ArticlePDF Available

Edible Insect Larvae in Kaytetye: Their Nomenclature and Significance

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Insects have traditionally constituted an important source of food in many cultures, but changes in dietary practices and other lifestyle traits are threatening the transmission of insect-related knowledge and vocabulary to younger generations of Indigenous Australians. This paper describes the rich cultural and culinary traditions surrounding an important insect group, namely a class of edible insect larvae consumed by a desert community in central Australia. Twenty-nine different edible insect larvae are named in the Kaytetye language, with the names encoding the identity of the host plant on which the larvae are found. We describe the complexities involved in the naming system, paying special attention to cultural and linguistic factors. The difficulties in the scientific identification of these ethnotaxa are discussed, as are the significance of our data to (1) questions of universal patterns in ethnoclassification and nomenclature and (2) the purported lack of binomially-labeled folk species in the languages of hunter-gatherer societies.
Content may be subject to copyright.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit
publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to
critical research.
Edible Insect Larvae in Kaytetye: Their Nomenclature and
Significance
Author(s): Myfany Turpin and Aung Si
Source: Journal of Ethnobiology, 37(1):120-140.
Published By: Society of Ethnobiology
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-37.1.120
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2993/0278-0771-37.1.120
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the
biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online
platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,
museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content
indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/
terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-
commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be
directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
EDIBLE INSECT LARVAE IN KAYTETYE: THEIR
NOMENCLATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE
Myfany Turpin
1*
and Aung Si
2
Insects have traditionally constituted an important source of food in many cultures, but changes in dietary
practices and other lifestyle traits are threatening the transmission of insect-related knowledge and vocabulary to
younger generations of Indigenous Australians. This paper describes the rich cultural and culinary traditions
surrounding an important insect group, namely a class of edible insect larvae consumed by a desert community
in central Australia. Twenty-nine different edible insect larvae are named in the Kaytetye language, with the
names encoding the identity of the host plant on which the larvae are found. We describe the complexities
involved in the naming system, paying special attention to cultural and linguistic factors. The difficulties in the
scientific identification of these ethnotaxa are discussed, as are the significance of our data to (1) questions of
universal patterns in ethnoclassification and nomenclature and (2) the purported lack of binomially-labeled folk
species in the languages of hunter-gatherer societies.
Keywords: witchetty grub, edible insect, taxonomy, entomophagy, Indigenous Australia
Introduction
Throughout much of Aboriginal Australia, various insect larvae made up a
significant part of the traditional diet (Bodenheimer 1951; CSIRO 1991:22; Si and
Turpin 2015; Tindale 1966; Yen 2005:381, 2012:97). In central Australia, early
anthropologist and entomologist Norman Tindale (1953:59) observed that
‘‘women and children spend much time digging for them [witchetty grubs]
and a healthy baby seems often to have one dangling from its mouth in much the
same way that one of our children would be satisfied with a comforter.’’ Australia
boasts the highest diversity of root dwelling Lepidoptera consumed worldwide,
the second largest order of insects in the world, yet Indigenous Australian uses
and categorization of these insects remain largely absent from research on
entomophagy (van Huis et al. 2013:xiii, 20; Yen 2009:291, 2015).
This article discusses the class of edible insect larvae called kayte in the central
Australian Aboriginal language Kaytetye
1
. Its most notable member is atnyemayte
‘witchetty grub’’ (Figure 1b), the larva of a species of Endoxyla (Lepidoptera:
Cossidae) found in the roots of the witchetty bush (Acacia kempeana) (Figure 1a)
2
.
The witchetty grub is a keystone species in many inland Aboriginal societies (Si
and Turpin 2015; Yen 2010), but even non-Indigenous Australians may be familiar
with the delicacy through the once-marketed witchetty grub soup
3
.
In Kaytetye, 29 different ethnospecies considered kayte have been identified.
Most of these have a morphologically complex name consisting of the name of the
1
Sydney Conservatorium of Music C41, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
2
School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne Australia.
*
Corresponding author (myfany.turpin@sydney.edu.au)
Journal of Ethnobiology 37(1): 120–140 2017
Figure 1. (a) Digging for witchetty grubs; (b) collection of witchetty grubs with top one damaged and
resulting oil in bottom of the tin; (c) swollen root containing root dwelling larvae; (d) frass from root
dwelling larvae; (e) pupal exuvia; (f) witchetty grub in root; (g) larva from branch of the river red gum;
(h) extracting branch dwelling grubs.
