Berlin (1973, 1992); Ludwig (2018)

 Berlin (1973)

• Folk systematics: 259 
• Classificação: Estuda os princípios pelos quais as classes de organismos são organizados por outras culturas;
• Nomenclatura: Descreve os princípios linguísticos dos nomes das classes de organismos;
• Identificação: Estudo das características físicas utilizadas para classificar os organismos;
• Geralmente segue o princípio de semelhanças e diferenças, mais raramente o critério de funcionalidade; 260
• A correspondência entre as classificações populares e científica é um argumento em favor da "realidade das espécies". 260. Entretanto isso não é um consenso 267 (ver Berlin et al 1966)
• Taxa utilizados em folk systematics (taxa ocorrentes em uma mesma categoria são sempre mutuamente excludentes):
• Unique beginner: Taxon que une todos os outros taxa, ex: living beings;
• Life form: Classificação mais ampla, ex: birds, trees. É comum que ocorra polisemia entre o nome dado ao taxon de life form e o taxon generico mais expressivo do grupo. Planta por exemplo é usado tanto como life form (correspondente ao reino Plantae) quanto para designar uma subdivisão de plantas pequenas em um uso mais popular;
• Intermediate: Taxa entre life form e generic. Incluem dois ou mais taxa genericos. São raros e as vezes não nomeados, portanto não necessariamente uma categoria;
• Generic: Reconhece as descontinuidades da categoria mais ampla, ex: carvalho e besouro. Maioria é monotípico, os politípicos são normalmente importantes culturalmente. São a base do sistema e definidos como uma classe de organismos tida como o menor grupo necessário de ser nomeado;
• A final linguistic feature of generic names which appears to be widespread in many languages is the use of the generic plus some modifier to refer to some taxon that is conceptually related to the class indicated by the generic name alone. Often the modifier is an animal name [...] oak, poison oak; apple, horse apple [etc.] 262-3
• It should be pointed out that none of these superficially binomial expressions are seen as conceptually subordinate to their monomial counterparts. Thus, skunk cabbage is not a kind of cabbage nor is poison oak a kind of oak. Each simply shares some characters which are seen to be similar to the monomially designated form. 263
• Specific e Varietal: limitam-se a poucos pontos morfológicos (cor, tamanho). Não são muito numerosos em classificações folk, ex: carvalho branco (specific) ou feijão preto e feijão branco (varietal). Geralmente binomial, com um adjetivo anexado ao nome genérico.
• Os nomes podem ser primários (rótulos utilizados geralmente nas categorias UB, LF e G) ou secundário para os taxa de menor hierarquia. 262
•  Comparação entre a etnonomenclatura e a científica pode ser comparada. Berlin sugere comparar a categoria generic com species científica.
• One to one correspondence: Um único folk generic name (FGN) corresponde com um único nome científico de espécie (NCE);
• Over differentiation: dois ou mais FGN correspondem com um único NCE. Ocorre geralmente com organismos cultivados bem diferenciados;
• Under differentiation, ocorre com FGN polítipicos (incluem folk specifics) [neste caso acho que seria melhor comparar o specific]:
• 1. Quando um único FGN corresponde a mais de um NCE do mesmo gênero científico.
• 2. Quando um único FGN corresponde a mais de um NCE de gêneros científicos distintos.

• Before proceeding further, it should be pointed out that the inventory of biological species utilized in any comparison are those·-and only those-species which occur in the geographic area of the society being s,tudied. For example, one may observe that a particular folk generic such as oak refers to one or more of the species of Quercus in the area inhabited by the society under study. In the absolute sense, of course, all folk systems are obviously under-differentiated when the totality of all western systematic knowledge is considered. Such an observation is trivial, however, if one is concerned with evaluating the classificatory treatment of those species for which a particular society has first-hand knowledge. 268
• Furthermore, it is obvious that one must r,estrict one's comparison to those species of organisms which, because of their size, behavior, and significance, are readily observable to the primitive natural historian [ou seja, passíveis de observação sem equipamento especializado]. 268-9

Mais detalhes na questão de correspondência dos Tzeltal: (Berlin et al 1966)

