, any magic, mythico-telgiows, metaphoreal or other "symbole" eaboraon ‘tthe empitieal world. Any symbolic trance nonpropotionl however ‘ne choot to ookat it lapel no ied meaning (not evens context eave (oe) canbe aged hat would permit a coherent evaluation ofentalmenss, 3mpi, no determinate fica conent cn be atributed whose cone sas enpernce might definitely confirm or dconfrand psychology Seem tanemonicsrctre canbe accorded for content storage and reall Teimtormation. In mulyingsenes and meaphor symbolism leas the erprtaon of any crane siiantly "open-ended" “Feige beyond the "bre fats of common sense and ino the work of sen ten sees fi fall ocopine tat symbolic reconsias of the eet an noe connate expanasons of the fs. Because symbolim cannot [tna perm ld fs, afr i cannot onsen projet pate to erin night, pees G. FR. Lloyd, that dtingises the Greek ‘loge’ fom the map and the Hippocratic doctors from the purifies ‘ar: Mythological “seolgis” are explanations only ina gute rested sense Tere earthquakes to Poseidon fom the point of view of an indentanding ofthe nature of earthquakes, not 0 reduce the unknown $9 (ie known, but co exchange one unknown for another. Wile Poseidon’ rhodes be imapined inhuman terms. nw an earthquake OCs Tot thereby explained nor indeed 2 sue there ino question of retina» borin ni co an ners in esl explanations of sme Tenn OS detert nvesigaton of how patel kinds of natural pheno- ‘na car only begins withthe philosophers it was they who fist Mempecd fo explain what thunder, lightning, elie nd the ike rein {ers of more fama phenomens and process 979: 3) ‘But in onder to explain new or uafamiar phenomena, the faa phenomens Sricommon save would have #9 be codified and theoretically construed ‘fatout sock sandadiaed referents thee could be no judgment of progres. ier. Tha is why, a8 Kirk (1960) cogently points out, “ras departres ‘om common sene were creflly avoided by the Prosetti. or cumple the esuton of problems connected wit the spatio-temporal poutonf th beverly bors depends upon a cores appreciation of he opt pesmi of common ene The ape ofthe earth, the posion of de san and ‘elke se determined by eesti, howevet, sch alelations (which were purty develope iso navigation) ar based onthe aempion dat varios Pa arin how and where hey commonsenscally appear tobe Is oly Pes ec usr by equating the pyc postions of the things around ws with, thevabuevedpoutons of tandardived referers that our mare sophisticated Reto olocaeng abject lik the un and projecting the curvature ofthe orth ane contrmable ul, Such standardized referent, takes together with Gear apport apatoreemporal poison, are preiely the things around ws sth wich we are nom meee fami. Tn hs espe, what happened in tara story isnot uke what occurred in taal philoophy. A snes of binlpieal eypes emerged (0 provide & TGaonome yam of refrence forthe comparative sadly of organisms It isby developing notion of pci, gc fami and aes tht matur isorians ser rpreanlyendariz what ws sad —at lent tosome eet ane ete wiwpoins of ordinary folk everywhere, Unimuely, this ranma old poole z practi ax ford comprehensive survey of famewett World ovr, and. concepaal foundation forthe Sore Tene i gfe merrlaions How ts sain in ou apprehension of cate tid fom sing vo abject came about, erin apie fo Sow “This inquiry ht Four pats, which are broadly 2 allows put Pakbiolgy” looks 2 sme ofthe picpl atures of he common Pa Eta naa toy, Fcasig o0 Raw people che word ve sey lc percved living Kinds The pespctive chat of cat eo ranch of oputivesnhropoiogy oneceed with udyig the caer of clr pred and wil: the focal for std fune & TUES Soren come co igh bo in ead the onary easton cet nd te cxrsordiary scent casication of living Winds, en ae erinnemive empirical and chore) concultuat work com coe iat fakbelogieal clinton i taxonomic being compored of ¢ {eu aay ofncesve cles oF nga, or ana, At cach evel of ena whch ace moa exc exaust periton the ae sed ios, Lay taxonomy, appear nivale poly roy ees sslely diene hierarchic level o nk: he vl of Serene grespcon and Hef (Berne a. 1979 Se incre to the ontop eategory of pant or dat of an te vee humans. Some cules have single words to denote the aan oie realm, ike “beat” fr noahuman animals Oxier ean ay dexptve pls “ha of he cart rk gob) ok see bon ofthe Banas of Timor (cf, dbs 984 Some root 1 Pa are forthe unig epnne, ik the amen casi wk op ithe Total May ein eal 974 Sil ter oe te we of re worthptse oF markers hough seems hat om a ay AS are viel dingush theca of ants andthe cas of anima 6 cana nti of young Mayan (Stow 1973) and American (tie) presen» mach more detailed appecintion of plane fe “for is owe fake" than the Badians herbal would lead ome to mapect. Silry, with respect 19 the flk casicasons of de Teclal Maya of Mexico and the Aguaren Jaro of Pes, Betin (1978 10-t1) notes that more than a third of the named pans in both cee ave no known soil we, nor tne they posnovs or psifrous, Like she overwhelming majority of mained ‘ln, however, thre apparently lacking én cultural way ate ao grouped cording to “overall pereptalsimdrter "This finding woul seem to Contovert the view thie proitrate man namer and clanier only those ‘Srgznians in the environment tat hae ome mmedistefncionlsigafcance rsa” "A csc examination of Theophrat’s Mira platanum, which provides, the touchtone for many ter Earopean herbal, shows that 2 scion of tultaral vse i predicated om the following promi: tha shred vis ae ecevary consequences of inary in underlying ewe mature (phys) and that thee off no beter sgn of iar in nature hana opel ition ‘of overall resemblance in realy vile morpological aspect (ei, ie, Ick, mrp) bee words learned communication prsipot the prin! Died acceptance of morphlogical types, 5 Aquinas 0 ply noted “figure ‘Sgnum pec! in rebut nasrabus” (Suma tla 7.8), “Yea even in ate Antiguity the commonsense foundations of natural history wor often ignored. Subuguent developmen only aggravated this net Fotowing the Renaiance, poponets of 2 rational system and empiri Ftd for the worldwide ordering of plant and animals emphasned the Froblem of finding univeral wandards of agrernent about morphological ‘nity. But the oatons offered were primal considered eo be phioophic ‘Srvels only nedntlly sara wet they sought ofa bored reonganiaa- Tons of bate commonsnse dspsion to das organisms. ‘Arte requirements ofa worlwide taxonomy weteneresingy raw fom rnoninutve modes freon an observation, expliirecurs to cstomary nowiedgediinihed. The herachy of commonsente categoris that ste fnatit and mods alike inilly aceped began to break down unde the burden of incorporating a prodigious mamber of inractabl, exotic organisms, Inti everyday liver matral hirortan, ike everybody ee, could sere do Mwthowt thus eegores, yet, anermitent swarenes of this ereumstane Tnerged only inthe reluctant acknowledgment that people are ordinarily Sic tothe convenience of itellctualy oxrworn ations. Unbappiy for those who desire to know more dan jus the chronological requence of ‘Sestte ducovery, appreciation of the mater has barely improved since Darwin The coprive ctor tat have hizrtcallycompeled and enabled the tind wo eesalve a vast aray of aenie parle have ths been le mostly inthe (br. Consider he fllowng Tn the seminal work on the history of botany to Darwin, Ji Sac (5) go) provides the famework for tomamerable subsequent interpretations of the coun of natural history Sachs rater simple-minded premise is that tence as is origins in the “unprcuded” and “involuntary” inductive “Mlchtion of pereepon and idea In the begining, dese asocatons were oncemed wat practi mates Inthe effort to promot the knowiodge of ‘le for pracoealpurpow by caefel descnption of individ forms che [impresion forced ite on the mind of the cbserver that there ae varios ‘tural group of plans which havea dint resemblance to one another in form and ots characteristics”) Oncr the mind wat feed fom the grip of tendicoal schools natural groupe could be inuted through the snp mameraton of obecrraons "The perception ofa natural afnity among pln ‘oul only be obtained from exact description a thousand times repeated, never ffom the sbsactions of te Aritotelan school, which rested exentially on superfical oberation’" (9) "Whether in regard to the aman inva or specie the inde view of the yrowth of bnowledge dens tat there ae ante or culualy untainted Seas One eminent anthropologist ss the physial and wal environment of sung cd 11 contmaun, which contin no inherently separated "ting Tech in doe coune, taught impose upon this environment, 3 kind of ). "Two other lieforms are encountered nes a8 fequently a shrab and sndenirab for which the dimensons ze and/or woodines sre nnliciet, avin, vines and gases The Bro, fr example cose vines jm tobe ther Terbaccou (eg. Pragya gla) or ligneoa (eg. ila cckinchinen). “Flr pal onetation che stm, rather chan si sccm tobe ei. or the “Tele ife-form, gra a, the blade ter dings these pens fom ‘lhe herbs and herbaceous shrubs (Berlin eal 1974. ‘Occasionally muroom, forthe Bros nd pombly moss, atin the ve ofthe Batak of Sumatra (Bart 1926) ao assume efor stats. This may ‘owe more to the dnc role hey ae perceived to playin toa economy ‘mtr than (jut) fo eee readlywsble external morphology (ie. habia) For the aon-loweing plants fxchsive ofthe forms perhaps) may generally be ontrcd “resus” categories with po ceaely defined morphologic aspect ln thi sens, Ray's Mut which icles conervae, ens, vero’, ‘moses and slubmoes~ i oe 50 much the afc produc of some pro sytem, Sach (1875/8907) imps, but the erecta remainder of thom ‘halla en hide plats that lack phenomena) reoton for human ings. Similarly, whereas the vertebrates ate ditinguthed into major lieform groupings (og. quadruped, bird, it), the invertebrates ural are net Rater, they at thrown rogether ner the single “residual” orm, “bg,” of to of residual if-form, che many-umbed “inset” andthe italy bles worms" When see gsi the morphological and behavior sundards of man and bus vertebrate cou, invertebrate forms ack phenomena evaation wick ‘gard to sie and ecological proclivity Tor example, smong the Hil Pndaram of South Inia, pals “residual caeegory «+ wich icidesinicts, cruaceam and several other categories” (Merrie 1976), Like considertions apply #0 the categorie agi Zandeand (GvunePrchard 1963), mato forthe Rang and rmes (or shea) for the scene Hebrews (Genes I; Leviticus XD. Generally spesking, while the vertebrate forms often cansiate distinct bologkal cases within 2 singe ‘Phylum, te invercbratefeform "s dine heterogencou, demonrang Tile era catering” (Brown 157506) often inclodingeeprecnttves of many difret clams and even phyla” The