Table Of ContentSlimmer
/•
WHY
TAXONOMY
UTILITARIAN?
IS
CLEMENT
DANIEL
Canadian Ethnology
Service
Museum
Canadian
Civilization
of
Quebec
Hull,
4H2
}8X
Canada
—
ABSTRACT.
Cognitive and utilitarian explanations of taxonomy have often
been opposed from Montagnais and
in ethnobiological studies. In this paper, data
Cree taxonomies show a relation between taxonomic structure and uses of plants
and
animals. This relation operates through partons (parts of the entities that are
show
classified). Traditional societies are not the only ones to such taxonomic
features. Linnean taxonomy was also based on a very specific historical context in
On
which were between and taxonomic development.
there direct relations utility
the other hand, the relation between taxonomy and utilization through parts of
anomaUes
the entities classified can further help us to tmderstand taxonomic or
why
an entity can be classified in more than one category.
RESUMEN.— menudo
En los estudios etnobiologicos se contraponen a las explica-
En
ciones cognitivas y de taxonomia. este articulo, los datos prove-
utilitarias la
nientes de taxonomias Montagnais y Cree muestran una relacion entre la estnic-
las
de
opera a
tura taxonomica y los usos de plantas y animales. Esta relacion travfe los
partbnes (partes de las entidades que son clasificadas). Las sociedades tradicionales
La taxonomia
no son que muestran taxonomicas.
las unicas tales caracteristicas
muy
un en que
lineana estuvo basada tambi^n en contexto historico especifico el
habia relaciones directas entre la utilidad y el desarrollo taxon6mico. Por otro lado,
la relacion entre taxonomia y utilizacion, a traves de las partes de las entidades
o
puede ayudamos comprender mejor anomalias taxonomicas,
clasificadas, a las
por que una entidad puede ser dasificada en mas de ima categoria.
RESUME
taxonomique
opposees dans etudes ethnobiologiq
les
une
demontrent
des donnees provenant des Montagnais des Cris qu'il existe
et
taxonomique Tutilisation des plantes et des
relation etroite entre la structure et
des qui sont
animaux. de partons (ou parties entites
Cette relation opere a partir
un
montrer
classees). Les societes dites traditionnelles ne sont pas les seules h tel
Unneenne egalement son origine
fonctionnement taxonomique. La taxonomie tire
d^ve-
d'un contexte historique specifique ou des relations entre Tutilisation et le
D'un
loppement taxonomique peuvent mises en evidence. autre c6te, la rela-
etre
mieux
partonomie peut nous aider a
tion entre taxonomie, TutiHsation
la et la
comprendre taxonomiques ou pourquoi une entite peut etre classee
anomalies
les
lis
INTRODUCTION
been opposed
taxonomy have often
Cognitive and explanations of
utilitarian
position believe that
in ethnobiological While the advocates of the first
studies.
CLEMENT
No.
Vol.
2 1
15,
by compulsion
purely geared a to
Dse of classification intellectual,
is p
by
chaotic world (Tyler or simple curiosity (Berlin 1992:290),
1969:6), t
I
most becau
of the second argue that people classify entities likely
>
them (Diamond and knowledge
1966), that classification as cultural
m
much and
episode of a larger debate in anthropology between inteUectualism
One
materialism. not surprised to see supporters of the cognitive interpretation
is
on need
in ethnobiology rely Levi-Strauss's statement about the intellectual for
human and
beings to classify without any practical purpose (Berlin 1992:8) the
(Hunn
supporters of the approach evoke evolutionary theory 1982:844),
utilitarian
or even oppose Malinowski statement an attempt
to Levi-Strauss in their initial in
pragmatics has been ignored
(Mor
folk classification studies
—
On
the other hand, certain authors mostly advocates of the utilitarian
—
move
approach have tried to ethnobiological studies out of the impasse created
New
by two Posey
these drastic positions. interpretations have been suggested.
example, has proposed between
(1984:123), for to distinguish "process of classifica-
and phenomena
tion purpose former
for classification," relating the to cognitive
and
Posey
the latter to a utilitarian or adaptionist approach. In the end, however,
and
argues for a utilitarian basis of taxonomy in the broadest sense (practical
symbolic), not resolving the issue of knowledge per se as an explanation for the
existence of taxonomy Hays Hunn and Morris have also pro-
(1984)
(1982), (1982),
posed
solutions. These solutions have some elements common. They suggest that
in
taxonomy
be viewed numerous
in relation to factors, such as "utilitarian, ecological,
and
cultural concerns" (Morris nature,
1984:58), "biological discontinuities in
chance human a
historical events, 'utilitarian' himian concerns, cultural concerns in
broader
sense, mtellectual curiosity, and constraints deriving from the nature of
human
perception and cognition" (Hays might be better
or that
1982:93),
it
analysed through a study would combine and
that ecological,
"cognitive, linguistic,
Two
evolutionary theory dynamic (Hunn of
to define a ethnoecology"
1982:844).