Mais detalhes sobre a categoria intermediaria não nomeada (Berlin et al 1968)

Sobre a relação de folk systematics com a moderna (Berlin et al. 1971)

Mais detalhes sobre a formação histórica das categorias: (Berlin 1972)

Versão expandida deste paper: (Berlin et al. 1973)

Berlin (1992)

ON THE MAKING OF A COMPARATIVE ETHNOBIOLOGY 

• Etnobiologia estuda a relação das sociedades com os seres vivos. Antigamente com viés econômico mas passou a focar mais nos porquês da classificação.
• Debate entre um ramo pós-moderno relativista e um ramo cross-cultural mais "científico" que busca generalizações.
• neo-Malinowskian functionalism p. 8 [Malinowski propôs uma etnobiologia centrada nas necessidades do indíviduo, buscava explicar os aspectos culturais com relação a sua função para responder estas necessidades. Tem também um neo-functionalism, mas não parece ser ao qual Berlin se refere aqui (fonte)]
• The world of nature cannot be viewed as a continuum from which pieces may be selected ad libitum and organized into arbitrary cultural categories. Rather, groups of plants and animals present themselves to the human observer as a series of discontinuities whose structure and content are seen by all human beings in essentially the same ways, perceptual givens that are largely immune from the variable cultural determinants found in other areas of human experience. /P/ However, if nature's plan is unambiguous, it is not exclusive. Ignoring for the moment the discredited nominalist [posição anti-platônica contra a existência de universais. Na biologia afirma que não existem espécies na natureza e que estas seriam apenas construções humanas (fonte)] position of Locke and its expression in biology [...] it is clear that biological diversity can be organized in several different ways. 8-9
• Para o nominalista a taxonomia é resultado de uma divisão arbitrária do continuum natural por cada cultura, para o comparativista as espécies são reais e aparecem com clusters identificáveis (logo não há continuum), portando as classificações de diferentes culturas são generalizáveis. Berlin advoga a segunda:
• This overall pattern [which stands out in all classification] has been referred to by systematic biologists as the natural system. The natural system becomes manifest presumably because of the human ability to recognize and categorize groups of living beings that are similar to one another in varying degrees in their overall morphological structure, or morphological plan. This pattern-recognizing ability is probably innate. However, the answer to this larger ontological question has little bearing on the manifestation itself of pattern recognition in actual systems of ethnobiological classification. 9
• Princípios propostos em 1973, corroborados até certo ponto independentemente por Bulmer.
• 1. Todas as línguas nomeiam taxa.
• 2. Os ranks nos quais os taxa ficam são: unique beginner, life form, intermediate, generic, specific, varietal.
• Eles são hierárquicos. 
• 3. Os taxa que contêm são mutuamente exclusivos. Unique beginner só tem um taxon
• 4. Taxa do mesmo rank normalmente se repetem em outras classificações;
• 5. Unique beginner normalmente não é nomeado.
• 6. Tem poucos taxa em life form (tree, vine, bird, grass, mammal);
• 7. Generic tem muitos taxa e é a base dos sistemas. Alguns não são incluídos em life form;
• 8. Specefic e varietal tem poucos taxa e varietal é raro. Normalmente são designados por lexemas secundários
• 9. Intermediate geralmente incluem taxa generic, são raros e geralmente não nomeados (covert category).
• Controvérsias deste primeiro sistema:
• The first principle asserts that groupings of plants and animals constitute a semantic domain or lexical field in that (a) these groupings are named, and (b) they are semantically related to one another in some structured, principled fashion. [...] The claim that these named taxa constitute a semantic domain or lexical field, however obvious this might seem at first glance, has instead generated debate. In the first place, as noted in principle 5, the domain of 'plant' or 'animal' is often not named. A number of critics were skeptical of allowing for the existence of such unnamed categories and for semantic domains to be established on this negative linguistic evidence alone (see Brown 1974, in reply to Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven 1968, and rebutted in Berlin 1974). /P/ A more controversial aspect of principle 1 concerns the claim that plant and animal taxa are systematically related to one another in terms of the taxonomic relation of set inclusion (e.g., tree > oak, bird > woodpecker, fish > bass). A number of critics have suggested that "taxonomic structure" is probably an inappropriate and empirically unjustifiable way to speak about the semantic structure of ethnobiological systems of classification (see Hunn 1976, 1982; Ellen 1986; Randall 1976). Others (e.g., Hunn and French 1984) have suggested that, while taxonomic relationships may be found in ethnobiological systems of classification, hierarchic ordering is not the primary semantic principle uniting the taxa in any particular folk system. /P/ Principles 2, 3, and 4 assert that plant and animal taxa are distributed in a finite set of ethnobiological ranks. [...] it was not claimed that all folk systems would exhibit taxa at each rank [...] /P/ The remaining five principles outlined particular nomenclatural, biological, taxonomic, and psychological characteristics of ethnobiological taxa at each of the six proposed ranks. These characteristics play a major role in assigning taxa to their respective ranks in any particular system [...] [tbm têm suas controvérsias]. 17-8
• Berlin reformula os princípios fazendo questão de diferir que eles se referem à categorização das espécies e não à sua nomenclatura, ou seja, falam sobre o aspecto psicológico e não sobre o linguístico:
• 1. Apenas uma parcela dos organismos mais salientes (função da distinguibilidade biológica) entram na classificação.
• 2. A classificação baseada principalmente em morfologia e comportamento;
• 3. Os taxa são aninhados hierarquicamente;
• 4. Estão distribuídos em seis ranks de acordo com suas semelhanças e diferenças perceptíveis: kingdom; life-form; intermediate; generic; specific; varietal.]
• 5. Taxa são similares sistematicamente em tamanho e conteúdo entre diferentes culturas. 
• Generic são mais numerosos, geralmente monotípicos, as vezes não afiliados a uma life form;
• Life form juntam coisas mais distintas, geralmente são politipicos e incorporam a maioria dos taxa de menor rank
• Intermediate: pertencentes a life form englobando generic semelhantes
• Specific subdivide generic, mas é encontrado em menor número, varietal subdivide specific e é raro;
• Kingdom: antigo unique beginner, contém um taxon apenas que engloba todos os outros;
• 6. Alguns ranks podem ter exemplares mais típicos segundo sua saliência. A presença de tipos semânticos é descrita em outros contextos, todos chegando ao ponto de que certos conceitos recebem muita atenção e têm outros termos definidos em relação a eles, assim como indivíduos são definidos em relação a uma espécie tipo. O assunto é elaborado melhor mais a frente (p. 42)