Linen invencbrte dass, Verme (worms) and ns (bus) ae pinly rsa in ths Way. or most folk, man the tandard for comparative appreciation ofthe animal, but b nor himself 2 object of comparon. The Rang! vewpoine typi be human i not to be CREATURE O% BEAST: “To Rang, the reemblunce between “anya [mamma and people & ‘mor srikingly seni hee having Blood, in ther genitals ad i hie manner of giving birth. However, to sey that eey ae mote like people than are, sy, ne bd. motto ay that pope are “sary” That ‘would being t0 Ranga wich compirxone mally are mother societies The category want [peple] i separte [om other e-em Temple, sen ae the mbjecs who do the classifying, nt the objects which are aif. (Keaby soa) As weshalse, Arto did manage introduce man among the Mots section $1 below); however. was not until Linnaeus (1738) defied changes of erry by including evan soit the cla (fem) of mammals that man became 2 vertable abject of caieston'* ‘Admit, there often cxst broad categories that include most ordinary kins of local fora ot fauna and whose scope fancconally delimited, Ike “domeic” ver “wil.” But oncom examination peas that ifeforms sreaho prownt For cxample, previous sady indicates (Collguiz 1986) thet the Inuit oF Est Hudson Bay, lke those of Baker Lake othe West (Piet 1972) have (ata) ewo overlapping ystems of functional xtegores. The athe imal (amg, which exclude mec, selfsh, mothe and domes ims (map) Like the dg and hore, canbe wibivided in ether of to ‘ways, Ont oe hand, they may Be segregated into anima 00 smal fed favly (unr), scien for & fay nual or big enough fora whole ommanity (anjimart) On the other hand, they maybe ditingished ss ima (msrmita),ncadng the polar ber, and animal mamta), ke the plarmigan and fox, oF lke animal (gma), incladingtoat and some seas. Now, fshmay besmal, mediom or he. and lake orsex animal, whereas birds may be small or medium anda or land animal But my queoning of Ini ners abo lends evidence for b-orm all and only bd gma) fh (iain), bugs (pat) and "bottoming ea creates” iam) hike mollis, sd shellfish, Mammals by fir dhe most perepealy evident crear in the sere economy of nature of che Artie are here (eters, ck Kesby 174) not pa into single fe-frm. Th enot beau tey at eda bt ‘ecaselike ater alent pd pervasive phenomens in any eonexpal eld they Simply compris the Hnguistially unmarked cas "The relive phenomenal sence of ior in human appreciation of he local economy of naire hat rather obvious repercussions for peopl’ conie= quot ability to vanosly we this ppreison in thee day.tody ves. Bat Sebute the conception of life-forms tothe socal fncions they come to ssrume sto parte cae before the ore, Thus Bug ate not, nee fis instance, fnvonallyreudeal. Bugs simply lack phenomenal resolution for humane because see and ecologie! proces are of 3 dlferent order of magaitade (Chey ae phenomenally lamped egether much light at the endo the colo spectrum). Genera lick of awareness ofcourse, may bea factor in subsequent lek of concer with incon and we Sil mumber of seca nthe eld would trace the rin of ife-frmn~ especialy plane hif-fors ~ to thir ame socal fneions. For example ‘Witkowski, Brown and Chase (981), main tha hf-forms such ee and herb develop onginaly, not tom perepions of diferences in size OF 08 rorphology of plans, but from extomione of such funcional conept 3 "wood" and “weed.” Brown (1979b) call the proces whereby a ieform emerges from 4 more directly functional concept, "eereneal expansion” “Mayan languages, for example, have developed [eb] hfe forms through ‘expansion of word designating "weeds! medicinal plans "undebrash, and“gree [Le designationsreatdto gardening andr curing] sal berbsccos pliner in general” The primary evidence for referent expansion engi fg the words for “wood” and "eee" ae often the sume; However, here ‘epaate word for “ree” in the language hen thet is ao a word fot “wood” (or "timber" cc) whereas i theres word fr “wood” there need be ord for "re elmer (970), who consider forms “afc” inmates a smiae undentanding ofthe mater with regard to Karam (New Guides) felkbornic eons: “There ate two large tax, mon, (ete though this doe ot inch he anaanus pal, blick-plme,bumboor, ollow-xemmed form such Piperacese of teers) and mn “vines” (“climbing or eeeping plans with song stems"). Both mor and mare plysemout, mow efeving amber", firewood" and "ire" a wel are, and mn 9 "rope" "ering and "re” a well ar vine™ term forte ao being wad for “imbee” and "rewood” suggests tht these ea may be defined mich by call evaluation (eehnolgial ulizston, dietary and ealinry ss ‘economic and eal igtcance) as by ther eective blog arses, so “Referens expansion” hus implies 2 conceptual hi fom the fancons 0 the morphologial when the empirical domain ofthe concept eats to nonfancionl or only potently Fanesonl) objects. The argument sx fm the observation that + subsence marked by st functional vale (eg "wood," “rope’), of lack of vale fog. "woed") evenly becomes pl semous wih the plane type that i the vouree of tut substance (ep. “aes, “vin,” "are" Now, even if the original fé-orm erm is palsemour wich 4 derived substance of factional valu, eie doesnot imply tht sppechension of ie= forms is inarably bed pom an evaluation of funcional factors, Fo, che emergence of “re” neces imple a lene anil swarnes of ery fad since here i sparen no apo ot necey funcional underpinning ‘is dichotomization of the plant worl, then the ergin of thee hfe-form conceps would Seem tobe independent of cancers with soc function and ‘ue? Furthermore, twill wot do to argue that erential expansion simply ‘onsite in relasing te fanconal component ofthe definition ad stein ly the perepeal component (Brown 1983230-31). The perrptl frre aching tote aria "timber" and heliving kind “ee re qi dierene rare! those which ach to "tre are viral properties that include phomenalyeyical sibs of tes, whereat he only percepts arebutes logically characters of "imber” relate t being wooden and ct "There remals the pony thatthe functional concept wae hiorclly ound fo the nonfunctional tem. This posi, however, har nothing to 40 th cnt lexring or formation, though may have something to do with social structure “Speakers of anguages uniting “wood” snd tee” analy ive In small-scale sockets wile speaker separating them wally ive in largest societies” (Witkowski e al. 19818). Bu counter-example ac ei a hand ln both modem and ancien Hebrew, for example, the word ts palysemous foe “wood” and “te,” ye both ancient and modem Irae represent large ate societies by the standards Wiskowst eal go by) Te won't do to argue that correations inthe vcs since are not perf. Principles ma be offered to acount for deviant cates, and no tach pinches ppeat. The ther bithe conclusion that sch creations the lexicon pert ‘one fo gain acces to concepts ivory snot wellfounded and pine fie refrabl, To sty that he lexicon "broadly reflec culral concert and ‘elonship with che natural environmen” (Witkowsk ta 98tt1), o ha Iamguage "brady reflec” how we think sbout the word eo sy lie of subsance. At presen, lingua have nly the ares indction ofthe enormous complexity oflexil sructre; and one bar even leis ofthe compotion of the extremely diverse conceptual domains 0 which thor nguyen se tached Thanother variant of he functional argement, Hunn (1987) argues that TEs not iologicaly nur however ache ute arial uch the olor freen has no particular inerest for the physic yet doer mark a rel if Somewhat stay, ntertl in he calor specu), Panton conseaions ‘of wood we supposedly ase this admiedly"pecepiallycompalling” group to the level ofa welldefined higher order falkblogica taxon ln fit the Intrusion of fanctional considerations is ently superfuoue ‘The natural Alscontinulesappaten fn the conception of TAH pean to procenes of ‘votonary convergence Bound to ecological considerations he competion for sunlight. People naturally tend to find tees phenomenally compeling because of ther evident ecological olin determining local datebution of ors and una ~ jst go ito afore and lok Cerny clon ~be they American (Dougherty 1975) oF Mays (Sox 1973) ~ don't lean woon-bsr oven they Jenn 8, ‘The lg difeence in taxonomic sat between ek forms and generic: ‘pecieme stwofld Fir, there the obvious fac chat theater's extention Sibset of the former Second, thee ta dfeence in the mare oftheir ‘espective inensons Lifeforms appeat to paraition the domins of imal and punt int a contravene The sytem of lencal markings he ie form level consists 3 logis! din ofthe etary into pose abate that are opposed along one o mare percpibeserbate-dmensons (panning Sze, erentaion, mode of ie, te). Irony ane atbutedumension sed © Spa dhe ffm then a single etre i dagtc foreach fern, i ore than one dimension is involved then each ife-form i diagnosed by some ‘onjneton of features sBy contra the paroning of he oa ora and aun ito geneie-speceme groupings tepromnte selatonal ter than dvisonal gration of organs Ivo well-formed configurations The fests of «given genrispeceme se bound so ane another a negra par of de singular onfguratign in which ll, those fears parpute. So what characteris, eg, "accodhenes” i the ‘whole image-pattrn typically awocited wih the racoom (Huan 1976) Femur of one gvericspecieme configuration thas have no neces link (0 feaater of ny other genencspecere configuration # Wih ife-frms, though, the dagnontie fnaree of any two lifeforms ate oflen inked long he ‘denon spanning all the forms in 3 fel As lan bas convincingly ged, Hforms do not appear to have the same sort of configuration Intotity. Moreover, slike the conceptual boundatis of geieriospeiemes, those offe-orms are seemingly sujet t0 convention! manipulation Tei by no means "evident (Elen 198687), however, ha fe-forme ae any Jes inductive (nthe rigorous enc of beng confirmed by favorable imtance or further removed from experience thin geneniespecmes. The fact that (genercpecemes more clay accord with scent tava thin ife-forma not Sater of experiential efiecy per ve (predicing habit! covariation in perceptible pre) but ofthe aifeen experienal ends they serve. Unort hately, the sue it only confused by widespread recouse to indctvist terminology, which einabilogts have borrowed from andhropologcly Informed plowophers and practioner: of ryematic: Exrpaliting from Besin eta 1960, Hann (98) thar aminuts “induceve,” "plythetc” folkgenercs to “general” claiestion and “deductive.” "monotheti™ ife form to "special" casifation (se section 21 above). Tis appreciation owes ‘much to bisogits Soka and Sneath (1963) who nan, wee aborting on Gilmour (r937), Although compatible with Gilmour's vowed adherence logical empicickm and: Sokal tnd Snet's