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 121
plant on which the larvae are found, plus a non-productive suffix -ayte, ‘‘edible
insect larva.’’ For example, atnyemayte, ‘‘witchetty grub,’’ is a compound of atnyeme,
‘witchetty bush’’ (Acacia kempeana), plus –ayte, ‘‘edible insect larva.’’ As noted by
Berlin (1992:26), the naming patterns for biota ‘‘reveal much about the way people
conceptualize the living things in their environment.’ The host-based naming
system for specific kayte reveals that Kaytetye people recognize a close relationship
between the larva and host and that easily observable differences, which are
apparent in the hosts, are preferred over less easily observed differences, as not
only do most ethnospecies reside inside the tree, but also look remarkably similar.
As is common in many societies, it is predominantly only biota which are utilized
(Hunn 1982) or have some cultural significance (Agnihotri and Si 2012; Si 2016:48–
53) that are named. The many insect larvae that are not eaten remain unnamed and
unclassified in Kaytetye. A benefit of the host-plus-edible-insect-larva naming
system is that it aids recall of where to find these foods that were once a significant
part of Kaytetye people’s diet.
From a linguistic point of view, the naming strategy does not fit neatly with
Berlin’s (1992) theory of classificatory and nomenclatural universals. While kayte
is primarily a ‘‘special purpose’’ category (edible insect larvae; see below), there is
no general category term for insects. For unnamed organisms, Kaytetye speakers
simply use errpatye, ‘‘useless,’’ a term that can be applied to any object in the
natural world that has no function. We show that the Kaytetye naming of these
larvae is shaped by a combination of utilitarian and ecological factors, which is
reflected in the binomial naming of ethnospecies, a pattern that is purported to be
uncommon in hunter-gatherer societies (Berlin 1992; Brown 1985; Hunn 1982).
The outline of this paper is as follows. First, we discuss the food classification
system. Next, we discuss the identification of kayte and their role in Kaytetye
society. Finally, we present the naming system of the 29 different kayte and
discuss the implications of the Kaytetye kayte class for theories of folk taxonomies
in the domain of ethnobiology.
The Kaytetye Language
Kaytetye is the name of the people and their language that is spoken in the
arid interior of Australia by approximately 200 people. Kaytetye is part of the
Arandic linguistic subgroup that descends from the Pama-Nyungan language
family that once covered some 90% of Australia (Koch 2001:72). A brief history and
description of the Arandic peoples is outlined in Turpin et al. (2013:15). An almost
identical class of edible insect larvae called tyape is found in the related languages
Alyawarr (Green 1992), Anmatyerr (Green 2010), and Arrernte (Henderson and
Dobson 1994; Turner 1994).
Data Collection
The author, Turpin, has been working with Kaytetye speakers in five
communities for 20 years and has compiled a dictionary of the language (Turpin
and Ross 2012). The data presented in this manuscript include example sentences
TURPIN and SI122 Vol. 37, No. 1
from the dictionary entries—both elicited and spontaneously uttered—as well as
information from interviews and discussions (conducted by Turpin in the
Kaytetye language) with some 50 speakers of all ages in sedentary and hunting
and gathering contexts.
Classifiers in Kaytetye
Kaytetye has some 15 classifiers that can be used in a generic-specific
construction or stand alone as a bare noun. To illustrate, the classifier atnwenthe,
‘meat,’’ is the generic in a generic-specific construction in example (1)
4
; while in
example (2), it is a bare noun that stands for a specific (in this case also a
kangaroo). Atnwenthe aherre, ‘‘kangaroo,’’ can refer to both the living animal and
the meat, as is the case for other functional classifiers
5
.
(1) Atnwenthe aherre, nharte atnhwerte alperninte-rantye.
‘‘He is carrying kangaroo
meat back on his shoulders.’’
meat kangaroo that shoulders carry_back-PRS:CNT
(2) Atnwenthe atnperre aperine-nke, ntingke.
‘‘He carries the cooked meat [kangaroo]
whole.’’ (i.e., not cut up)
meat whole carry-PRS cooked
Specifics can also occur without a classifier, as can be seen in the second and
third sentences of example (3): aylpelayte, ‘‘river red gum grub’’ (RRGgrub), in
aylpelayte-tyampe and atnkerrayte, ‘‘coolibah tree grub’’ (coolibah_grub). This
passage, taken from a narrative, also illustrates the use of the classifier (in this
case kayte, ‘‘edible insect larvae’’) as a bare noun (kayte-akerre) and in a generic-
specific construction (kayte aylpelayte). When the specific is a term ending in -ayte,
the generic-specific construction is, in effect, a type of ‘‘trinomial,’’ as the noun
phrase consists of an edible insect larvae classifier þhost plant þedible insect
larva suffix.