Hunn
these authors what
also share the belief that taxonomy constituted of
is
(1982:830) calls a "natural taxononuc core" that serves a general purpose, "artificial
peripheral taxa" serving a special purpose, and what Morris defines as
(1984:57)
The
prototypical around which Chewa
taxa,
the he studies focuses.
classification
and
general Hunn
purpose one
special
of are both utilitarian, since the first is
concerned
with upon
acting and repre-
entities the second one with "collectively
sentlingl a nonresource" (Hunn which negative
1982:835) in other words, a
is,
As
regards Hunn has
utility. prototypicality Randall and 1984)
Randall
(1976;1987;
elaborated methods
original the
to determine the range higher categories in
focal of
taxonomy
and, doing
in has on studying
so, insisted a contextual approach in
classification. Moreover,
his approach has
generated evidence classification
that
involves
functional
attributes besides only perceptual
ones.
In two and
this paper, the
approaches
in
classification studies, the intellectual
the
utilitarian, will be taken Hunn
into account, using
certain concepts of (1982),
Morris
and Brown
ways
(1984), mainly, an show what
(1976), in attempt to in
texonomy
and
is utilitarian in what ways With Montagnais and Cree
not.
it is
show how
data,
I will taxonomy how
based on and periph-
is prototypical taxa
Summer JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
1995
3
eral taxa are related to these taxa, having been included the taxonomy most
in
likely over time. Prototypical taxa are the core of the taxon6my and include the
main
categories of the taxonomy. They are based on uses of the entities that are
Other
classified. taxa that are peripheral are defined negatively nonresource)
(as
and own
can even form
categories of their in the taxonomic structure. The of
basis
the taxonomy, through
the core taxa, utilitarian, but the final purpose of the
is
classification also intellectual, since peripheral taxa or categories respond the
is to
human
need
for beings to include in their world view most of the with
entities
which
they whether through through
interact, directly use, negatively non-use, or
how
out of simple Furthermore, demonstrate between
curiosity. will the relation
I
taxonomic and and
structure uses of plants animals operates through partons.
The
term parton borrowed from Brown although
is (1976:401), in the present
A
article its definition involves slightly different attributes. parton will be
still
considered an
as a part (botanical, anatomical) of entity that classified, but the
is
inclusive aspect or hierarchical ("part relationship implied in Brown's usage
of")
my
word
of the will not be taken into account. In the context of study, a parton
is
meant
an animal appeared such
strictly as a part of a plant or since as in
useful
it
my
the discourse and practices of informants as well as through the analysis of
same
the discourse and practices. In fact, the activity of partons underlies classi-
fication and accounts for The same activity also helps us to understand anoma-
it.
why
lies or an entity classified in more than one category.
is
show
such taxonomic
Traditional societies are not the only ones to features.
Linnean taxonomy was also based on a very specific historical context in which
there w^re between and taxonomic development. Since
direct relations utility
manner
Linnaeus, taxonomy has evolved include in such a that
to all entities its
now was
time world-
utilitarian basis not so easily perceptible as at the this
is it
wide taxonomy was The same evolution could probably apply to tradi-
created.
tional
societies.
The which based on the analysis of
conclusion reached paper,
in this is
new study
empirical data, appears as a development in the area of the of intellec-
how
and shows
tual clearly the relation
utilitarian aspects of classification. It
between and perceptual ones operates in the higher inclusive
utilitarian factors
categories. Certainly, as Berlin (1992:181-190) has pointed out, these categories
and be based on small
(i.e., life-forms) are striking perceptually "appear to a
number have evolved
But they also
(emphasis added).
of biological characters"
from (or originated from) uses of the parts of the entities classified in these
prominence over a cognitive
what
categories. In Berlin denies (utilitarian
fact,
and
basis) and what Hunn and Randall consider on the same level cognitive
(i.e.,
same but on two
shown process
utilitarian factors) are here to be aspects of the
separate levels, with the utiUtarian factors in the end forming the basis for the
actual
operation
of classification.