voceroxs “operons.” i proves inconsstnt shen applied to empirical domains not bul by simple Indutve enumeration or f0 thought not forged operssonally Gdn ‘hough relted 0 falbology 2 well 3 moder sptematio, Tesmay well be that generic, more than if-forms, afe identified by many Sequtes nd that «mnemonic sock of family resemblances sully serves (0 recognize inances of geneicspesemes, Yet, either category of taxa hat Hogily necemary nore as welll this espet, i by “logal Gat” that sgeneicupecemes ae perf wel-bounded. Moreover, ana at both level Suppor inductions. Tas, oe only can tbe infeted that distinct toxa of any {sven ieform share vibe pec of overall morphology and behavior with evpet tothe lal economy of nature st may alo be presumed they share ‘ruc of unknown proper at well & Rip 1973). Tn the case of genenespecienes, the covariance of realy perceptible fears ‘ns sng configuration serves to spor indocone with respec to babs, for thee ager of oveil extemal morphology that cin be apprehended st lance. The configuration nnd ot bea sate dplay, but may well incase behavioral ation sma, such a8 the way # tee bends inthe wind (cE * Friedberg 197) or a tiger stalks Delimitation of li-forms, though t0 some degree dependent on extral morphology, primary server to mark the ‘boundaries tha ving Kinds have in ration fo one another and in elaon to ounehve Feisnot ogi necesty that our nttve appreciation of generiapcies supports wide range of inducron lated to morpholopy and Behavior Butt may well bea fit of ear evotion, Our brains might be wited to pont neatly apprehend groupings in local environment hat roughly coreipond to ‘ondimensonal kinds, much as we maght be wited to appechend other “raga” subwances (eg. bodily abject), guaitier (eg focal color) and ‘elton (temporal casey and geomesialexenion) or each of ane ‘domains modern sence provides a somewhat diferent story, bt one ha ot ineitions clsly approximate ~ at lea forthe restricted dimensions of pecepiblyevidew everydey life, Thee i ikly les dice wing and mote ‘hoie involved in our diagnoses of lifeform boundaries han in ou conse tion of generic boundatics bt the choice of boundaries t made i support of ndacon (with respect to habits and abi fife in loa environmen) Sie lone may not be asimportant as pace in human ecology that the ie form divsions sem tobe made onthe bs of thon abs of ie hat determing the place ofeach being in tat local ensronment pertaining ro mans everyday Ife The ecological imporance of e-form is stented to by the fat thet ‘modem botany ti them only in eelogialcontexs, Concerning their parila lence from a human poin of view, however, sbjecve spree ‘Son of what plans are raise uz bar ie bering onan ebjetve appreciation of what plans aze relive tone anather once the bounds of the lost tnvironment have been enced: tesa bigger than peopl and graet. smaller: trees are where birds most ofen peich and. iases where mow ‘qudrupeds forage; trees determine exporie fo sn and poate and ence the density of eter vegetation andthe pombe habitats of many ofthe animal familia local fe. Yet nach otalaing cola frameworks ae sey of value in onganitng howled ofthe worl of mature oie the orbit of man's cverydy ie For this reason they were ultimately baned from taxonomy; once devoid of local context they become “cabs” and “lubrous” when utzed 2 ffameworks for organizing ora world-wide (Linmcon 1751 we 03). Never= thei, plan life-forms id contigs to serve Linnaeus “tural framers for onganirng an undersanding of al ors, and il oso forthe ethnobiolo fis and profesional acura As fr fohavological life-forms, for the mos Part the non-tesdual yebrae divisions cortospand to scctifc clases mammal, bids ith, ct. Perhaps since we ooncves are verebrite, the subjective (fer) apeecinton of verte thy apes fu ahs oa 6 be not so very fr removed from a morphologically sbtve appreciation of vertebrate elie. Bur he folk natralie and scent interpet thee groups Suite difzenly For folk, sich groupings repent locally diet modes of le coogi oles and morphological fume, at genalogi lnes|Sofa, the argument hasbeen hat forms gone reproentancxhastive parttioning ofthe lc fora whoteboundatie ae determined by convention "Thee conventions do not seem t0 owe to any evident culual Purpose: and they ate logically srecured into 2 contrive Seld marked by abstract, ‘agnor tht are poskve and opposed. Bet al (373219 ef Hays 1979) howeres, ote two stuttions tit omenily volt thee general condition on lietorm sractere: the “unaited™ generoapecieme, whichis apparently incaded under noife-form, andthe “ambiguously” aiaed geneicspeceme, ‘which s seemingly tached go more chan one lie-form, Unaflated generic. ‘specemes might be of two srs they ar “almost withou exception calvatsd hdlor morphologally pcs in some fahion” ‘An crample of the morphology dstincive nafiliated genenicapecieme isthe Aguerans taxon, same (Betin 1976). Tiss the only form of ects present in the lone As such, ei key perceived by the Aguaana to play 2 ‘Sncive oein the economy of mature; however, sao Bely tha should = ‘ew spc of cats be introduced into the aes i would be inlaed wih thomas The Aguaruna may ths judge theca tobe conceptually equivalent to other lieforme in view of i dinee morphology relative tothe over Ibis ofthe surounding fora (and faunal) Mf In eat cn, he eats would ‘ot beso mach an unaflisted goneriespeceme sa monogenic ie frm. "The fare of snbiolgiss o consider the possibly of monogeneric ie forms sem fom certain unetificory formal ssumpions In ine with Kay (ign), Basin tal. (1968) charconze taxonomie levels 3+ exensinaly inclave “sets of organism” thut ruling out monceypy « prio Kay's “taxonomy,” however, der not even meet the minimum condition of cbierational alequscy for eer fk or Limsean taxonomies. Each 200, represents + css of objes partion into two of more mutually exciaive subordinate taxa thi are extensionally defined as proper subsets of the ‘peordnate ch of object By defnton, 2 monoeypieanon would contain ‘nly one subordinate txon whose extension is am improper saber of is ‘opeordinate axon, The subordinate taxon Would this be extensional ‘quialnt oi aperordinate and, hence, concepullyindingushabl from ‘tance, by ssumpion, tes are nothing more than ther wmple exesions Instead of representing joint sts of tx, the txonomic Merarchy would merely teflect evels fet inclusions. ln such formalism ranks are pecaded on the purely dogmatic grounds tha all synthe (empiri) concep should be cclunively definable terms of the loi of theory. Leaving aide this dubious (ad, alan agen indacovi) bi.” the pclae character of monogenencpecime forms dha they appeat fo have Inuited specs of both genericspesiemes and lf-forms. Like generic~ Speckmes thei fer ae eaiy pecepable a glance ~ an immediatly ‘eognizble "gale Like fe-forms they occupy + dincive role in he ‘conomy of nue, Becise they at odtinciv, toy may be cay earked ‘ntensionly by diagnostic characte chosen from dmensons spanning the other forms, For estanc, in Aguarna, the wining vine pln ep can * ‘be seprgatd from the ocher age palms (ha compris the Aguarinali-form, Fink) te othe wining plants (te) the oer erect woody pli i and (he small erbaceous plants (dips) by 2 rather simple wt of ngostic ‘pposisons. TE one considers txonomy #0 opeate a+ logically convenient system for scesingintitional stretare ofthe iving weed, then the mote vious wy secon grouping that ar he muon characteris of bath theif orm end "he goericspedeme would be tind tice, once a ier and nce ot { geneiespeceme, Ins way, the loge systm remains complete Ie covers al ar intons and organizes them inc easly accesible domaine hat can be Fesly compre and contated (in par, sutomacaly, fat by by loge Inference) with respect to habs and habits of ie Double indexing with respect to rank~ by divisional and feltional conta dus marks the ely ‘weed and waited groupings, highlghsing thir abnormality (rey acces and ‘ceiny) whe prfclyitepaing them into oor overall pica of living Perhaps ike reasoning could be applied tothe more imporan cligen in regard 9 flksynematis and nomensaute. As an example of 4 cultivated ‘saiisted generic specscme forthe Aguaraa vara of Per, Brin 197) tes the mnio plant (mma). osters (ie) study of Aguaruna paces of mane naming and paems of reference, however, indicate that im the proces of falevaon manioe ha atin adn and lated atu inthe economy of nature owing to man's consant and direct intrvensn, Sila coniderstons lead Roger (1963) to ague that some cuivted spore canna be coniered in the same way a8 oer pnts in regard to mater of naming nd afar among plins 2 the species fllgenei-speieme] and subapecies evel ‘here ae appatent and wide dilerences between nal and eulated| plants These dcepancesndicte dat modern syitematic and nomen lature, aimed primarily at natural populations, cannot be appropritely ppd oealgens. In this case cut sigiticance woul fect txonomic satus, but onl the cetnt clara medaing bas setullyalered perception of reaive diinsve= ‘es in the economy of mature. Geaghegan 1970) ‘What, thon, are to we make of Bulme's (3970) csi that questions of “cultural commology” mat be considered in reference to the special ats of ftlaed specemer? Inthe cae of the Karam (New Guines) taxon holt (covowary), for ineance, Bulmer (1967) notes that its referents are indeed “aberane™ creatures by petepublesclogia standards: i isan exlsvely terre bir that has no wings and Sonny ako has heavy, song and ‘ery human-like leg bons, nds age bony equ on the top of kl ad its Ietavioe i cortespondingly odd. Sel, such fcr aegedly do not sate 0 nplib its ities in Karam taxonomy, Why ot? The reasons given a2 ‘ses the easownry is lenly 2 "ipceme,” yest lated ings om »‘he other specieme an ofen conrad wih he larger (ifeform) foupings sch a the fying vecrates (buts and bid) and ths privleged place ‘Karam rina nd mythology ‘Now, shold the Karam be presented an emis of otich they woul 1 ‘imagine, be a Iely to group them wih the exwowary a woul Assan aborigines (who value che emu) and African ebesmen (who put a symbolic premium onthe etch) In thi win, Sperber note tht although the Dore of Ethiopia accord singular sata tothe one make xn, hth, when 2 Dore travels the nearby Rift Vay where tany ether snake pis are found, the teevelr invariably appli hs othe a wll “This demons that oes ‘He nt a species [Le genericupeceme] without a genus [ne ile-form) bt [emus that coma, de ae, 2 snge wellknown speci, dee, an indefinite number of pes" (Sperber 199515). Logi, then, there sno anomaly The cistowary simply a monogenetc -orm with but one known representative pie, much tthe anda the only known species of the monompecie scientific