(3) Kayte-akerre rntwe-yayne.Aylpelayte-tyampe alarre-yayne.
‘‘We would collect various
sorts of edible grubs. We
would kill edible river
red gum grubs. Edible
river red gum grubs
and coolibah tree grubs.’’
grub-sorts cut-PST:CNT RRGgrub-and kill-PST:CNT
Kayte aylpelayte, atnkerrayte
grub RRGgrub coolibah_grub
Similar classifiers are also found in the related language, Arrernte, and
Wilkins (1993:81) refers to the generic-specific construction as one where ‘‘an
entity who belongs to the general class or category [is] indicated by the classifier.’
The use of a classifier as a bare noun such as that in example (2) is common in
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 123
everyday speech. Classifiers can replace a specific once the referent is established,
as in example (2), they can refer to a whole class, as in the first instance of kayte in
example (3), or they can be used when the specific is not known. Kaytetye
classifiers fall into two crosscutting categories: natural classes and functional
classes, which are discussed below.
Natural Class Classifiers
Kaytetye makes little use of higher level taxonomic classifications of fauna. In
the domain of living creatures, there are six natural class classifiers, comparable
to both Berlin’s (1992) ‘‘life-forms’’ and ‘‘general purpose categories.’’ These are
shown in Figure 2. Membership of these classes is based on observable qualities
of the biota. For example, thangkerne, ‘‘birds,’’ are flying fleshy creatures and so
the class excludes Emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) because they do not fly; but it
does include bats. Similarly, apmwe, ‘‘snakes,’’ are creatures without legs that go
along the ground or in water and so include aparipe, ‘‘legless lizards (Lialis
burtonis, Delma nasuta),’’ as well as the mythical akwertitenge, ‘‘rainbow serpent.’’
Many specifics do not fall into any of the six natural class classifiers, such as
wampere,‘possum’(Tr ich o s uru s v u lpe c u la), atywetnpe,‘perentie’(Var anus
giganteus), and atnhelengkwe, ‘‘Emu,’’ to name just a few (Figure 2). These are
comparable to Berlin’s (1992:171) ‘‘unaffiliated generics.’
To be vague about unaffiliated biota, Kaytetye speakers can use a specific name
with a suffix -arrpanteye, ‘‘sort of,’’ (e.g., ‘‘some sort of kangaroo’’) or a word for a
particular species that is known to also stand for a group of similar biota. For
example, kaperle, ‘‘central netted dragon (Ctenophorus nuchalis),’’ can also be used to
refer to any small lizard. This is in keeping with nomenclatural Principle 4a proposed
in Berlin (1992:29, 34). An example of this generic usage of kaperle as ‘‘small lizard’
can be seen in the following written example by Kaytetye speaker Alison Ross.
Pwekerrenyepe apmwe awelengke alkenhe, repe atherrk-atherrke.
Pwekerrenye artetye arenye etnkwelthe rtame. Apmwe nyartepe ante-
yane alhwengele kape ilperele, repe aynenke ilkwennge, kalyeyampe,
kaperle kape wantakerrertetye kelye-kelye.
The king brown snake is not brown but green and it is very poisonous. The king
brown snake lives in mulga country and is very long. It lives in holes and tree
Figure 2. Kaytetye natural class classifiers that refer to biota (in bold) and some specifics, both
affiliated and unaffiliated.
TURPIN and SI124 Vol. 37, No. 1
hollows. This snake eats mice, frogs, small lizards, and other little creatures.
(Turpin and Ross 2012:545)
Perhaps one reason why there are so few natural class categories is because
the functional food classes make these redundant. The majority of mammals,
marsupials, and reptiles are eaten and so there is little need for natural classes as
they are referred to by the classifier ‘‘meat.’’ In contrast, only some birds, snakes,
plants, and ants are eaten. Furthermore, many members of these natural classes
have properties other than being edible, such as providing medicine, poison, and
usefulness in fire-making.
Functional Class Classifiers
Functional classifiers, unlike natural class classifiers, are based on human use
of biota, for example as food, a source of water, or to make fire. These are
comparable to what Berlin (1992:143) calls ‘‘special purpose categories.’’ As
Wilkins (1993:82) describes for the Arrernte language, a single specific (e.g., a
plant name such as artetye, ‘‘mulga’’ [Acacia aneura]) may take different functional
classifiers depending on the function of the thing that the speaker wishes to focus
on, as in nterrenge artetye, ‘‘edible seeds of the mulga tree,’’ or ware artetye,
‘firewood from mulga tree.’’