CONTEXT OF STUDY
among Montagnais
The come conducted the
data from studies
three different
and
and Montagnais
Cree peoples, two Native groups from the Eastern Subarctic.
A
was
conducted
Cree study in
are part of the Algonquian language family. first
CLEMENT
No.
Vol.
4 15, 1
Lawrence Quebec, Canada.
1981 in Mingan, on the north shore of the Gulf of St. in
During the summer, 269 specimens of plants were collected by the Montagnais and
Quebec
myself and deposited at the Department of Botany at Laval University in
were asked during
for identification. For every specimen, different questions col-
men women)
and two
lection or on the same day to four different informants (two
and
between and The were asked Montagnais
65 74 years of age. questions in
name
translated through an and included such aspects as the of the
interpreter,
the
plant, etymology, gender (animate or inanimate^), classification,
its its its
and
semantic features of the categories, the plant's utilization, relation to ani-
its
200
mals. Identification of the specimens by professional Western botanists yielded
and
by mosses
species: 165 vascular plants of 600 estimated botanists in the area, 16
an mushrooms and
hepaticae of estimated 150, 15 Uchens out of 100, 3 out of 1,000 1
my
was
alga out of 100. Attention in collecting given mostly to the plants that
informants as well as other members of the commimity named and used, that is,
an
the plants were selected for study mostly by the Montagnais themselves, in
attempt and muskeg, mountain,
to cover represent the major areas (bush, marsh,
why
and
coast, so on) traditionally occupied by these people. This explains the
biggest proportion consists of vascular plants, reflecting the latter importance in a
's
society traditionally oriented towards hunting and more than gathering.
fishing
The
sample deemed new been
is satisfactory: from 1981 to today, no other plant has
named
or is said to be used by the members of this community, although research is
still being conducted on the relations between these people and their environment.
The and
study
revealed 137 ethnobotanical lexemes organized terminal taxa
in 119
higher
18 categories be
that will discussed below^.
A
Mon-
second study was among
conducted between and the
1982 1988, also
tagnais was
people. In 1982-1983, information on 172 animal species collected
from commu-
eight Montagnais and two
elders (between 59 78 from
years old)
Mingan my
and
nities, Natashquan. These animals had been by inter-
selected
preters as the less ambiguous ones from Bouchard's study of Montagnais
(1973)
taxonomy which
comprised of 229 terms, of
is
many
synonyms
Starting with Montagnais
zoological nomenclature,
were asked on
different aspects of the knowledge animals, including
of these
anatomy,
behavior (sounds, and and food,
senses, locomotion), ecology (habitat
between
relations animals, and and
seasonal phenomena), reproduction, tradi-
tional
identification, nomenclature, and complementary
taxonomy.
In a
1988,
study
of the identification, nomenclature, and was done in
asDects
classification
attempt
grasp whole
to the system mostly in
color—
were
presented two These
to of the eight elders approached 1982-1983.
in
illustrations covered
the majority occu-
of
species present in the area traditionaUy
by
pied
the Montagnais
(for a discussion of these taxa and the sources used to
all
identify them,
see Clement ques-
1995, chapter For each several
7). illustration,
on
tions
nomenclature, synonymy were
reproductive and
habits, classification
asked. The
study
yielded 227 lexemes lexemes
(excluding synonyms and other
referrmg
to distinctions based on
and to
age, sex, so Out 212 referred
on). of these,
termmal
and
taxa
15
to larger
categories*.
Finally, the Cree data was
gathered in The studvs was done Chisasibi,
1990.
in
Summer JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
1995
5
on
Bay
the east coast of James in Quebec. focused on fish species and ichtyologi-
It
knowledge, but on
cal also gathered information the complete ethnozoological
I
taxonomy. Three main and
informants and
66 years old) family
(56, 57, their
participated in the study, which yielded data on Cree nomenclature,
fish taxon-
omy,
anatomical knowledge,
ecology
(habitat, food, migrations), reproduction,
and The was
fish diseases, study conducted both with
utilizations. color
illustra-
and
tions of species real specimens. I first established a list of fish in Cree territory
utilizing Scott and Grossman and Morin and Dodson
(1973)
(1986).