order Tubulidentat Monogeneric life-forms ae excepsons that prove the rule" Nor mit the sndenable sodo-ymbali import of taxon be considered in aceraning 2 ‘axonomy’s lpi or subseanve mature" Peeps aberance fen seve 0 ‘ows symbolic evocation, although tbo fequeely happen that prcepelly sherant monogeercfé-frms have no spec symbole wats, Th, Hun (ag7sb310 tes he Tze folk txon may bl ormadil) ran “snaiced grec” but he emphasizes dat "no extraordinary sal significance i erbuted ro thee ‘snomalou simal” Fly, consde those “ambiguously alte genercspeceme” that peat to atach to more than one lifeform (Berlin 1976388-49) ‘ini 2 good example, The taxon covers majo portion of he Melasomatacea, x common family of wopia plan. unambigucily recognized bya unigue lea venation pattem.» Speci of hie fay Ive varian botanic! hfe orm charters matty, and they i lade tec, shrubs het, and rarely herbaceous vine ‘The description of uth however, resembles more that ofthe (sully cover) ‘amily fragment chin a foligenercspeceme. Fay figment 2s oppomed ‘eenerpecemes, offen do constitute groupings whowe contin specie are Vario ssocsted woth diferent ifort As we hall cin the following section, one reaton fragmens are seldom named & tat they compre an “exeatoxonomic™ scheme bured on anociation of habitus nly and. who members may crosecut the named groupings of the tonomic sytem, Neverthe such fagments do sm tbe ovcaonally named by the ‘Aguaruns, Ths may be che cate, fr example, with rept 9 Family Fagment in Aguaruna bird clasification (Bern ea. 1941 cf. Taylor 1974-1979) cordingly, those waited and ambiguus generic peiemes thoes by wolfe conditions offe-form seacture may, int eprcew sation “which ate either extatsxonomi (amily agent) or actly consistent with such conditions (monogeneiespeceme hiform) “To review, then, ws eet be the mare of fltbloicl Me forms ‘They appear to represent a holistic apreciaion of che loa! bios tht is compasiie with humanking’s usual extence ‘They seem to reflect gross ‘morphological patems tha subsume any number of generepeiemes ha pay ‘mila ole in the economy of nature sen fom phenomenal perspective hat ‘Sy oeithin he (ondimenional local ecology we ze normaly compelled to eal ‘with, They do not, and are not meant 10, del withthe large sexes of rographical mace and evolutionary time tht the higher tana of modem Spemitis mat comprehend. They arenct phylogeny “natural” est ‘Glkotanial leforms ae aod), but neither ae they more “aria” “special purpse” than higherotdr scenic ava. They ae anthropocentr= cally bissed, though nr wally in any cuollyporposefl wy Im sor, flkbnlogcl Ie forms prcson the everyday word of human ceapeiene with loa rs in ways tha are "naturale he oman mind ait partakes of the activites of ordinary Ife, Even scintss employ then do we ZI hen there no longer diet concer with the extaosinary, nop ‘mena problems of minute and vay extended sretche of space and ime “Theres comiderabecr-culirl evidence of ther nowuilearian morphale- tcl groupings that are le well-defined than the standard taxonomic groupings of generespecemes and ife-forms. Although ther morphological pet # tsoaly more fa-ranging than genericspeciemes ba ess han hier hey tisy ao coe scron Me-foras, Untle the stand txonomde groupings, however, they do not constitute an exhaustive pariioning of local ors fauna nor even a wel-connected partial sequence Frequently, they js are not named. But hey are important to an ordinary understanding of local nate, zd more crucl sill to notrcal atempe to transcend the nit of tha Understanding. AS we shale, such groups that Cesalpino avers when he speaks of botanical genera imominat, and which inthe soologicl rel ‘Aol resto a cde mang ‘ethap te rt modern ahor to noice the tltionsip berween covert folk fagmenta andthe family concep in bslgial taxonomy was Bare Reflecting onthe flebotnisldasfcaton ofthe Batak of Sumatra, he nots ‘Aso plant in general, thet i pana dsicaton, going t gers ot species in unde of instances, bu aving many planes uncasied, regarding which all he native bran wal ay hat there are ees, herbs, ‘ins, fers mosses Any very nde sedge i marth, “the one ‘who pees forthe” r the wheike one” (the Being 3 particular Kind of sedge) and many oer desgnstine of thi ae very broadly bu dsr atinlyclafcatory. Here we have an inkling ofthe family concept and. name which linguistically reflection of these kind of thinking that ve ut the borne family names in current science, (1940:35), ‘Often, however, "itis recognize that thee ae ver similar kinds, bt nobody bothers to ve chem names" “The covert natre of many implicitly recognied plant groupings was agin lage ssced by Conklin fr the Hanango of the Phippines "midgrosping: were made, of course, but not according to 4 sacred terminology dentable sytem’ (198097). This oburvaton motivated chncbilogt seok out evidence for toch snnamed midevel groupings since i seemed Smplasible tha nasve dase, who Conklin showed were able to ditsimi= rate hundieds of iological valid gener, specs and vance, would content ‘heaves with imply collering these numerovs named groupings unde afew ‘marke efor Ie appeared unlikely tat the Ken eye ofthe folk naturale ‘would mis the more obwioes supreme groupings ene ‘Bevin and his acne were the ro develop a method cep aimed a “searching for posible subgeoupings within contrasts of large numbers,” hat ‘within erm. The emer ofthe immediney iced ta ofeach major [Me-form mame, writen on slip of paper, were preted 0 informant th Snvrvtons o scan the Hn and place in separate pls thove names that ape to plans judge o be smi to one athe (Beri 1968393). nth way, hey were able to show thatthe Tell of Merico imply recognize fumerous untamed. groupings which appear to be intermediate beeween enericspecemes and forms ‘ter, Bevin argued tha mié-level groupings occasionally might be named, cspadlly if they were nialy formed to accommodate rte plants or newly Inuoduced plans of foreign origin. These names would proumably diappest toner the unfamiliar plant had become familar enough to have is own Abeincive Fes Thain he cn of inrodaced gain, wat ged that the “rela conceive ofthe new form "single umiepmented patter” recognie= sbleatagline without reference to the more familiar generic with which had been snitally sociated "The final rat will be the ultimate loss of the Intermediate xa as named categories, ahough conceptually they wil continue vo remain” (197298. ‘After considering Shoshon itd cliiiction, though, Hage and Mile (1976) onglided ehat covert eategores may be fa fom unstable when they ame ames Not only may thee mamer be resined inthe subusqust hire evelopment of flk texonomy, but such named categories may even e source of new i-forms. For Numic speakers sacha the Shoshon 3 ypc seal bird (ita) or typically age bird (hana) may come to Be aocated With other birds of sma dimensons, The tem forthe typi bird may, a first, simply bang to mind the anocted generic speciemes, but ver time the ‘nme ofthe ype bird isl becomes» supragenei label for al irs of dat Kind. The bed re henefoth semble into to named grooping he large ‘birds (avina) andthe small birds (hun). In de cous one othe oter rouping may come to represent ll the birds (Hage and Miller ce example of [Namie ngage where hata predominates, oters where vad. The ame not choten to represen all the bards may, i fc dppest from the folkbiologieal lexicon: howeve, those intermediate categorie hat eventually dsupply the ieform names, and hat "aesimply covert categorie which have Become Labeled" endure to become arguably the most sable uper~ ordinate groups of al How, then, do we reconcile Besin’s dims with the Endings of Hage and Mile The answetiappeats, tars on the Fc thatthe sitation decribed by Berin ha actualy hil, i anything, to do with that decribed by Hage std Miller. The conics doles once ald tht the “intermediate categor= ‘2 dcased by Bern reilly cover de dint sors of concept problem (the incorporation of enimilie groupings int the txonomic syste, (the tmergence of feforms, and i) the formation of covert Ragman propery sealed Tn the fit cae, 2 frsign speci tinal amie to the taxonomic feamework by socating with the mame of more familiar generic speceme, ‘Once the foreign specie acaure town dnc aspect becomes a generie= specie ins oven right and designated at such bya dint eb. The fame of the more familar geneicspeceme mo longer aches toi. The Conceptual aliation breween old and new may ye persist “covertly.” butts tot the eat that tit proce necenary contiuts the ource ofthe covert ‘Emulyleel morpholopial complexes dicosed by Bein and odes. Such ceesonal cover atachments may or may not be integrated into pre-existing faulylevel complexes. But there eno evidence tht soc complexes develop by fn being named and then having the name dappesr Covet fly-level complexes sm #0 ate without ever baving been named, and in was which fe not bound to the proces of smiling wnfaiin sper ino the tsxonomie system, The incorporation of foreign specs ito the taxonomic tye could conceivably afer the development of 3 famly-level comple However sucha proces ofincorprstion seems to Bente a neces tfcient condition forthe emergence of «complex. “The second situation described by Hage and Miler appears co beat ele reltion either othe incorporation of unfamiliar species or othe merge of Smulyleel complexes What sey decribe is the development of hfe-form tana fom thi typical generespecemes, such ha the typical generospeceme [abel may eventually come ro mark the whole ife-form, which snelaes other eneriopecemes more or ew rested the typical generiespeieme By pets Fabs and habs of Uf In this respect, Beka (1972) dese 2 process noted earier by Trager (1939) whereby the name of sepia salen generie= ‘peseme Becomes polyemout wih the bfe-frm; among certain tribes ofthe “American Southwet, or example the tem fo ‘otaneond the ame thet for tee. Hage and Mille sugges thatthe “ype!” genencspecieme maybe only the typi representative of one pole of the size dlmesson which sractares the ier space But, agua, ths procs sems not to be’ rnecesly related to the asimlation of only rae frcgn forms into the ‘nono sytem, nor to the emergence of famy-level morphological om ples 5 such “The confusion between the thee proceses owes pully 10 the techniques employed by Belin and company in thee ection of covet categories, They Dreenedinformants only with the names of generc-specemes she specicn Teleed mder 4 iven hftorm, This the method of eicaton may bave {ndly rected recognition of cover complexes only to tho which happen to fll entirely within the range of « given life-form. Given this undue ‘estrieson, here would be no reson to spe