• 7. A correspondência entre etnoclassificações e a científica é consideravelmente alta;
• Seguem abaixo os princípios de nomenclatura:
• 1. Intermediate, kingdom e as vezes life form taxa não são nomeados. Quando covert taxa são nomeados é comum que o termo seja polissêmico;
• 2. Nomes primários podem ser simples ou complexos, os secundários apenas complexos. Os primários podem ser produtivos (dão informação quanto ao rank maior, cat fish) ou improdutivos (dão informação errada quanto ao rank maior, silverfish);
• It is important to note that principle 2 applies to the habitually necessary components of the labels by which ethnobiological taxa are named. It might be claimed that hickory (Carya spp.) can also be referred to as hickory tree, and that ash (Fraxinus spp.) can be called ash tree. While such expanded names do occur in some dialects of American English, the presence of the constituent tree is not necessary. On the other hand, one cannot refer to the tree Liliodendron tulipifera as tulip; the full form tulip tree is obligatory as the taxon's habitual label. In contrast, secondary names may be abbreviated, and often are, for example, winesap apple can often be referred to simply as winesap (cf. Conklin 1962:122);
• 3. Generic taxa geralmente tem nomes primários e subgeneric taxa tem nomes secundários.
• 4. As vezes plantas de nomes primárias são acrescidas de adjetivos animais (ver p. 30 para os motivos);
• 5. Os nomes comumente se referem a alguma característica do que está sendo nomeado.
• O capítulo termina com uma discussão sobre as formas de representação da taxonomia (e as controvérsias relaciondas a isso) chegando a uma sistematização das representações que serão utilizadas por Berlin.

