Descriptive attributes used in the characterization of stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini) in rural populations of the Atlantic forest (Misiones-Argentina)

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Norma I Hilgert¹  Fernando Zamudio¹ 

[1] Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de Misiones, CONICET, Andresito 21, 3370 Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina

关键词: Salient criteria;    Descriptive traits;    Emic;    Cognitive prototypes;    Criollos;    Ethnozoology;   

Others  :  863006
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-8-9

 received in 2011-08-09, accepted in 2012-02-13,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Human beings employ a combination of morphological, sensorial, utilitarian, cultural and ecological characters when they identify and classify organisms. Ethnotaxonomy has provided a store of information about the characters cultures employ when they identify and classify a vast diversity of taxonomic groups. Nevertheless, some more research is needed to provide a comparison of the characters employed in the description of taxons, and an analysis of the extent to which those descriptors are represented. Stingless bees constitute a diverse group of social insects that have been widely studied from an ethnobiological perspective due to their utilitarian and cultural importance. The objective of this study is to identify the elements local people consider when characterizing stingless bees, and how important these elements are in the study of local classifications.

Methods

The methodology used involves semi-structured interviews and trips with the informants to rural areas. Locally known ethnospecies are characterized, descriptive traits and salient criteria used in those characterizations are identified, and the frequency of reference of descriptive traits and salient criteria are estimated. Besides, the descriptive traits used for each ethnospecies are compared, and the contribution of the characterizations as a heuristic strategy in the study of folk classification systems is analyzed.

Results

The use of 19 biological descriptors (grouped according to 4 salient criteria) and of comparisons among ethnospecies was found. Results suggest the existence of group and specific descriptors. Researchers identified which ethnospecies are considered similar, how less important traits contribute to descriptions, the relation between specific descriptors and ethnospecies, the presence of cognitive prototypes, and the most relevant salient properties from the emic perspective.