that the developmen of sick omplen involves procenes that do tot exeluively operate upon gmer= Speckmes within 4 hfeform. Ix would then sccm only natal that the ‘evelopment ofthe ife-form elf should be related o proce which operate ‘exclusively upon taconituent generic peciemes inceding prone lated the formation of cover complexe win 3 e-form. Bu ft appear to be the cx, cover complexes need not be contained by the intemal trata of ‘nial if-forms, an faa seem tobe the et, sch omplene may cit ‘os botanical forms, then the putative connection betwen the develop> rent of fe-frms and she emergence of covert complowe becomes gute ‘One indication that covert complexes may cut aro botanical feforms i found in Hays (1979) sty ofthe Néumba (Highland New Giines) fle ‘oteny To elit covert compleas rom nonltert informants he asked thes to verbally enumerate those plants which came to mind when the name of 2 {ven genericspecieme was invoked. The names tus enumerated Wer, nc, Invoked and informants wore agin asked to speiy the plan names that ready came to mind, For cach target genencspeceme invoked, + set of tocited genericapeiemes ws lites. Comparing thee set, Hays wa able te confirm aly consent overlapping that ech eneicapeieme ound in the overlap tended vo coside with other genencspecemes in the overlap regardless of which generic specieme inthe covocearing group served as aget Taformans atembled covert complex akin © modern botanical families a thar ove morphological spect Since borarcl fms ext crv ifr, falkbotnial complexes might resonaby be expected to doo wel shoal be the cate that uch complexes actually provide the common-sense ground fr the family concep in natural hitory. Comstent with thi apposition, Hays rote that: "wile some plant name co-ocrarences are nderandable with {efeence to the fall taxonomic syst. thes scm probleme” Becsise they peat to cross-cut ie-orms. ‘Although Hays surmise thatthe problematic cst may owe to “formant cron” there ae iniestons that unnamed morphologic complex do ltansvene the fe forme of other fle (ct Friedberg t97) Im any even, what ‘hnobotania evidence there sugges dha recognized complexes generally do fot volte botanial fale, and thse har do "tendo be rather eighty ‘ocused in single family” (Berlin 1920) Asforzoolgiea omplenes tee do notso mach cromeat animal ife-orm ar operas independ of the internal Seructreof the hfe-for space. So 2 seems plas, vrsbate Mors restructured as 10 ie and perceived dice of remotene fom humans, then ne should not exper sy, the common cat an he lon, or the Bou ad the ig, t0 be closely ssocsted within the Mfeform space of mammals or ‘qurupeds2 Nevertheless, they ae usualy eelted covery, "Another significant fecor inthe formation of covert complexes noted by Hays concern the "chaining effec” frt analyzed by Hunn (199) reference te American fa omithologialclsification. Th, a chain of ther ta, = 7 tnd 2 occas ii peteived to be dzely linked voy but nt to», and period to be directly linked to y bot not to a. The links in te chin, However, need not be symmetrial ince ne may consider «and y more ated than yand =. Thismayhlpcoexplain why es that che longer the cain, the ess likeihood thee wil be a common name fo, long and especially symmetric chains may contin fw features common to al o even mot ofthe gonetee ‘pecieme lk inthe csi: The Kalam [New Guinea) are well wate of certain groupings higher than species, which numberof species (which are infact oologc “gener” or “fms share complex of morphological and behavioural chancters. Noable xampe, where the Kalam appreciate de snocition ‘of four or more rated species we: Hawks and icons patos. Tmt fnren tht they donot hive sandard name for thse “naar” groupe bot thr realty in Kala thinking is unguctionable...- On the other Ind, where a “naar” group of only 2 or species exis in Kalam ternory Kalam do tend to have names forthe, (Bulmer 197562), Simi, for the Aguas (Pera) whowe “complexe ae remarkably snr welt recognized omihologcal taxa tthe amily and exb-failylevely” seem that “at les some ofthese midlevel complexes ae named” Bedi l1981). ‘Sepragencric folk complexes thus appeat to be bal on habs ration, siniar to thowe aipecte of the face which mark genericapecemes. The dierence being thatthe specu Ges athe lev! of frye may be onsiderbly wesker than the wellbounded configura rlsion: of geneic- specie morphology. Additonal, ule the local eer gnercspeceme’, theseres of lecl fagmens dows at span dhe whole ofthe recognized for oF fauna: Only some ofthe genericspeiemes ink up in chins of varying lengths, vothour thee segments al joining together. Consequently, ths intent waren of overarching morphaogia puter would be ecgated ta farzer ‘secondary echelon and remain largely unacknowledged “The fll rtepories of generiespeceme and ifeform, which tank "groups ‘within groupe” the conte the fandamensal sting for homatkind's ‘tdinary apprehension of the loll Alors and fauna. But they prove 0 be Inadequate for compeending theliving word at ge. After te Renaiance, ‘he ordinary bounds of ene were tanacended, The complete embedding of theFoixsioLocy is whole aay of gensicpeciomer within M-foems, which so thoroughly ‘ontnaed the local ecology morphologically, lost mach ofits vane. Ie isnat that his fist echelon of enon sees akely apprehended he word simply id nor have the wherewithal to del wath monphenomenl problems bound t boston of aogeter deren oe. Al the me, ws comon sense el which, having reached the iis of ifn lin of undentanding thereby evned recognition hats problem exsted far since to rest. Crucial perhaps to dat recognition Was an awareness hat scence could dra is intial meant of taking the problem by appealing tothe secondary echelon In fit i was the temper conte a determinate sree ‘floc rgnents ha inagrated the "natural method (botany Bet hen ockogy) th lasted fom Linnaeus de use and beyond. ‘Once the family level became the principal focs of ematical fextares could be Wied toma and me the mos edly apparent agents legumes, palms, umbels, abies and 30 forth" Naming the morphologs- lly mote "difixe” local chains of species would depend on the method's tlobal progres; that i, the proper delimaion ofall amis would mean Comparing the fagmens ofthe forign environment order fl ut the paral ris of every local eironment Thi world-wide morphological ses, Intur, would provide the obseresinal foundations of modetm taxonomy. At lene postal empial cantinity between fle and evolaonary texonomy ‘would be assured by the fice tha the more phylogenetically rtd groups sre [Ronerly thre withthe greston spect nity "Yer how does coston sve go about logic scutng& table notion of aspect inthe fie pce? And ow restart thir noion to varaon and wa) [A mane featrep 2: mich, it not enenial to members of kind ther ian when i does acer then we sy it "necenly ovat by mare” Beaute of P (and of the underlying nature of which Pie an integral pa)" This common Sense notion of tual ncesiy isa conditional neesty it wll be necenry that ip is mailed, chen ifthe organism hasthe propensity Po manifest pasa ‘consituent ofits mental mate and normal conditions aba, then indeed pis Imanfsted. To discover the physi nature of india of kind th to find out wha isotherm tohave the necessary fates they woul have were ‘ormal conditions ro obtain, Becate two generispecemes cannot shite all ‘heir natural fetes, they cennot have or be dicovered to have) matures of 2 ind Buc what happens when appearances do oe cooperate with our typi! (eeaningsndaced) expeceaions? How do we know tcf “deviant ene ‘wth "normal one? The sates fr coping with hee station ae basally {So one pertaining to environmental ccurstance, the other to origin. Bees Iocal genenespecemer ae in the main wel-boond geographically 2nd ccologially, organi that ocupy the same niche and interact wi members (fone Lind, ad are clesrly aot dented with any ober Kind re resumed 0 ‘eof akin with the ongaioms with which they interact I genesogia inkage ft ako obrerved, all the beter Bot for folk in prescieniie soaess, 2m waren of genealogies! lnkage may not fice in nel expecially sdinet ‘morphologic varies or even males veas females, vee vers aduls) oF ‘he ame specs occupy epaaeniche, For the sophissted ayperton who it Infucaced by the scientific astamption of hiss continaty between orga ‘xm of kinda plaunble genealogies! kage sppeassuient to etbish ‘tantermporal deny in kind between morphologically disimiar indivi 1a, Nec (ta) & normal conditions obtainBut this gencalogcl linkage need ot be exclusively phylogenetic at scence ‘wouldve it For example, hawks and sparrow are American fk kind, but ‘hey ate morpho-eclope Kinds ha are not pyle nary; nonethele, ¢ safes to know hat some bird is the progeny or progenitor of = hawk or ‘patrow inorder to beable to ca hat bird 4 hawk or parow.”| ‘What of deviance in respect of fe-formr? One most elie that oat an ‘nganium unde af-form isnot simply to presume ithas the mata ofthat ife- ‘oem: ater, tc pred of the organism membership oF one or he other, ofthe genei-speiemes that hss pat ots ature the stare ofits form, So,a1 Theopratas (196823) arene, when mallow, which onal tke a tee, grows ll ike te st depar fom tr “enetal nare™ (hy) his ‘ate mallow isd to be merely "wee-he” (apdendrumen’) and nota te "by aare (phys Simlaly for America folky though psy willows may not slay look like ees (epecallyin parts ofthe wexem United States, thet that they ae considered willow, and that wllwe ae considered tes, imple that psy willows ate nonetels ee "The theoretical significance of « crseculura presumption of exentel atures that underlie the maby of folbiological taxonomy inetd int, ‘uch a presmpuion saves the Fee, namely the rigdiy raked strate of Folkbornical and folkxoolgialaxcnomie served the world over. Despite ‘obriourvarstion mong exemplar of given ok kind, there ide doabe hat petcepually prototypes and atypical individuals veridcally instante the Kind To presume a5 underlying netare makes ese ofthis ‘Second in addition to being observationally adequate, a presimption of cece i 3 descriptively adequate rendition of eave intlons, For i rnd: ‘uch ednogrphieabserestions atthe immediatly comprehensible smhong the Tobelo of indonesia (Taylor 1978)0:24) one ofen ears of parca mall pling... "this weed (emeaby) 3 tee (ot) (noconeatve sense of ran oF ofthe sae pling “this nota (member of he) herbaceous weed ca, tna te” rub ere cones with») [Anditdoeso by ppeaing direct to informant views shout the organization ofthe biological world: "Th, Far Raff [of New Guinea spies sare a fssence which immediatly renders the es, pes, ntaligible 3 nar (biological sense” (Dwyer 197643). Binily, mote than + ghmmer of explanatory adequacy apeate with he postion of sucha presimption of phyial eaence. A univenal bel in lunderying mre cowsrains the character of manic and concep! Know [edge for living kingrgenerally. does on away that le to explain the ‘eltively uniform aequstaon of suc knowledge sro culties ad the lative ‘ese with whichis acquired bythe ciren of any given ealare (Strom 1973 Macoamara 192) A presumption of enenceplusibly enable the young child to rapidly fe 2 morphoype in mind, dese very limited percepesal ‘encounter with exemplars Thin tam allows the chil to immediatly lasify nd rationally segregate an example from ivancs ofall other tan, (Clearly beliefs about esences cannot be pot ht. They mast conse ‘concepully « prior imponisons on the taxonomic ordering of peeps! ‘simalinto morphotypes,Otherwize, how would tbe logically posible forthe ‘hud t take an istnce of experience and “ntantancouly™ predict is «xterson to anindeintely lege et of comply eed instance The chit Seems, jst perepealy “fille” abutact taxon schema that ae netrlly 2 the minds disposal yen nthe absence of any confining instance see to presume that, elms hae s dtc matae for peopl with an incomplete concep ofan to communicate fore, Presumption of underying naare ako a necsiry condition for any sppreciaton of the temporal development (maturation) a spatial dion (ecological procvity) of individu of 2 specie. It thus prior to any Jnowledge ofthe eutualutlzadons oF species qua speci. For example, the Inuit of Fase Hacion Bay have « doren orto tern for various developmental stags ofthe render linked to socially important wes (Rout 1986). Bat ony ‘the presumprion tht render all ave the nates of thir Kind allows ths, ‘The croseltral disposi (and possibly smnatepredispvion) to think ‘his way about he organi wordt perhaps ply acounted erin evolutionary terms bythe empirical adequacy the pretimpeions of ewence ford to human tengs in dealing with Teal bes Knowledge of specie gua logic spies, and knowledge that organic indvidals natal ln groups within groups, isa knowledge humankind shares, whether bushinan, lyn or ents. Such knowlege determines the way we ie the world and regulates cu indactons soot what we do not. Tn brie lving-kind erms ate conceive at “nauk whe intra nature, o (us Locke's notion) “real esence" i prowmed even sf unknown, ‘The esental fle of pombly unknown ondelying structure to permit ‘anation, and even change ia rerene withoat + change inthe corespanding phenomenal ype clsed inthe dionry. By neorprating auniiary empiri Ienowiedge (gem metamorphos, coutip behavior, geste stature niche Sharing, and 50 fr) oto eneylopeic theories of underying ers, ane may thus come wo iacude, for example, the catepli ander the concept of surtut and the tadpole ander that of rae, despite the fact tht caterpillars tnd tadpole share fe, if any, perceptible atures with normal frogs and Ihaerties, Theories of underlying traits may aso flat acceptance of ‘moran, ecologic vanahs and so.on Asa rer, we ae abet aecommodste ‘nual and novel aipects of the physi world to oar coneptal sytem ‘without compromising our basic wack of ordinary knowlege, ‘ation within eye i undentood by mete presampsion of n enderying smtre and koowledge oflocl ecology. But when exotic pees 2Frepored, of actually inrodaced, ito the local seme on + lage sale (a song secon of pot-Remisance Wenem society) + mote corte notion of underlying arares and their origins required to accommodate the new tthe old without 6estroying the local taxonomic scheme. hit elaboration may be parally ‘fered fo wen, but not wholly snssmuch a sence often rides rough shod ‘over the local order. This overeding concern with maintaining the neat of ‘urondinary Knowledge sbou the iving world dings termed by bok ‘ophiated and uninformed folk from tho employed sn Held of cence Ime a, the ex theory of “hiorico-cenic determin” denies that 2 frincpled ditinton exit berween crdnary and scenic mcrptions of ‘meaning to lvng-kind terms (ef. Schwatr 1979, Mactamara 1983, Rey 198) Devitt and Steely 1987). According to Kripke’ (973) accoont, 2 cual reltonthip i enabled vin an inital bapsim ceremony between 2 natal sabsancr erm, (fit, epi oratherwine pevieged) sampling of abject and tn undelying physi tat This ink is preserved by 2 descendent ngustie community commited tthe erm’ “righ designation” — whatever the experts ‘may determin tha! to be. The extension ofthe term nal becomes thea of cbjects having that physical tat which somicalyrespnsbe forthe existence of those objects (with al thei dipostional featur) That tat, however ne Aecermined by features of any concept that guage oes may atch the term no atte how approprine the Gere igh a rt sem, 'A problem wih dhs Scenario that fle account for actual historic changes in reference. Ths, Els colonists fst wed the te indian corn ‘hat, maze Gndgenout to Americ) ro denote 2 vary of om that wheat; jst a Afni (the Mayan term for “Catlin mize), that i wheat, was ied by Inns to sg + foreign varie of im that maize (erin 1972)" Oversme, te unfamtar kind proved tobe of uch significance sp the local ecology that the genecspecieme term, “corn”, was evntlly pled to maize only. Ina similar development, the Mayan term order (3) ‘was otimaely ansteeed to sheep intrdaiced by she Span (with deer now referred to aa variety of “forest sheep, Ft rk Bh) Soh teaserence of ‘references obviouly no mere conventions wit bat ts pon 3 complex appeection of the local rations between specs which fll exonomy express. This precades shee being some originally privileged or eerie Solted sample that hitorclly somehow (and Kepke never Jes tll us jst, how) fines eference Te would, however, be consiten with igi designation to pary the abjcion bbyarging tha incalling maize "corn, dhe coleni performed 2 new baptism ‘hich simpy outed the old. How and why this new baptxm came about, alchough prychologially and anthropologially important ses, would ne be ‘hlsophialy pertinent. [sce fo noe tha terme Segmaeegily only fer bap occurs. Asin the cis of proper names, it may not be essential that Keipke be called "Kripke," but once he i elled thatthe name picks him oot sgl All hiss logically poutble; however, ignores hitory and arly accounts 4 for mates of prycologictl or anthropological fact, mates that concer the ‘ways human beings actualy think and behave History the righ designation sory giver not the lightest clue wt te reson fora term's in reerene, ‘pcre fale acknowledge dha there mas be continaty inthe ference of {olk-blogia kinds with respect othe whole lol biota apd the taxonomic structure which dcribesie Psychologically, "batons it to impoverished 1 moron eo imply much at all bout mental procesing 'A prychologclly plausible correlte of bapom for ordinay-knd terms might be deemed expected otesion, thatthe act of making apparent (one's mention to make apparen) whae every human being would naturally expect to be manifest 0 anybody. Linked wo the erou-cleral sabi ofthe ving kind oncepaal domain, we find tht the leasing af ordinary ving-kin term remarkably exsy and necds virally no teaching. Ata it one need oly once point. plant or animal (2 gerden o 200, of even its book) to havea cid Immediately clasify it and relatonally segregate ie from all ober ta. OF ‘course the naming might be (ad na garden or 20 i likely t be) dane with pedepogic inten "thi, chile, shecp.” But may ja well omar nan lernce not at al sie teaching “le il the shee i the pcre.” Here the ve “il” i suicint vo indicate that what pointed on the pcre living thing, and innate expectations abou ke organization ofthe Binlogial word ensze tha that thing is Bscly of + kind wih ope but not Dally Kind with al other living thing, Homans, le us suppose, are exdowed wid highly arculsted cognitive facalesfor “faemapping” the word they evelved in, and for whieh their minds were selected, The “aofomatie” Uxonomie ordering of phenomens Speci ike the spontaneous relational ordering of clos (Kay an MeDana 1978), would then be a likely product of one mach fol." lie, ‘tension ofving kinds works extremely welfor mane many cae snd at ny age, becaie allt ou atention to what itis about the (logic word that comes mo naturally to everyone's mind, tha salad only) sey perceptible species For living things, thn, expected ortenion invoke 3 ‘emansc primitive, mel, "specs", in aseme fs ready prea kind of plant or animal tha neces dies epi, and by nate, fom ll ocher Species. Tm Putnam's (1975:141-2) vemion of the cal theory, “natural kind” terms” sch a "ger" cn be given by ap “ostemnive defn” with the Falowing empire pemppostion thatthe eritre pointed ro bet cetain samenet relation (13), x1 the some cet a7) to mow ofthe things wich speakers inthe ligase commuanty have on other ocesion labeled "ger. {Leaving ade th historical fton of baptism, che interesting cat is that this omolgialrelason of samenes may be "opersionly”™ determined by a concep stereotype ‘Although Putnam offers no explicit account of how stereotypes actually operate. one which doe ample jatice oh propoul i follow: is select ‘pling of exemplar 2 dint foun ane another 2 compatible with the 6taxon's stereotype Fr maximum generality, as chosen rom ater axa could ferve to demarcate lint of compatability. One would then seek the most ‘pene nome relation that holds Beeweon every put ofexemplas and Which ‘not be exended to pis containing afl Falling that, one would look for the nomic elation covering the wide vaney of pi inthe sampling. Ts, "suing ha whales were stone me ordinal ineladed under "ih" and bats Cinder "bird, 20 nome ration would have been avaable for all and only howe par of exemplars ling under “Fehr “ind For example, fone of the exemplars of a fuh-pir were «whale then the mor specie nomic relation pple ro all fhepse would extend tothe mammal So, rather tan bleeatethe dnc in “meaning” between “mammal” and "sh, hee the preferred sategy would bet accept the nomi elton with the greatest partial ‘cope rie, tat which crite fh exchasive of wales “Thee ae problems, however. Consider “sparow” Facentife taxonomy i Inietive of nomic relation, then "sparrow" at commonly perecived does nothave anomic extension iis ordinary kent dnote oly specie of plain= ‘lore bird in the inch family and ins of the gen Pein the wenver family, To accord with cence, ordinary user of “sparrow” would peobably ot rest the term to pin-elored Finches, since the most specifi fameness ‘elaion applicable to psin-olored finches aso applies to goldfinches and “anaes (which ae normaly peteied a fis "sparrow")- Moreover, the resriction exces bide sally aexped a sparrows by Americans (eg de thom sparrow), and typically viewed a ach bythe