MONTAGNAIS BOTAMCAL TAXONOMY
—
Botanical partonomy. The Montagnais people believe in an order in the creation
came
of their universe. Informants usually agree that earth the animals
first,
human
and
second, beings third. This corresponds to three native categories
:
When
ashtshi^ (earth), aueshishat (animals), and innu (human being). ques-
known
tioned further, the Montagnais place the bulk of the botanical entities to
them
some
right after the category earth, even though of the plants, like mosses
and
The between and
lichens, are labelled ashtshi category earth animals
(earth). is
unlabelled but generally referred to as ashtshit nte kdnitautshiht or kdni-
tautshiki, literally "in the earth, the ones that grow.*' This category forms a
continuum which
(shashapina)
of "algae"
,
animals
since thev "live like
same
Dlace.''
my
—
informants, the key element to distinguish
m
"
from
said "to ffrow considered as "earth"
* ire
'
'
comprised
elements in the
first
move main element
cannot bv themselves. Further on, the that distin
guishes // grow the earth" from
in
)
form ushkatidpi
the "earth" (root).
itself) is
former are said to possess such an organ. Roots are also believed
le
be the main mode of reproduction for these entities, which is the case for certain
by
some propagation
important
plants in the environment. In fact, in places,
means of layers the only means of reproduction for trees such as black spruce
is
There
means are
(Hosie Ushkatidpi etymologically "the filiform leg."
1975:72).
other anthropomorphic view of plants, such as
botanical partons denote
that this
udukandkandtuk", "backbone wood," which the heart of the tree;
the of the is
and
pitshu-atshuk^, balsam gum, which comes from atshuk^ (sperm or snot);
fir
minapdkuna, which covers several kinds of old-man's
the "hairy covering,"
human
nature: for
beard. For each of these partons, there a story related to its
is
upon by shaman obey
example, be the to
the "heart of the tree" said to called
is
human
him from
"gum" have originated testes
(Speck the believed to
1977:200);
is
come
thrown and old-man's beard said to
in a balsam (Savard 1979:35); the is
fir
Tshakapesh
from the and mother of a young hero called
hair of the father
Lefebvre
( 1974).
Some
many
are
Montagnais knowledge comprises other partons.
botanical
and
uapukun
general Uke mishtuk" mtn niptsh (flower),
(wood), (leaf),
(fruit),
(branches
tshishtdpdkuanat
udndtsheshk" such
very as
(bark); others are specific
CLEMENT
No.
Vol.
6 15, 1
—
TABLE
L Montagnais
Principal partons.
Partons Definitions
tnin a part originating from a plant as the "product of the flower" according to
"growing
iriformant
(fruit)
known
Western
in
body
ductive of a seed plant
mishtuh*
internal part originating fro
word
(wood) corrunon trunk
for
wood, and
trunk, as a category for trees
one
nipish a part that comes from a plant and grows on a stem; according to
word
word no
(leaf) informant, the can be used to designate a sepal of a flower;
was some be nipish
for needles of conifers recorded; plants are said to
only due prominent stem
to their lack of a
and which
uandtsheshk** general term for the part originating from a stem and a root
and
(bark) constitutes cover; two layers are distinguished, the outer the inner;
its
named
in one case (white the outer layer (udshkuai) differently
birch),
is
from
the iimer layer (uandtsheshk")
uapukun
group
(flower) because prominence
of the
ushkdtiapt an underground
part
orig:
1,
(root) also other parts which are considered in Western botany to belong to the
stem crown of plants; stem base of the word used for a
(i.e. trees); is
category of plants marked by the prominence of this part; specific terms
uatavL used
(e.e. conifer root) are also
of utikuana
conifers), (branches deciduous and atamusat (willow cat-
of
trees),
and most
kin); of these partons play a role in the development of the taxonomy.
Table gives the Montagnais partons
1 features associated with the principal
noted above. Montagnais
informants between different
consider the relation these
botanical and Brown
parts the plants as one of origin {utshipanu, comes from").
