Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30914047›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2019

Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa.

Fortunate M Phaka, Edward C Netherlands, Donnavan J D Kruger, Louis H Du Preez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Folk nomenclature of plants inPlant diversity · 2020
    Article
  5. From Folk Taxonomy to Species Confirmation ofFrontiers in plant science · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fortunate M PhakaAfrican Amphibian Conservation Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa. mafetap@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1833-3156
Edward C NetherlandsAfrican Amphibian Conservation Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa.
Donnavan J D KrugerFocus area: Self Directed Learning, Faculty of Education, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa.
Louis H Du PreezAfrican Amphibian Conservation Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa.

Funding

National Research Foundation UID 108803South African National Biodiversity Institute UID 98114VLIR-OUS ID 0620854 / Contract 000000076310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe use taxonomy to organize the world into recognizable units. Folk taxonomy deals with the naming and classification of organisms through culture. Unlike its scientific counterpart, folk taxonomy is mostly undocumented, the Zoological Code of Nomenclature does not regulate it, and the resulting names are specific to each culture. A growing body of literature is steadily shedding light on the principles underlying this pre-scientific taxonomy. Vernacular names can be an instrument to increase participation of non-scientists in biodiversity matters. In South Africa, great strides have been made in standardizing and increasing relatability of vernacular amphibian names in English and Afrikaans. However, there is a need to achieve the same with the country's autochthonous languages which are used by a majority of the population.

methodsThis study investigates amphibian-related folk taxonomy using a semi-structured interview process in KwaZulu-Natal's Zululand region and  pilots methods of applying folk taxonomy principles to compile a comprehensive list of standardized indigenous frog names.

resultsFolk taxonomy in Zululand is systematic, developed, and bears similarities to other indigenous taxonomies around the world. Similarities also exist between folk and scientific taxonomy. Six uninomial indigenous names were found to be used for the 58 amphibian species occurring in the study area. The 58 species were assigned individual indigenous names using folk taxonomy guidelines supplemented with guidelines for modern taxonomies.

conclusionsThere is a gap in the documentation and investigation of amphibian folk taxonomy in South Africa. Standardization of indigenous frog names is required to increase their universality. Similarities between folk and modern taxonomies allow for supplementation of indigenous guidelines when compiling a comprehensive indigenous species list. Through this study, social inclusion in wildlife matters is increased, indigenous knowledge systems are promoted, and a contribution is made to the development of an indigenous South African language.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnimalsAnuraEthnicityFemaleHumansKnowledgeLanguageMaleMiddle AgedSouth AfricaTerminology as TopicYoung AdultAnuraEthnotaxonomyIndigenous knowledgeMaputaland-Pondoland-AlbanyTaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID30914047
PMCPMC6434812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.