Engl, The alerativet to limit dhe term the widest (ce highest ranked) grouping wholly inladed ‘thin the common extension of "sparrow", rach athe gens af weaver (= Doppoted to any one of the heterogencous collection of pain-clored finch ‘pei. But ds would mean that oor most typialy American parows the chirping sparrow) are not realy sparrows at all and that i ply Kripke argues that sack considerations "may make some people tink ight aay that there ae reilly wo concept. operating here,» phenomenological fone snd a scientific one which then replace This I seject™ (197233). Hit point i hat common seae teen mus alimatly ether prove co-xtenive ‘ith some nomic kids, or simply cee wo be atual-knd rms Kepke flo {predate that the "phenomenological concept” may pei ron erg rat tem regal of since» opinion on the mater “awk” and "sparroxe” posit 1 underlying tit term becase thet anual denotatons are really percved to be component of loa mtu; the Tzelal Maya, for insance, Fecognie similar axa (Hon 1977143100). The was underlying common fenie kinds need not be (or need not even inclade) nomic eats though tomes they may, ‘With presceniic folk shee is wal, and with sophiscated laypeope seemingly always. a presumption of torical continuity berween common ‘env ator atoes tothe effet that "lke beget like" But his pesumpion lofhitovicl continuity doesnot, st wih ince neces imply descent OM a ‘commen ancestor: sparrows do beget sparrows but notin phyetine, Ab, ‘with sophisticated Inypeople there i only, and. with presenti folk seemingly always, a presumption that tin the nate of» kind to bind is members together into ap ineracive ecological community (cl Bulmer 197412), So, genealogical ad ecological erie largely figs to& deter raion ofthe nature of 2 common-ene kind. Seely foncuona crea, though, do not, Inded, if ondinary living Kinds were ro depend upon soca factions, Kripke could jy his aim that they den cease o be natral ind terms; but noting ofthe rt happens “Tree and "gras ae es im point. Once perfey repel taxonomic terms, they have now disapeared fom sytematics however, lke counts Isic term for microwcopic and extinct organisms which hae since gone he ‘ay of phogiton andthe ether, they have not alo vanished rem common, Parlance: This is Because wees and grants are phenomenally, though not nomial natal kinds. In ter word, they plainly loka hey mt be strl Kinds, eventhough sietily they are not. Suppoingevsltonary taxonomy tobe the best avaiable representation ofthe te ruc hry of plants and animals, then ree and gre arent central ori ebjecs. This snot deny the eclogit legiimat nteret in the “abective” comets of thee penomenal properties, any more than it woul be o deny the ply’ ‘itcumstandal coacem with colo phenomena. Butt exapolte fom Quine (ooie27,commologicly, rer and grates would no more qualify 2 Kinds than would eslon ‘That there ia deinte amropocetric bs in these petoretic divisions cannot be gainaid. But such (poubly even smote) bat can in.no way be construed 2 2 variant of some ultra or cultural viewpoint “Tre” 70 ‘more derived fom 2 fencsonal preoccupation with wood than "sesn” i derived froma a clurl preoccupation with plans in general (ee section 2) sow) "The layperson’ tabborn adherence to he (phenomena) validity of every day-kind terms thus markedly conta lack of prior commen £0 Se (onghenomena) terms ofsiene "Take “animales”, which ist aot in he scenic and pope heratre ofthe ats seventeenth century a 3 patrlkind term forall microscopic organs (including spermatare). By the end of he Felowing cenery therm ad ened to denotesmtial kind Although rodsy the erm barely lingers 8 quer to 3 beterogencouscllon of micro- ‘organs (barrel anmalel, wheel animale et), “animale” isn0 move ‘considered ntaral-Lnd term by scent o layperson than i "cori Tes not that scenic developments cannot aft commonsense appre sion ofthe pecepuble word. Only the theory of ordinary meaning i not rely related to Scientific vefrence ina way that eves the sinction beers {he ters of common ene and sence, Evidence of een incompacblity between sorts nether neceuary nor ficient £0 indicate lack of 3 underlying ei compasble with common-sense. Under what cca sancer does one decide when two sort terms are connected tothe sineratural-kind term in vse of some common underlying tat. “maple” a8 Sppied tothe red maple and the agar maple) and when ot (*wol” applied lena mammal of the dog Family vers the marspil wot, Thylacine)? ne such condition of “compatible common-sense reas’ may pertain to he facta he lang grouping with an eamedatly recognizable morpbological Configuration, oF faces ually retieted 9 he biological family o ore. “Than many ahetrogencous collection of species alg within 2 given family or nde, if previouly conidered 2 phenomenal kind is kely to remain 0 rhaeve the ate of went knowledge. Beyond the level of family o ord, {he apecual e terween members of previ Kind is enealy 00 vague © prosrve the Kind intace without the ast of other apparent factors sach 362 Thared roe the local eology:ths allowing disocation of whale from fia, ‘slmanders from lard, manpal from placental mice, lamprey ftom cl, edgehogs from porcupine, notions of tht ind ally hapen i eker oF two ways: athe Hie. ‘ore level ovat level intermediate between genericspeceme and ife-form, [Avalealy indicated (ce section 23 above) such intermediate groupings ae recognized by folk whether or not (i fic, mostly mot) explciy named Monty they conespond ro fagmens ofa seni amily or order. Bt they 40 ot constite an exhantive partion ofthe loca Alora of fauna. This not Spring given the fc hat sciations of fil and order are pocketed with, fap in any locality, unlike auottions of pei (gnerespecemes) and ie {Gems which form morpho-eologc qui across local area, In contrast t0 taxonomically arayedgenericapecemes and efor, the boundaries of thes tually cover groupings ae fomy, wile she core is general the recognizable fares of 1 modeen family or order. Accordingly, genencspeciemes only penpherally ocated wih ach Fragment are susepble to disocaton, Ths, ny Engin setler in Atstaa probably combined an impheit grouping of ‘maropial and placental mice by werk sociation of morphologia aspect. But (olay few Austalans would think arpa and placental mice te of kind ‘Disocatin tthe efor level occurs most realy for geerc-speciemes \whote phenomenal afillations wit their repetve forms ae ony marginal (ckinough fom rics wandpoint heres taxonomic anomaly) Mos tien, folk views on the extension of these f-forms difer from seienifaly oestred extensions of the corresponding cats i regard what, om the folk viewpoint, are rather marginal cer (nd for raaral history tadisionaly the moss problematic) bat onic, whale, et. Indeed, ab often a8 not thee ‘marina roupings auume spare efor sates of thee own: hee they fe tented ap momogenerc efor, Ar ic, they dr fom the eter ie foros in being minimally polyypic anim having role which restricted, loc economy of mature. Given the fenuoos phenomena! asociasons such groupe thus bear to tee groups in Fespect of ife-form, moder lk are amenable to afin hei ifr as ‘which would bein conforty with senie opinion, "These (enaive) conditions on “compatible common sae resi” argue “ gains any srightZorward reduction of common-sente termi: phenomens ution spprecably contin the intcaterlationdp between common ‘ere and scence thi respect Dupe (1966) aply stress tat "he general Dictre is of sence s+ lrgely autonomous seit, in spite of sable and pervasive interactions withthe main body of langage” But when amesing the ‘eltomip between the elscrtins of organisms in ordinary language (OLC) din emi taxonomy, Dupré ers in imposing a "fanconais viewpoint” on OLG: {A group of engine may be dstingued in odinary language for any ‘numberof reson: because tis conomialy oF socologtelly important (Colorado bce sillworrs or Tae fess beau st member are Inclleesllysntrighng (tap-lor sper or porposes: fry and ‘empathene (hamsters and Koala bea or jt very nsicabl ger and fant resiwoods) (Gatita; ao Wiesbicks 1985242) Porpoies do trig alk. Tey are evestiv bce alng with whales, dey te phenomenally aberrant at the fe form lve, however, thet evocative ot fymbolc power i not the suc of the taxonomic stats. Hamsters may be hpathese, bot tha taxonomic satu no diferent from that of the a faccoon, howe cit or ger, And when, awh alkoworms, cere i a fine Spprecton than is asaly the cae with invertebrate, nt ecanse of hit Fintona importance av such. Rather, it becaute comtant and dice, imervention By man actualy crests an tolated role for them i the Les vironment, which snakes dhe phenomenally sent. The anthropecenti thant seems; fandemenally cognitive and phenomenal, no netonal a socal parochial and pragmatic ses" ‘Ac the genenicspecme lve of ciation (to which Dupe’ examples shove belong) etlnobologive largely agree dat considerations ther than Imorpho cctlogie afnity are rather peripheral. Apart from invertebrates and yptogams, when dgreement between scence and common seme Os 3t the generic specie level ts wll Beaute the reproducve ctv ofthe Soxntit conflict with the morpho-ecologial eters of the layperson. Most ‘fen these vo set of ertena overlap 2 the genenicspecieme level but wh they donot ordinary folk generally ein fom acceding to scien opinion Ineegard to mon bugs and non-Rowering plant arthse arent alien speci wwe they are olen limped ito resial taxa. Bue the residual character i Fhenomenaly compeling enough so ris scene preware to Fest, 2. ‘mon 0 the bryophytes or "warm" tothe annelds So rast can se then, hee tno xensfic advance which would nesta lead 2 routing of lay axonomy. Moreover, people need not, and rownally do not, sdk to sconce the fact that such American flk Kinds 2+ ce" "bu, “tial”, “buterfy" and "hawk have no bilogically vali cxeysony, or tit French folk tes ike le, awe, milan ree do 0 ‘Conform to sient (pbyle} lines. When tes happen that some common *sense axon fills within the extension of sient tno the alk may come to {eeepe a modifstion ofthe common-sense taxon so thai corepends more lowly tothe scenBe exon (eg ncng whales with the mammals and ‘excloding bus fom che bid). Bat dhs only posible if che scenic notion “in be given a phenomenal expression, and expert pinion snot sncompaible ‘with everyday coroners reo "Ye, even such a second proves fable the lay concep ail dvege frm the scene's, dha i the fale avon ders in scuctre fom the evolutionary ‘axon, Foreximple, the lnyperton may pad "mammal" 29a beathing ‘warm blooded, mile-giving”crestore, The evohtonarytaxonomis,howeve® ‘nay wel view “Mamaia a porson ofthe genealogical nent feelution ‘As ach, ic would be a etn fr 3 loi individual oealied