"it
does not mention kinds
this possibility while discussing the
//
part of" relationship explicit in different languages "part of or
possessive belongs When aU
("x to y") relations. viewed through Montagnais eyes,
botanical
parts that could have caused interpretation
logical difficulties in their
wood
can
be
(e.g., considered a same
part of a tree in the sense as a leaf is?)
disappear. All by
"parts"
originate from they are not seen as part of or possessed
(i.e.,
a
plant) a plant, be they wood, will
berries, roots, or flowers. Moreover, as I
demonstrate
below, from
this relation also implies the fact that these parts originate
plants as
useful
or useless products and
thus
is functional in essence.
Botanical taxonomy.—As
noted
above, category
plants are classified either in the
ashtshtt
nte kdmtdutshtht,
or ones that
kanitautshiki, the
Uterally "in the earth,
grow"
or
in the category
ashtshi The tnishtukuat
(earth). category includes
first
shakaua
(trees),
(shrubs),
atishia (smaU
plants).
shrubs), tnashkushua (herbaceous
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
Stunmer
1995
7
ashtshtuashishk' :hUshue ashtshiuashishk'
(ground hemlock) ground hemlock')
real
innasht fbalsam
f
(eastern white cedar)
K
minaikf (wh
>
uatshinakan (tamarack)
ushkatukf
(black spruce
(jack
mishtukuat
uashkuai
(white birch)
uashkuai innikuai white
('trees') (*real birch')
birch) nipi-uashkuai white birch
(*
H
of the water')
>
mU&sh
mitush (poplar) (trembling aspen)
mashUmitush
(balsam poplar)
mashkuminanakashi
(showy mountain
ash)
^t-
FIG. ^Mishtukuat,
1. 'trees'
and a few unaffiliated taxa. Ashtshi (earth) comprises mosses, lichens, and even
types mud, continuum category
of a fact that argues in favor of a in this also.
when
two "wood" used with
In Montagnais, tnishtuk" has meanings: inani-
mate when
gender, and "tree" animate. Taxa belonging to the category tree are
and grow
said (a) to possess a trimk, (b) to have a large diameter, (c) to relatively
and These two
high. Trees evergreens deciduous.
(Fig. are classified as
first
1)
name
categories are usually though some informants the second uash-
covert,
The
kuai, which the prototype of category (white birch). reahty of these
this
is
covert by nomenclature for branches of
categories further attested specific
is
name
and evergreens
conifers deciduous trees (see above), as well as a (cikopi) for
in Atikamekw, Algonquian language. Only one taxon (ground
a closely related
my men
two and two
hemlock) category by four informants,
classified in the trees
women^, Montagnais
does not correspond to either the botanical^ or definition of
many
a tree: in ground hemlock a shrub, and as such has stems. Infor-
fact,
is
mants grows with
say ground hemlock" ashtshiuashishk")
that (tshttshue
"real
way name
same
balsam name they the
they branches the plant the
also the of
fir;
become more
branches Ground hemlock hence seems have a tree
of to
all conifers.
by association with through having the same kind of branches)
other
trees
(e.g.,
than by virtue of own features, since contrary to the Montagnais definition of a
its
and
tree, ground hemlock has many stems, the diameter of each stem is small, it is
women
by
not Only one taxon appearing was classified differently
tall. in Fig. 1
and men: mashkuminanakashi, showy mountam ash, which was classified by the
former but by as a shrub (see Fig.
as a tree because of great height the latter 2).
its
The which generally
classi-
case uapineu-mitshima, willow,
is similar to that of is
because can
be
fied as a shrub but sometimes, with hesitation, said to also a tree it
grow Montagnais by inanimate lexemes.
very two denoted
high. These taxa are in
by
denoted
In Montagnais, ground hemlock, are
the other including the
trees,
all
moun-
why two showy
animate
lexemes. At glance, the reasons these taxa,
first
— —
tain ash which and willow—which can be a tree botani-
a tree botanically
is
CLEMENT
No.
Vol. 1
15,
8
apuemin&nakashi (pin cherry)
'
birch)
fl/iihipe/ii«A:"(glandular
tO&min&nakashi (Bartram's shadbush)
atAshpi (speckled alder)
innUshtminAnakashi currant)
(fetid
kamatshak&shU shakau (wild holly)
shakaua
('shrubs')
1
mashkuminanakashi (showy mountain ash)
dogwood)
mtkuilpemuk' (red-osier
mishtukusha
(red-berried elder)
muskumin&nakashi (edible cranberry-tree)
tshttshue shakau (green alder)
udpineu-mitshima (willow)
1.—
FIG. Shakaua,
'shrubs'.