THE PRIMACY OF GENERIC TAXA IN ETHNOBIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

• Berlin apresentará qual a razão de determinadas descontinuidades biológicas serem nomeadas e não outras.
• Bartlett, influenciado por Greene, atesta que o conceito de gênero é comum em sociedades tradicionais. A partir daí surgem nomes específicos se necessário.
• For Bartlett, the biological scope of a folk genus might be unitary, making subdivisions of it unnecessary. However, should the internal diversity of the genus be perceptually distinctive enough, subgroupings will be recognized [and recognized with binomial names]. 56
• Greene salienta a semelhança da classificação botânica de Teofrasto com outras etnoclassificações;
• A importância do gênero se estende até Linnaeus. Para os botânicos esta ainda era a categoria mais importante, tanto que Linnaeus só começou a nomear gêneros monotípicos binomialmente depois.
• Cain thus added a significant psychological dimension to Bartlett's original intuition: it is because one can indentify a generic category without close study that humans are led to consider the category worthy of a distinctive simple name in the first place.4 60-1
• Gêneros são reconhecidos na natureza, não definidos.
• It is clear, then, that the genus is seen as a configurational category, recognizable almost instantaneously, in contrast with that of subgeneric groupings whose differentiation often requires deliberate and conscious effort to distinguish. Hunn, elaborating on the ideas of the cognitive psychologists Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956), has proposed that generic taxa be treated as inductively formed categories in ethnobiological systems of classification.5 61
• Em praticamente todas as sociedades tradicionais, os nomes genéricos são aprendidos primeiro pelas crianças e os específicos depois.
• [...] The problem, of course, is the empirical observation that folk generic taxa do not in most cases correspond perfectly with taxa recognized as genera in the Western scientific system. [...] /P/ This is the confusion of two different but nonetheless intuitively related concepts, namely, the level of some particular taxon and its ethnobiological rank. In Western scientific biological classification, the level and rank of a particular taxon are always in perfect correspondence. While this may also be true for some portions of a folk taxonomic hierarchy, there are numerous exceptions leading to structural asymmetries where level and rank do not coincide perfectly. These asymmetries have often led to the development of terminologies that confound these analytically distinct concepts in a number of ways. As will be seen, "level" is trivially easy to define; "rank," on the other hand, is quite slippery. /P/ [...] As we will see, disagreement is only partially due to the similarity of the names chosen to refer to ethnobiological (vs. biological) taxa involved (e.g .,folk generics versus scientific genera). At the core of the matter are confusions and disagreements about how best to characterize the differing taxonomic levels and ranks into which the plant and animal taxa comprising folk systems of biological classification are distributed. 64-5
• [...] the fact that a folk taxon is terminal has very little to say about its biological or cognitive status. In general, as Hays was to put it several years later, Bulmer's data clearly indicate that "not all taxa which appear at the same level are the same in terms of their biological content, and not all taxa with comparable content are found at the same structural level" (Hays 1979).
• Ressalta que não há intenção de correspondência entre as categorias etnobiológicas e científicas.
• Rosch: Prototypicality e Basic level categories (medição quantitativa por cue validity e categorical resemblance)
• Superordinate categories have lower total cue validity and lower category resemblance than do basic-level categories, because they have fewer common attributes; in fact, the category resemblance measure of items within the superordinate can even be negative due to the high ratio of distinctive to common features. Subordinate categories have lower total cue validity than do basic categories, because they also share most attributes with contrasting subordinate categories. . . . That basic objects are categories at the level of abstraction that maximizes cue validity and maximizes category resemblance is another way of asserting that basic objects are the categories that best mirror the correlational structure of the environment. (Ibid. :31) 70
• list all of the attributes [they] could think of that were true of the items included in the class of things designated by each object name. . . . Very few attributes were listed for the superordinate categories, a significantly greater number were listed for the supposed basic level objects, and not significantly more attributes listed for subordinate-level objects than for basic-level. . . . The single unpredicted result was that for the . . . biological taxonomies, the basic level, as defined by numbers of attributes in common, did not occur at the level of the folk generic but appeared at the level we had originally expected to be superordinate [e.g., tree rather than oak, maple, and birch]. (Ibid.:32-33, emphasis added) 71 [resultados conflitam com a predominância do generics]
• Outro estudo conclui a categoria ou rank mais proeminente varia de cultura para cultura. Mas Berlin afirma: the psychological salience of individual taxa in ethnobiological systems of classification cannot unambiguously be inferred solely by reference to their taxonomic rank. 73
• A chance do taxon ser nomeado é diretamente proporcional à sua "distinguibilidade", isto é, gêneros com muitas espécies tem menos chances de serem nomeados enquanto grupos monotípicos tem mais chances.