in space thd ne and ot 2s with he layman, tem fora eternal eas (Ghiselin v98 al 1978) Assomatntons of evolatonay theory (ort lest dhe formalied set Known a "leon theory") tat are companile with Mayes (98:27) swidely accepted detnion ofthe specs 35 "reproductive community of Populations. chat occupies pee ich im nate,” especies rm Drimiives for denoting popuitons conceived individualized “Darwinian ‘ublans” (Willams 198s). Ths sldhough there may be considerable systematic ‘onespondence between the achal extension of logical and falkbislogseal taxa no sich corespondence occurs with regard to ftenion. For sine ‘axonomies~ atleast modern evolutionary ons = donot asume the necesity of fixed tes of manifest aeeibute nr do they presume the eaten of fted ‘Mest accounts by cal theories exhibit an indsciminate switching of evidence and argument between diferent scenic fet and domains of common sense. BY nd large, they hve Bled to noice thi we consideration ofthe underyingwienifc arte of kinds may be pernent to chemistry snd physics, it holds Hele relevance for evoltonsry biology (cf Dupre 1986) (Conversely, ak of popula conceptions ofthe undying nares of kinds may have diferent imphestions for commonsense apprecations of inorgani tbe stances and ving things Ignoring thi, cal theorae may be med into suming the unity of scene, the homogeneity of common seme and the Singularity ofthe tlaionshipberween cence and common sn. seems ote plausible o view ordinary conceptions of the maar world a+ involving Fundamentally diferent common-sense conceptual domains, and to sc the lsonty of sence as the prodact of 4 varied abortion of thee dnc, ‘domains Consider: Humans appear to be inhercaly spose vo ay ing Kind according to presumptions about cei undesying physical mate, Cromecultral evidence Indices that people everywhere spontanesly organise ving kinds ino ‘ipl ranked txonomie types despee wide morphologies varistion mong ‘ove exemplars presmed to have te mature ofthe eye. Bot poop may be les spontaneously disposed to 50 expanse thar divene apprehensions of subeances Iso, the relatively weak intemal structs ofthe ordinary bance ~ domain may be sacepible othe borrowed influence of rong commonsense prewmptons about underying nature. Ths (ail very specalatve) hypotess ‘ight account forthe historia fice tha inti nin was inal am primany geared to the organic realm and then, derivative, vo the inorganic Fes. I woul ako scr to accord with ontogenetic findings cepored the ‘ext secon) that children aque appreciation of che inductive its and Bllowable meamorphoss of bologcal kinds before becoming corerpendingy Competent jogs ofthe underlying natures of aban, "Thos t may be tht weak or tnt populr ion about dhe rc fs rather heterogenous domain (a domain it) of physical and chemi ‘sbstnce sucumbs to deep scenic knowledge about their nderying ates tnd theoretical unity. But if, the argument badly goes rough for the boloal domain. neat domain, strong popular inition about the undely- sng natures of ving kinds may endure whatever cence sys and bilogy ise ‘may dspense with fixing natural kinds ~o test thei resimed underlying tatu" alogeier. In tire won, a strong conmtewaeae ltiion of ‘ological Kinds works gaint any general patter of deference tothe sent on ‘he mate of sateral Kins, Indeed conned reference entific douse speci tf they were lw-biding natural Kind indicate je bow sang may ‘eth ete’ dec 0 common see in the mater of biological Kids Interpretations of een experiments in development psychology endo deny that young cide spontaneously atibure uerying nares all and only living things (Carey 1982, Kel 1986, Geman 1988). Rather, the elim is hat ‘youngsters gradually come o make aration of andelyngnatret l(b hot necenariy only) living things ar they Become exposed to increasingly sophiicted notion of empiri theory Formation, that sa esa of (ral tr informal)isrcton in mates that dw apom seni theories (rough Schooling, nate programs on revision, ez). Before children earn to embed “mpi concept i theories, they sappondly teat living kinds in much the Same way a they teat arcs. This view generally accords wit he cogetive ‘lnm of eaunl ehcry in wiggesting childrens” progressive awareness and ‘erence to wien in their orinay eof empirical terms and concep "More special, Keil oncader hat preschoolers do nr eat the terms for biolopal Kinds thon For moar ubwances~ ae marking es “This promimably why, for example, younger Kids belive a skunk made eo look ikea saccoon relly sa raccoon Thus, "while we may nly become Aecqvained wth various natural domain trough the mow caracersic fe proorypcall properties of tei instance move Beyond such represen ‘on oan engl ich cual rote that els s how and why a thing aie into being (Kell 986151, Carey miggets dhat Beane the mataral nw: Connecting diferent appearance othe ame undedying realy ae not ee= ‘lately sbviows, and mun te lesed though exponste some sor of iene‘eration, young chilten cannot appreciate the deper usa unity underlying the existence of pnt and animal kinds. For example, "o-yenrol chile ‘sgh that dog and flower have gly [ninvented propery] widely abated sol to inanimate objees”; dats, "ving hig id ot consi dton” {Carey 98:33). fn ssc vein, Gelman argues that preschoolers il to realue dat matural kinds afford sicker coal explinaions than arcs count for dierences between ppearane and underlying tealiy. For both tuts and mata Kinds, then, the youngsters "draw inference coneering Smmerel parts and feton equally often" "To q-yearlds two apples te 20 ‘more likely co have the tone internal pars than 2 glial sad focal!” (Gelman 298890, These eis, I eevee vated by two general problems (hough hese probleme are not both ely repreented inthe suhow Chea). The fist once the by now fais) confnion Between pln Kinds pr and thom “ate” of plan exgin hat ae categorized bythe soil functions they serve, such 36 vegetable, fie and Bowers This confion tenis to obsote the Aifeencer Denween how young children ea aft and ow they eat living kinds although the invenigators do acknowledge that even the youngest children extegorcally dtingish aries ~ ae being consequences of human Inzentons~ fom things which are no. "The second problem involves the onaalyeed asamption that there is 2 ‘general cis of “mataral-knd” terms and concepts that ennai tnchdee imal and plans a well chemical and physical wbwanees, The notion of “natural Kind” ed in the cognitive bieratur it ambiguows Sometimes ised ‘reer to any concep tht sports lawful empinalpeerlzation ofthe wort Scientists ae concerned with Sometimes “nari kind” taken 0 dene all ‘aural things commonly judged to pose underlying sence, Confating the tseo wes, however, forest 4 convergence between ence and comme see. [eeween ordinary underanding of living things and ondary understanding of Inorganic sustunes, and heeween scenic elaborations of thete ordinary pprections ‘The term “natural kind” s mos Fequenly wed in the cognitive erature to refer to those "baelevel etegries of matutilly occuring sje” (Gelman 198409) which “eenae dienes evolve to widy” (Carey 1985371. Flower and fr, then, would net be natural kinds Certainly oninary teas specially cildze's est ~of mur are no made in conjncson with OWE, vin che botanical concep of mvermcamion. Rather, ows, RUM and ‘acerann ate ordinal animated to socal functions (ce sction 3.2 soe), Apples are nots Gelman gest, kind ffi, nd flowers are no, Cate plies kinds of planr~ at eatin the wy, ty that pines ac kind of tee and ins of plants (eC Wierbicks 1984, 1995 ~ although she neverhles bees ower re kinds of plants butte ae no. “Thus, although prechoolers may experience the same sorts of dfcaes in pong consent hierarchical reltons on ete and Rowers a they do ca artes ef. Rosch eta. 1976), they appeae to be much beter a bclogieal taxonomies. Accordingly, even 3-yesr-olde are sgnfcaly beter a¢ both fering aed abeling animal taxonomies than fod brace that nla ris (Wasanan 1983) Indeed, by the age of ¢ os young Maya children consitenty ‘lai over 100 botanical Kinds by eaxonomic rank, excluding "predo- fener” Rowers (Sos 1973) (Consider in ths ight. Gelman's Gding that pretchoolers a no more indie va concer thermelves with he inceral rte of pls han they are wih hat of goal key the evidence in vor ofthe clin that chide ‘nially lack presmpsions about the underying notre of living Kc There 3 amar problem with Care’ endence against there beng» dict ontological category of rive naw before the age of rine or ten, What her tenperimens sem f0 show the following’ () given new knowledge of an ‘inknown property of flower, young ciren “were not inclined to consider tither soil or inanimate bjt selevanly silat to Rowers” (98g21$2% {a given knowledge dae am animal and te had the propery, cere Ws ‘no mot likelihood of young chléen ateibring that property 0 only ving Kinds than 2 animate objec: a well (253: and (8) young cideen have “a pes icaly in satonalinng the sclson of an ama sb plane io angle ateory” (138). Coneering @) and. Gi, ote that Bower ws the only representative of she category meaner AS for i) ie may well be ‘hae young children are oable rationale the grouping of pans sn animale sn angle eatory, bat dis doer not ply that they eset inl thr Carey's findings do sgges that he “naive biology” fee animal domain it ‘niall « procoeypicly ised extension of the childs “nave paychology” shoot why’ people orpeniclly incon the way they do (eg am animal ex ‘eens food "makes him strong” and "be lke i") Buc bow comes ic that clulren ever aegute + sensibility to jnsrcton tha evenly limits the ological exension of mve prycology tj plants and animals? Suppo the phule cannes for Gnnats) a pro comaint on conceptal2qution it {be bologieal domain are eusicted to "naive paycology” and pthape the Induction ming eateyory atonal but not LiviMe aN: how, them, #3 ology -mave oF orerwine ha father extends all nd oly plat eve ‘concrtable Ie sven more ple that people's knowledge of the ological ‘domain Becomes "thory-diven” becaute dey enerin rir presumption: ‘shout undelying organic natures ater han dhe other way around This would ‘cord with anchopologicl dat tha eend eo show the eiveral presence of ‘miilysrocore plane and animal exonomies even inthe absence of any vince fra toning organi theory. Sel dhe findings that indicate de progresve rans of binlgieal properties Soon mona fo nats fO mans have to be accounted To. Suppose, a6 {Gelman al (1983) tages, cilcen inal dtingih UMANS and ana ‘within the soperordinnte ontological category sonar ong Seppose a0 line with Ke (1979), that children poser am overriding otal etgory uve Tinos that incles the moriateextepores ANAS and PANTS ”