—
not
depending on more than one category are
cally the species are classified in
between features
too seems as informants were hesitating different
clear.
It if
The
them.
(height of the plant, animate gender, one or multiple stems) to classify
my
develops.
real reasons for this multiple classification will appear as analysis
Most shakaua botanically
of the taxa included in the category (Fig. 2) are
shrubs, that multiple -stemmed and woody plants. There are four exceptions to
is,
because of
this rule: willow, which can be a tree but classified with the shrubs
is
sometimes
showy
similar height; mountain which a but considered
ash, tree
is is
as a shakau; and speckled alder and pin which are small trees but consid-
cherry,
shakaua atishia
ered as because they are too high to be in the next category,
be a
appears
(small shrubs). For three of the last four cases, relative height to
charac-
fundamental
feature of Besides informants also
differentiation. this
trait,
and a
shakaua
terized as having large stems, larger leaves than atishia, (c)
(a) (b)
apparent
double bark (one and one understand the
inside outside). In fact, to
continuum
process of one must view main as a
classification, the categories
all
mostly by and leaves
defined features of the stem (height and diameter) the
On
women men plant in
(width). the other hand, and only one other
classified
showy
this category besides mountain ash and willow innttsht-
differently:
minanakasht, fetid ciurant, which was a shakau for the former and an atishi for
women
the Again, by was "high."
latter. the reason given the that the plant is
Fifteen of the 21 terminal taxa considered as atishia (Fig. 3) are botanically
have
woody
small shrubs, that small with The others
is, plants several stems. six
woody
stumps woody
(bunch-berry),
(raspberry, cloudberry), a part as the base
strong rhizomes (beach which associate
pea, strawberry), informants possibly
and
with wood, wood,
or dense trunks with
(club-moss), perhaps also associated
have
therefore related to the atishi. Three taxa out of these ambiguous ones
sbc
been women plant
classified differently by and men: herbaceous
bunch-berry, a
women men;
classified as atishihy the and mashkushu by the
(herbaceous plant)
women and
strawberry, another
herbaceous by
plant considered
similarly (atishi
mashkushu by
men); and as
club-moss, categorized
primitive vascular plants
men
by
atishi but as kinds of ushkatiapi by women Other general
(root) (Fig. 5).
features of the category 60 cm),
atishia include (approximately
(a) relative height
(b) regular diameter of the stem, and smaU feature
presence of fruits (a
(c)
—
Summer JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
1995
9
an&shkanimin&nakashi
(raspberry)
ashtshimin&nakasht (black crowberry)
atikumin&nakashi
(beaiberry)
atitshiminanakasht (beach pea)
ikuta (Labrador
tea)
innimin&nakashi
(blueberry)
k&kakanudshkuak
atisht fsweet eale)
kakuminanakashi
(swamp
currant)
kaupemukua
shApumindnakasht
(*prickly or hairy
wooden
plants') (hairy gooseberry)
mnitshiminanakashi
atishia
Csmall
shrubs') currant)
|_(fetid
mashtshekumindnakashi (small cranberry)
matshikzsha
(possibly leather leaf)
nishtshimin&nakashi (bog bilberry)
nitshukuminanakashi (sour-top blueberry)
p&shitshindkuana (club-moss)
swamp
pUshildsha
(possibly laurel)
shakuteummdnakashi
(cloudberry)
shashakumin&nakashi (bunch-berry)
uiskatshiminanakashi (mountain cranberry)
uishatshipukua (sheq) laurel)
utaimin&nakashi (strawberry)
FIG.
3- Atishia, 'small shrubs'.
deduced from the fact that this category alone comprises 15 taxa out of 23 denoted
by morpheme
lexemes that are formed by a referring to small fruits). Finally,
women
by and men: small
other
taxa in the category are also classified differently
women
mashkushu
cranberry, which but (herbaceous
a tiny shrub, atisht for
is
plant) for men, probably because of small height; mountain cranberry, consid-
its
ered by men only minakashidshk'* plant) without any affiliation to the
as a (fruit
which
main discussed above,
and
categories; innitshiminanakasht, fetid ciirrant,
women
is considered a shakdu (shrub) by but, because of a special feature, as a
by men.