This paper focuses on the functional classifiers that denote different
categories of food, in particular a class of edible insect larvae. Unlike natural
class classifiers, where there are many unclassed members, there are no
unclassed foods: all edible biota and their products, including introduced foods,
fall into one of the five functional food classes:
1. atnwenthe, weye, ‘‘meat, blood, eggs, dairy products’
2. rlwene, ‘‘vegetables, fruit, bread’
3. nterrenge, ‘‘edible seeds’
4. kayte, ‘‘edible insect larvae’
5. ngkwarle, ‘‘sweet food and liquids’’ (e.g., honey, honey-ants, plant nectar).
These classifiers are hierarchically structured to some extent. Figure 3 shows
that one of these classifiers, nterrenge, is a subclass of rlwene, ‘‘fruit, vegetable,’
and all are subclasses of enye, ‘‘food,’’ or ngayele, the latter a polysemous term that
also means ‘‘hungry.’’
Functional and natural class classifiers can occur together. In such cases, the
functional classifier always precedes the natural class classifier, as in example (4),
a superordinate-subordinate construction, and, in example (5), a predicate noun
phrase that also has a subordinate terminal taxon.
(4) Atnwenthe apmwe.
‘‘Snake meat’ meat snake
(5) Atnwenthe apmwe rrepwerle.
‘‘The black-headed python
snake is edible’’
meat snake black-headed python
(Aspidites melanocephalus)
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 125
As noted above, there is no natural class equivalent to insects. We find insects
only as members of the two functional classes: kayte, ‘‘edible insect larvae,’’ and
ngkwarle, ‘‘sweet food,’’ as can be seen in Figure 3.
Classifiers are frequently used in everyday speech as both bare nouns and in
generic specific constructions. It is perhaps for this reason that the classification
of biota is both widely known and agreed upon amongst speakers, with the
exception of a few marginal foods (see below). Older speakers, however, state
that knowledge of certain foods is not being learned by younger speakers. This is
no doubt due to changes in diet, the decline of some species, and greater
familiarity with the English classification system where, for example, ‘‘cheese’’ is
not regarded as weye, ‘meat,’’ as it is in Kaytetye, and, conversely, Emus are
regarded as ‘‘birds,’’ which is not the case in Kaytetye.
Edible Insect Larvae in Central Australia
Throughout central Australia, numerous types of nutritious edible insect
larvae are harvested by adults and children (Tindale 1953). The most popular of
these is the larvae in the roots of the witchetty bush (Figure 1b). Its popularity
may be because the tree offers a high return for effort, as its roots are softer and
shallower than many other trees that host edible larvae in their roots. Latz
(1995:58) notes that considerable skill is required to locate the larvae, as not all
plants will harbor them, and a quick exploratory dig ‘‘will soon tell if there are
any grubs to be had, for the roots are shallow and the swelling which signifies the
presence of the grub is easily recognized by the experienced digger’’ (see Figure
1c). A combination of cracks in the ground, signs of frass (Figure 1d), or pupal
exuviae (Figure 1e), as well as knowledge of which groves of trees are less prone
to flooding and which groves of trees have been abundant in the past, are all
taken into account by Kaytetye hunters.
The root dwelling larvae can be kept alive for a significant period of time by
carrying around a piece of the root in which they are found (Latz 1995:58; Figure
1f). When extracting the larvae from inside the wood, great care has to be taken
Figure 3. Kaytetye functional classifiers that refer to biota and some specifics.
TURPIN and SI126 Vol. 37, No. 1
not to accidently burst it. For branch dwelling larvae such as the river red gum
grub (Figure 1g), a thin twig called ilateye is used to gently extract it (Figure 1h).
Broken grubs are generally eaten raw; however, undamaged grubs are collected
and roasted on hot coals. Traditionally, the grubs would be put in a wooden dish,
although today people use tin buckets (‘‘billycans’’ in Australian English; Figure
1a). Witchetty grubs are said to be 50% protein and 47% fat (Latz 1995:58),
although the precise identification of this larva is uncertain. According to Tindale
(1953:59), working with the Ngalea people in South Australia, edible insect larvae
were also carried in waistbands and headbands as ‘‘tit-bits, either for themselves
or for their children ’’ and possibly also headbands, given this image conveyed in
one Anmatyerr ceremonial song (Watts et al. 2008): Hercus (1989, 1992) notes that
in the Simpson Desert region, foliage-dwelling edible larvae were cooked and
pulverized into a powder that could be carried around. Arrernte people made a
similar powder from the larvae living on the tar vine plant (Boerhavia
schomburgkiana) and Kaytetye people gutted and roasted arlwerrpe, ‘‘emu bush
caterpillar,’’ in a similar way (Turpin field recordings 2015/06).