• Estrutura dos generic taxa
• Generic taxa do not constitute a uniform and homogeneous set of categories. Typically, many exhibit biological ranges that encompass one or more species of the same genus, but others will range over several distinct genera. In the case of smaller organisms, many correspond to biological taxa of even higher rank. A small but significant portion of generic taxa stand out from all others in that they themselves are further subdivided into named folk specific taxa. This unique set of folk generics and the taxa that they include will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. 90
• A linguistically monotypic folk generic that ranges over several biological species is nonetheless characterized by its own internal structure. That is, it is generally the case that one or more closely related species that fall within the basic range of a folk generic are considered to be more representative of the folk generic than are others. From this perspective, a folk generic may be thought of as comprised of a central species (or small set of species) that comes psychologically to represent a prototypical image around which perceptually similar species are grouped. These images, of course, are the gestalten of generic categories. 90-1
• Generic taxa ficam entre 500 em número médio em sistemas etnobiológicos.

THE NATURE OF SPECIFIC TAXA

• Generics podem ser divididos em mais grupos (neste caso são chamados de politipicos).
• Berlin cita Wierzbicka: 
• A white gum is a kind of gumtree which differs from other kinds of gumtrees in having white bark . . . a blue spruce is a kind of spruce which differs from other kinds of spruce in having bluish needles. Specific terms are seen as singling out something 'special', that is to say something 'different', 'not the same'. . . . Specific terms contain in their meaning negation: things of this kind are not like other kinds of things of this kind. . . . Roughly, white gumtree [is] . . . a kind of gumtree . . . which differs from other kinds of gumtrees . . . in having [white bark], white gum, [etc.]. A general semantic formula for the [subgeneric] rank would read: . . . a kind of X (one of the different kinds of X, not many different kinds) which differs from the other kinds of X in some ways, not many ways. (Wierzbicka 1985:219-230) 103
• [...] it is accurate to claim that recognition is first to the genus, then, with more conscious effort, to those categories that subdivide it. 106
• Questão de conjuntos
• [...] folk specific taxa may finely subdivide a single biological species [...] It is also common that specific taxa range over several species of the same biological genus, [...] Finally, a folk genus may also be divided into two or more folk species that map to biological species of different genera, [...] Nonetheless, in these cases, the different but closely related biological species involved are quite similar in their most obvious and readily perceived features of morphology and lead naturally to their being considered, to paraphrase Wierzbicka (1985), as closely contrasting kinds of the same natural kind. 106
• Categorias contrastivas como specific taxa utilizam poucas dimensões semânticas como parâmetros: cor, tamanho, etc...
• Ainda, o adjetivo atributivo é importante nessa definição contrastiva semântica. ver p. 107 e 116-8 para discussão sobre exceções.
• O membro típico do specific taxa geralmente divide o nome com o nome do taxon como um todo.
• [...] organisms not assigned to the named subdivisions of some particular polytypic taxon do not, by this fact alone, form an amorphous although legitimate category. Rather, these species float as a linguistically undifferentiated "residue," to use Taylor's term, as part of the superordinate generic that includes them. 116
• A politipicidade de um taxon se relaciona com a importância dele para a cultura em questão.