Conclusions

The estimated importance of attributes descriptors allowed us to identify the spectrum of salient properties relevant from the emic perspective to characterize the stingless bees. In this sense, the analysis proposed here is useful to study folk taxonomy in culturally heterogeneous groups or multicultural regions, where the linguistic elements usually employed cannot be applied.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Zamudio and Hilgert; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Newmaster SG, Ragupathy S, Rebecca FI, Nirmala CB: Mechanisms of ethnobiological classification. Ethnobotany 2006, 27:31-44.
• [2]Hays T: Ndumba Folk Biology and General Principles of Ethnobotanical Classification and Nomenclature. Am Anthropol 1983, 85:592-611.
• [3]Posey DA: Hierarchy and utility in a folk biological taxonomic system: patterns in Classification of Arthropods by the Kayapo Indians of Brazil. J Ethnobiol 1984, 4(2):123-140.
• [4]Berlin B: Ethnobiological Classification: principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1992.
• [5]Newmaster SG, Subramanyam R, Balasubramaniyam NC, Ivanoff RF: The multi-mechanistic taxonomy of the Irulas in Tamil Nadu, south India. J Ethnobiol 2007, 27(2):233-255.
• [6]Molares S, Ladio A: Plantas medicinales en una comunidad Mapuche del NO de la Patagonia Argentina: clasificación y percepciones organolépticas relacionadas con su valoración. BLACPMA 2008, 7(3):149-155.
• [7]Turbay S: Aproximación a los estudios antropológicos sobre la relación entre el ser humano y los animales. En Rostros Culturales de la Fauna. La relación entre los humanos y los animales en el contexto colombiano. Colombia: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia, Fundación Natura; 2002:87-111.
• [8]Bentley JW, Rodrıguez G: Honduran Folk Entomology. Curr Anthropol 2001, 42:285-313.
• [9]Santos Fita D, Costa Neto EM: Sistemas de clasificación etnozoológicos. In En Manual de Etnozoología. Edited by Costa Neto EM, Santos Fita D, Clavijo MV. Valencia: Tundra Edic; 2009:67-94.
• [10]Posey DA: Temas e inquirições em etnoentomologia: algumas sugestões quanto à geração e teste de hipóteses. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Série Antropologia 1987, 2(2):99-134.
• [11]Toledo VM: La perspectiva etnoecológica: cinco reflexiones acerca de las ciencias campesinas sobre la naturaleza con especial referencia a México. Ciencias 1990, 4:22-29.
• [12]Mourão JS, Montenegro SCS: Pescadores e Peixes: o conhecimento local e o uso da taxonomia folk baseado no modelo berlineano. Recife: NUPEEA; 2006.
• [13]Caló CFF, Schiavetti A, Cetra M: Local ecological and taxonomic knowledge of snapper fish (Teleostei: Actinopterygii) held by fishermen in Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyology 2009, 7:403-414.
• [14]Atran S: The Nature of Folk-Botanical Life Forms. Am Anthropol 1985, 87:298-315.
• [15]Davidson-Hunt IJ, Phyllis J, Mandamin E, Wapioke B: Iskatewizaagegan (Shoal lake) Plant knowledge: an anishinaabe (Ojibway) ethnobotany of northwestern Ontario. J Ethnobiol 2005, 25(2):189-227.
• [16]Camargo JMF, Pedro SRM: Meliponini Lepeletier, 1836. [http://www-.moure.cria.org.br/catalogue] webciteIn Catalogue of Bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in the Neotropical Region Edited by Moure JS, Urban D. Melo GAR; 2008.
• [17]Schwarz HF: Stingless bees (Meliponidae) of the Western Hemisphere. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 1948, 90(17):1-546.
• [18]Medrano MC, Rosso CN: De la utilización de mieles nativas por Guaycurúes, una aproximación etnobiológica. Biológica 2009, 10:38-43.
• [19]Falchetti AM, Nates Parra G: Las hijas del sol. Las abejas sin aguijón en el mundo UWA, Sierra Nevada del Cocuy, Colombia. In En Rostros culturales de la fauna. Las relaciones entre los humanos y los animales en el contexto colombiano. Edited by Ulloa A. Colombia: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia; 2002:175-214.
• [20]Costa Neto EM: Folk Taxonomy and cultural significance of "Abeia" (Insecta: Hymenoptera) to the Pankararé, Northeastern Bahia State, Brazil. J Ethnobiol 1998, 18:1-13.
• [21]Dos Santos GM, Antonini Y: The traditional knowledge on stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponina) used by the Enawene-Nawe tribe in western Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2008, 4:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Rodrigues DSA: Etnoconhecimento sobre abellas sem ferrão: saberes e práticas dos índios Guarani mby'a na mata atlántica. Brasil: ScM Tesis; 2005.
• [23]Bertoni AW: Contribución a la biología de las avispas y abejas del Paraguay (Hymenoptera). An Museo Nac Bs As 1911, 22:97-146.
• [24]Cebolla MV: La miel en la cultura mbya-guaraní. In Resum del Treball de recerca de segon any presentat en el Programa de Doctorat en Antropologia Social i Cultural. Universidad de Barcelona; 2005.
• [25]Zamudio F, Kujawska M, Hilgert NI: Honey as Medicinal and Food Resource. Comparison between Polish and Multiethnic Settlements of the Atlantic Forest, Misiones, Argentina. Open Complemen Med J 2010, 2:58-73.
• [26]Galindo-Leal C, Camara IG: Atlantic Forest Hotspot Status: an overview. In The Atlantic Forest of South América: biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. Edited by Galindo-Leal C, Camara IG. Washington: Island Press; 2003:3-11.
• [27]Schiavoni G: Organización doméstica y apropiación de tierras fiscales en la Provincia de Misiones (Argentina). Desarrollo Econ 1995, 34:595-608.
• [28]Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas 2010 [http://www.-censo2010.indec.gov.ar/preliminares/cuadro_misiones.asp] webcite
• [29]Belastegui HM: Los colonos de Misiones. Editorial universitaria: Universidad Nacional de Misiones; 2004.
• [30]Bernard RH: Research Methods in Anthropology. Altamira Press; 2000.
• [31]Silveira FA, Melo GAR, Almeida EAB: Abelhas Brasileiras; Sistemática e Identificação. Belo Horizonte; Fernando A. Silveira; 2002.
• [32]Di Rienzo JA, Casanoves F, Balzarini MG, Gonzalez L, Tablada M, Robledo CW: InfoStat. FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba: Grupo InfoStat; 2009.
• [33]Zamudio F, Hilgert NI: ¿Cómo los conocimientos locales aportan información sobre la riqueza de especies de abejas sin aguijón (Apidae: Meliponini) del norte de Misiones, Argentina? Interciencia 2012, 37(1):36-43.
• [34]Mourão JS, Nordi N: Principais critérios utilizados por pescadores artesanais na taxonomia folk dos peixes do estuário do Rio Mamanguape, Paraíba--Brasil. Interciencia 2002, 27(11):607-612.
• [35]Ferreira EN, Mourão Jda S, Rocha PD, Nascimento DM, Bezerra DMMdaSQ: Folk classification of the crabs and swimming crabs (Crustacea -Brachyura) of the Mamanguape river estuary, Northeastern--Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2009, 5:22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Roubik DW: Stingless bee nesting biology. Apidologie 2006, 37:124-143.
• [37]Rosch E: Principiesof Categorization. In Cognition and Categorization. Edited by Rosch E, Lloyd B. Hilldale: Laurence Erlbaum Ass; 1978:27-48.