Religious Significances of Edible Grubs
As is common in many Indigenous societies, procuring food and ceremonial
practices are intertwined. Among the Arrernte, a prohibition on the harvesting of
the emu bush caterpillar was observed by F. Gillen in 1896 immediately following
the performance of an increase ceremony to make this species abundant
(Mulvaney et al. 1997). Edible grubs also feature as totemic ancestors of
particular clan-based tracts of land. For example, the Mparntwe lands, where the
town of Alice Springs is located, is the totemic home of two edible insect larvae:
the ayeparenye, ‘‘tar vine caterpillar,’’ (Figure 4a) and antyarlkwe, known locally as
‘elephant grub’’ (Hippotion celerio Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). These ancestral
beings engaged in battle, and this and surrounding events are immortalized in
the ceremonial songs and place names of this region. More recently, they were
commemorated in the Yeperenye festival in Alice Springs, called The Land of the
Yeperenye Caterpillar Dreaming 2001 (Gillam 2003). A similar caterpillar battle is
noted by Hercus in the extreme south of the Northern Territory (1989:51). Further
south, the Lake Eyre basin also has sites associated with various types of edible
insect larvae (Hercus 1992).
In the Kaytetye region, there is an important site relating to the edible grub in
the whitewood (Figure 4b) and to the south there is an Anmatyerr estate with
atnyemayte, ‘‘witchetty grub,’’ as its main totem. The religious songs from this
estate refer to the careless bursting of grubs (Turpin’s field recordings 2004/09/
11), a theme also encountered in a Karangura myth further south (Hercus 1992).
As is the case with many totems, the names of various edible insect larvae were
also given as personal names to descendants of these totems (e.g., Arlpalywerrnge,
akweltyayte)
6
. Totemic names are one of the most prestigious things that can be
bestowed upon a person, yet scientific understandings of these insects remain
largely unknown. The abundance of edible insect larvae in mythology, place
names, personal names, songs, and art all allude to the economic significance of
these insects in traditional society.
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 127
Terms for Development
Kaytetye people name three developmental stages of the larvae. These are
typically used in reference to ‘‘witchetty grub,’’ but they can also describe other
root dwelling edible insect larvae. Prior to the stage at which it is ideally eaten,
Kaytetye speakers name the juvenile, small pink wood-dwelling larvae
arlpalywerrnge (Figure 4c). People say that the elhe, ‘‘nose,’’ of the grub gets long
just before they make their cocoon (Figure 4d). Following the ideal stage at which
it is eaten (unnamed), Kaytetye speakers name two later stages of development,
both of which can be consumed: kwererrererre, ‘‘pupa,’’ which is when it is dark in
color, and rlwaylpe, when it is emerges above ground out of the roots (Figure 4e).
Rlwaylpe also means ‘‘traditional avenger.’’ This is a person who transforms into
another being before seeking out their victim to be killed through sorcery. Like
the traditional avenger, larvae transform into another creature. Just before
metamorphosis it is said to impakerte kwathenke, ‘‘drink its way out,’’ i.e., emerge
after rain. The impakerte is the shaft from which it emerges (Figure 4f). The insects
Figure 4. (a) Tar vine caterpillar; (b) whitewood grub; (c) arlpalywerrnge ‘young grub’’; (d) long nose
stage of grub; (e) rlwaylpe pupal exuvia from grub just emerged; (f) impakerte ‘‘exit shaft.’
TURPIN and SI128 Vol. 37, No. 1
then emerge above ground as an intelyape-lyape, ‘‘butterfly or moth,’’ at which
stage they are no longer kayte (no differentiation between species is made). While
Kaytetye people observe that kayte, ’’edible grubs,’’ turn into intelyapelyape,
‘moths’’ these are contrastive classifications; one is not a stage or a subtype of the
other. This may not be the case for the edible larvae of Cerambycidae (beetles), as
it is unclear which, if any, of the various named beetles are regarded as a
metamorphized form of these larvae (e.g., akelpayte [17] and alperrnhayte [18] in
Table 1).