kdupemuk^ wooden and shrub)
(small
(prickly or hairy plant) atisht
most com-
the
Montagnais mashkushua,
of herbaceous plants, is
classification
by
plex of their botanical taxonomy Botanically, these plants are characterized
stems woody even absence of stem. In the latter case,
soft (absence or
of tissue)
much
another example, the leaves) that
part of the plant develops so (for it
becomes
becomes plant a
main example, the
the feature of the categorization (for
m
one of the three
nipish, 4 presents the plants classified
literally "leaf'). Fig. all
which
main are
nonwoody mashkushua, herbaceous plants,
categories of plants:
an
by can be as high as atishiX
characterized height (they
their relative
(1)
and
their color,
(2) their softness (not hard like wood), (3) their long leaves, (4)
and uapukuna,
green; mainly by flowers,
nipisha, characterized their leaves;
leaves,
m
were
which have big flowers compared with other plants. Certain plants Fig. 4
men-
aheady been
classified by men and women. Three cases have
differently
utaimin&nakashi, strawberry.
tioned
(mashtshekuminanakashl small cranberry,
.
CLEMENT
No.
10 Vol. 15, 1
and shdshakuminanakashi, bunch-berry). Besides these, there also pineumi-
is
women
any
nanakasht, snowberry, which a kind of leaf for the but without
is
category the men; and ushpuakantssat, sporophytes of mosses, which were
for
women
classified by the as a kind of earth instead of a kind of herbaceous plant as
they were by the men. While the of these cases difficult to interpret, the
first is
how
second shows operates through partons and subjective reason-
classification
ing: ushpuakantssat look hke soft stems and can thus be classified as herbaceous
plants; on the other hand, they are part of mosses, which from the Montagnais
A
view comment made on The
point of are kinds of earth. last can be Fig. 4.
when
one
complexity of the classification of these plants can best be evaluated
many
looks at the categories in which a particular plant can be placed. This again
do when
has to with the part of the plant looked For example,
at classified.
is
it
my
named mashkusHu
informants
classified a plant uishakatshakuat, fern, as a
(herbaceous plant) while fronds were not completely developed; later in the
its
season, a fully developed specimen of the same species was classified as a ntpish
The shown by
(leaf). complexity of this type of categorization in Fig. 4 the
is
multiple use taxonomy
of categories at different levels of the
The
Montagnais
botanical category ashtshit nte kdnttautshiht or kdni-
tdutshiki (in the earth, the ones that grow) also includes ambiguous taxa. Accord-
ing
to Berlin (1976:387), these taxa can be defined as those:
which encompass
a group of organisms, most of which are highly
I . . ]
.
polymorphic
usually stem some a
in habit. In contexts of identification,
specimen which member may be
is said to be a of a particular generic
member
classified as a of one form; specimen of
in others, a different
life
same may
the generic class be regarded as a member of another form,
life
or placed no form
in
life at
all.
Tshishtapdkuanat
(branches and examples of
of conifers) ushkdtidpia are
(roots)
m
such They
taxa. include plants that can be classified one of the main categories
discussed above (for example, ashtshiudshtshk", ground hemlock, which a kind
is
of mishtuk^, and same which
tree) at the time are said to be part of these categories
include
plants not part
classified elsewhere example, also
(for ashtshiudshtshk**
is
of the category
tshishtapdkuanat, branches of which includes other
conifers,
unaffiliated taxa such common
as kdkdtshimindnakashi,
5 illustrates
juniper). Fig.
this classification. Here again there are differences between women's and men's
classifications. For example, men of
pdshitshindkuana an because
atishi for the
is
woody
and
its part a kind women
of root for the because of crawling stems.
its
Fig. 5 also includes women
unaffiliated taxa classified as such only by the (pine-
umindnakasht, men
by
classified as knovm women (amtshikdta)
leaves) or onlv
to
Montagnais
category,
ashtshi
which
(earth), in
and
mosses, mud
as well as kinds of and wood. One main charac-
rotten the
of
teristics of these
taxa that they do grow earth
is not into the earth, but are the
themselves, which
grows. While the
this appHes to mosses and Hchens, not
is
it
mud
case
for kinds
of or kinds of rotten wood, which seem include
informants to
m
this category
because
earth
is also constituted of elements that do not neces-
sarily grow.
In
fact, this entire geovegetal continuum of
category can be seen as a