NATURAL AND NOT SO NATURAL HIGHER-ORDER CATEGORIES

• taxa of intermediate rank correspond closely to portions of recognized biological families 144
• The data available indicate that such taxa are formed on the basis of readily perceived morphological similarities among the contrasting generics of which they are comprised. As a consequence, intermediate taxa often make good biological sense. 148
• Given the broader picture that has emerged of the nature of intermediate taxa for both the plant and the animal kingdoms, it is debatable whether these special purpose groupings should be considered as part of the general system of ethnobotanical classification at all. It is reasonable to suggest that they might better be described as part of a cross-cutting system of classification based on considerations of their economic or cultural significance, for example, trees useful as fuel, medicinal plants, and so forth. 152
• A estrutura interna é semelhante aos outros, circulando em torno do protótipo.Life forms taxa (árvore, vinha, pássaro) não são totalmente equivalentes às palavres vernaculares. 
• São amplos e formam os primeiros conjuntos contrastivos da taxonomia, particionando os unique beginners ou kingdoms. Geralmente não correspondem a categorias naturais.
• Discussão longa principalmente quanto a questão covert e identificabiliade, retoma vários pontos já discutidos anteriormente.

Vou parar a leitura de Berlin por aqui. Ainda falta a segunda parte do livro mas não me parece útil no meu caso. Ainda, as ideias de Berlin não estão mais em voga conforme atestado nas próximas notas.

Ludwig (2018)

• Classificação etnobiológca saiu de moda seja devido ao foco do campo para outros etnoassuntos, seja porque os profissionais preferem não fazer generalizações ou prefiram enfatizar as diferenças nas classificações.
• Convergence metaphysics: taxonomic convergence can only be explained under the assumption of joint recognition of objective discontinuities in nature. 416 (ou 2)
• Esse arcabouço foi derivado da síntese moderna e do realismo das espécies proposto por Mayr e Diamond e da busca por estruturas universais que surgia no domínio da ciência cognitivae linguística, além dos grandes volumes de dados (em especial Conklin) que estavam se tornando cada vez mais comuns.
• Embora Berlin não tenha sido completamente abandonado: Berlin’s metaphysical picture of “objective discontinuities in nature” that ground cross-cultural convergence in classifications has largely vanished from the research literature. 417
• Causas para a derrocada:
• Crumbling alliance between biological realism and cognitive universalism
• converging classifications can be the result of shared cognitive biases rather than shared recognition of objective joints in nature.
• As Atran argues, categories such as “bug,” “butterfly,” “hawk,” “thistle,” “tree,” or “sparrow” commonly converge between folk taxonomies even if they do not correspond to any categories in scientific taxonomies. In explicit contrast with Berlin’s insistence that “in any local flora or fauna a single pattern stands out from the rest” (1992:9), Atran argues that different patterns will stand out for folk biologists and for scientists who classify populations on the basis of phylogenetic relations.
• Insofar as contemporary scientific taxonomies reflect phylogenetic relations rather than morphological similarities, they will often lead to diverging taxonomic distinctions. As Atran points out in his review of Berlin’s Ethnobiological Classification, convergence can therefore be a symptomof taxonomies that do not adhere to phylogenetic standards: “Should the correlation between the cultural consensus on folk taxonomy and classical taxonomy prove stronger [than with phylogenetic taxa], then continued preference for classical taxonomy may reflect the continuing hold of common sense on science rather than a strictly ‘objective’ correspondence” (Atran 1993:197).
• Não existe mais um realismo de espécie forte.
• Convergence metaphysicians may suspect that this new pluralist mainstream only illustrates the spurious influence of relativism in biological taxonomy. However, this would be amistake. Pluralismis not relativism. On the contrary,much of the pluralist literature explicitly endorses realist positions and even employs the same metaphysical metaphors of “discontinuities,” “patterns,” and “clusters” that dominate the classical literature on ethnobiological classification. Instead of endorsing relativist doctrines, pluralists typically embrace the realist idea that taxonomies reflect empirical knowledge about discontinuities in nature. However, they add that there are many more discontinuities to be found than imagined by traditional monistic doctrines. Given this plurality of discontinuities, any classification of the natural world will have to prioritize certain aspects on the basis of the interests of a scientific discipline or community. 21
• Ludwig faz outros apontamentos sobre a metafísica da etnobiologia e sua importância para essa ciência. O artigo ainda conta com comentários de etnobiólogos