Issues in Identifying Kayte (Edible Insect Larvae)
Scientific identification of the 29 Kaytetye ethnospecies in the class of kayte is
difficult for a number of reasons. First, all the ethnospecies refer only to the
immature form of the insect and some of these have not yet been described in
biology. Scientific naming, on the other hand, is based on the adult form and, in
some cases, it can take some years for the larvae to turn into an adult
7
. The DNA
is identical for the adult and the immature stage, thus DNA is a fruitful way to
identify these ethnospecies. For the names recorded by past ethnographers such
as Tindale (1953), Alan Yen (personal communication, 2016) cautions that the
identification of the larvae mentioned by Tindale cannot be confirmed until the
DNA from specimens collected from his field site is analyzed.
Kayte (Edible Insect Larvae)
The Kaytetye class of foods called kayte consists almost entirely of insect
larvae. Its members are predominantly Lepidoptera, although it includes at least
beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), one scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccoidea), one
termite (Isoptera), and one unidentified ethnospecies. Kaytetye people also eat
other insects or insect products, but these fall into the ngkwarle, ‘‘sweet food,’’
class, such as honey, honey-ants, and honeydew; thus kayte is more specific than a
class of edible insects.
Within this class, some ethnospecies are preferred as food more than others.
The most popular are atnyemayte, ‘‘witchetty grub,’’ and aylpelayte, ‘‘river red gum
grub.’’ At the other extreme are what Sutton (1980:306) calls ‘‘hard-time’’ foods,
which are no longer eaten, as more palatable food is now readily available. One
such example is arelp-arelpe the larva of a species of Christmas beetle (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeoidea), which is regarded as edible (and thus kayte) by only a few older
Kaytetye speakers (it is omitted from the list of edible insects in Table 1). In
central Australia, where rainfall is irregular and, thus, good seasons are
unpredictable, reliance on such marginal foods may not have been uncommon.
Other grubs fall within this spectrum.
For most insect larvae, there is agreement between Kaytetye speakers over
whether they can be eaten or not; differences of opinion have only been
encountered for two ethnospecies, including arelpe-arelpe discussed above . This
variation may be the result of the fact that there is no longer any need to rely on
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 129
Table 1. Kaytetye edible insects
a
.
Kaytetye larvae Location Host name
Host ID /
Source of name Larvae ID
1atnyemayte in roots of atnyeme Acacia kempeana Endoxyla spp.
2 awetnthayte awetnthe Acacia sericophylla Endoxyla spp.
3 rawelayte ‘‘ rawelarre Acacia melleodora Endoxyla spp.
alhepalhayte alhepalhe ’’
4 ilanayte ‘‘ ilanayte Acacia validinervia Endoxyla spp.
5 mwerlerrayte mwerlerre Acacia monticola Endoxyla spp.
6 pwentanengayte ‘‘ pwentanenge Acacia hilliana Endoxyla spp.
7 arlepayte, arlepe arlepe Acacia victoriae Endoxyla spp.
8 elkertayte elkerte Acacia colei Endoxyla spp.
9 arlethayte ‘‘ arleth-arlethe Acacia
macdonnelliensis
Endoxyla spp.
arleth-arlethayte!
5
10 elerrenyayte ‘‘ elerrenye Acacia adsurgens Endoxyla spp.
11 arleperlterrkayte ‘‘ arleperlterrke Acacia maitlandii ?
12 rethenpayte ‘‘ rethenpe Acacia jennerae? ?
13 errwenyenkayte ‘‘ errwenyenke Acacia georginae ?
14 pwetnayte ‘‘ pwetne Senna artemisioides
spp.
Endoxyla spp.
pwerethe pwerethe ‘‘
15 ilekarenye ‘‘ ileke Salsola kali Endoxyla spp.
arlkerlayte!
5
arlkerle ‘‘
16 kwenteltyayte kwenteltye Themeda avenacea Endoxyla spp.
ilentyengayte ilentye ‘‘
17 akelpayte ‘‘ (many) Acacia spp., Senna
spp.
Cerambycidae
Cf. ake ‘‘head’’
18 arlperrnhayte in base of arlperre Atalaya hemiglauca Endoxyla spp.,
Curculionidae
19 arlkemalayte ‘‘ arlkemale Codonocarpus
cotinifolius
Cerambycidae
20 atnkerrayte in branches
of
atnkerre Eucalyptus coolabah
ssp. arida
Endoxyla spp.
21 aylpelayte ‘‘ aylpele Eucalyptus
camaldulensis
Endoxyla spp.
22 ayepayte on leaves of ayepe Boerhavia
schomburgkiana
Sphingidae
23 arlwerrpe wetyenye Eremophila longifolia ?
wetyenyayte!
5
"
tnwerrengayte!
5
tnwerrenge "
24 ntyarlke ‘‘ (many) Inc. non-natives such
as grapevines
Sphingidae
25 nakwelkelayte ‘‘ ? ahakeye Psydrax latifolia ?
26 rratherrkayte rratherrke Tinospora smilacina ?
27 kathipe in kathipe /
kwerlperlpe
‘‘gall’’ on
arrke Corymbia opaca Cystococcus
pomiformis
(Hemiptera)
kathipayte!
5
kwerlpwerlpayte!
5
28 akweltyayte in amare ‘mistletoe’ (Amyema spp., Lysiana spp.)
found on various acacias. Cf. akweltye ‘armband’
?
TURPIN and SI130 Vol. 37, No. 1
marginal species and so such knowledge is easily forgotten. The other marginal
ethnospecies, nakwelkerlayte, a type of caterpillar, is discussed below.
Subtypes of Kayte
Kaytetye people recognize two subclasses of kayte,aswellasanumberof
unclassed members. The subdivision is based on wood-dwelling versus leaf-
dwelling insect larvae, the latter being the familiar ‘‘caterpillars.’’ Most kayte are
wood-dwelling (21 of the 29 ethnospecies) and these are the preferred subclass
throughout much of inland Australia (Latz 1995:58; Yen 2005:375). The
harvesting and cooking of these two types also differ, as discussed above.
The favored wood-dwelling one is atnyemayte, ‘‘witchetty grub.’’ This word is
also used as a generic/classifier to refer to any wood-dwelling ethnospecies (in
keeping with Berlin’s [1992:29] nomenclatural Principle 4a), as illustrated in
example (7).
(7) Nterrenge alphepalhe, kayte, rtame.
‘‘The waxy wattle has edible seeds and also edible grubs which live in/on it, the wood-dwelling
edible insect larva (is called) ‘alhepalhayte.’’’
In this sense of the word, atnyemayte, contrasts with ayepayte, ‘‘edible
caterpillar found on the tar vine,’’ which has a secondary meaning, ‘‘leaf-
dwelling/eating edible insect larvae,’’ and is often translated as ‘‘caterpillar.’
Failure to recognize these polysemous meanings of a term—both specific and
generic—can lead to misidentification if the generic meaning is erroneously
translated as referring to a particular species that is not the term’s specific
meaning.
Twenty-nine different types of kayte have been identified in Kaytetye. These
are listed in column 1 of Table 1. Some of these have synonyms (named, but not
numbered in Column 1). Column 2 describes and identifies the plants on which
these ethnospecies are found. Column 3 lists the genus or, if not known, the class,
family, or order of the insect. It can be seen that wood-eating species make up 21
ethnospecies, five are leaf-eating, and the remaining three are a cossid, a termite,
Table 1. Continued.
Kaytetye larvae Location Host name
Host ID /
Source of name Larvae ID
29 ampenge
ngkwepeyarenye
in ngkwepeye
‘‘termite
bed’’
nterrke Amitermes vitiosus ? alates
Cf. ampenhe- ’’cooked’
a
The tentative identifications of insect larvae in this paper are the result of combined fieldwork with Indigenous
custodians and entomologists who are undertaking DNA analysis on the specimens; Alan Yen (DEDJTR and La
Trobe University), Conrad Bilney (La Trobe University), and Michael Shackleton (The Murray-Darling Freshwater
Research Centre, Wodonga). Specimens have been given a working number based on the collection kept in the
Australian National Insect Collection (e.g., Endoxyla 10 ANIC).
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 131
and one unknown. All are said to be edible except for three leaf-eating
ethnospecies, 24–26. These exceptions are discussed below.
Naming of Kayte
In most cases, the name of a larva is based on the name of the plant on which
it is found. This ‘‘host’’ derived naming strategy consists of the plant name
followed by the ‘‘edible grub’’ suffix –ayte and is illustrated in example (8) below.
(8) atnyeme þ-ayte !atnyemayte
witchetty bush ‘‘edible grub of’ ‘witchetty grub’’
Acacia kempeana
The generic term kayte, ‘‘edible insect larvae,’’ is also derived from the suffix
-ayte:kþayte. The cognate term -atye is used similarly in other Arandic languages
8
.
The host þ-ayte naming strategy is semi-productive, as we see six applications of
-ayte that are semi-acceptable (marked !
5
in Table 1): arleth-arlethayte,arlkerlayte,
and the synonymous pairs kathipayte, kwerlpwerlpayte, and wetyenyayte,tnwerren-
gayte. All but a handful of the 29 names follow the ‘‘hostþ-ayte’structure. The
exceptions are worth considering, as they reveal the principles underlying this
naming strategy.
Only three ethnospecies are said to be found on more than one plant, akelpayte
(17), akweltyayte (28), and ntyarlke (24), none of which have a name derived from a
plant name. This is not surprising, as all three are found on multiple hosts. In the
case of the first two, the stem of their name is a descriptive nominal that refers to
the appearance of the larvae (Turpin 2013:501, 504). Akelpayte is based on the word
Figure 5. (a) Four grubs extracted from a single pwentanenge (Acacia hilliana) plant; (b) one akelpayte
‘‘big-headed grub’’ (top), two pwentanengayte and one pink grub (bottom right), also pwentanengayte,
but can also be called arlpalywerrnge ‘‘juvenile grub.’
TURPIN and SI132 Vol. 37, No. 1
akelperre-elperre, ‘big head’’ (literally ‘‘head flat’’), and the large square head is
considered a salient feature of this ethnospecies (see Figure 5b).
Figure 5 is an example of four different grubs (of at least two species)
extracted from a single pwentanenge (Acacia hilliana) plant.
Akweltyayte may be based on akweltye, ‘‘armband,’’ possibly a reference to the
telltale sign of a band, similar in appearance to an armband, around the stem of
the mistletoe in which it is found. Another possibility is that the grub itself has a
band. This species has not been found and, as Kaytetye speakers today are not
familiar with what the grub looks like, we can only surmise that the grub or its
location bears a resemblance to the armband. In both cases, -ayte does not have its
literal meaning, ‘‘edible grub found in x,’’ but a figurative meaning, ‘‘edible grub
having/resembling x.’’
The name of the ethnospecies ntyarlke is monomorphemic (i.e., simple).
Kaytetye speakers today do not regard it as edible, but older speakers (now
deceased) who spoke the language to the south noted it as edible. It is not clear
whether this discrepancy reflects a generational or cultural difference, as ntyarlke
is also an Arrernte word, and the ethnospecies holds great religious significance
to the Arrernte people, who also recognize it as edible.
In one case, the hostþ-ayte naming strategy also refers to the plant, ilanayte.
This plant has no other function apart from having an edible grub in its roots. It is
likely that the plant name is a semantic extension of the name for the grub,
possibly because a previous plant name is no longer in use (cf. ilyarn, a cognate
term in neighboring Alyawarr for this plant). Naming taboos are widespread in
Kaytetye and, thus, borrowing and coining new words for flora and fauna are
common (Turpin 2013).
Two types of larvae do not use the hostþ-ayte naming strategy, but are
nevertheless derived words. Both have names derived from the suffix
-arenye,‘‘denizen of.’’ The name ilekarenye (15) is based on a descriptive phrase,
‘denizen of the buckbush/prickle.’’ The expected *ilekeþ-ayte is ungrammatical,
possibly because the host plant name is itself polysemous: ileke, ‘‘buckbush’
(Salsola kali), is also a general word for ‘‘prickle’’ and it may be that ‘‘prickle’’ is its
primary meaning (cf. Tindale 1953:60). These larvae were usually only collected
and consumed by children, as they were much easier to obtain than other larvae,
though not particularly tasty (Latz 1995:58) and so perhaps they are not
considered true ‘‘edible insect larvae.’’ The other ethnospecies that does not use
the standard hostþ-ayte naming strategy is the edible termite alate from the
termite mound. This is called ngkwepeye-arenye, ‘‘denizen of the termite mound,’
or ampenge. The latter synonym for the name of this insect is the nominalized
form of the verb ‘‘to ripen, burn.’’ Neither ampengeþ-ayte or ngkwepeyeþ-ayte are
grammatically correct, possibly because the host in these cases is not a plant.
Only two edible larva names are monomorphemic. For kathipe (27), the host is
arrke, ‘‘desert bloodwood’’ (Corymbia opaca), and yet arrkeþ-ayte is ungrammatical.
This may be due to a phonological constraint against using the -ayte suffix on
short words or it may be because it is one of the few non-wood or leaf-dwelling
edible larva, like ampenge, ‘‘termite at the flying stage.’’ However, some Kaytetye
speakers apply -ayte to the word for the gall, kwerlpwerlpayte, and over-apply -ayte
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 133
to the grub name itself, kathipayte, suggesting that a phonological, rather than
semantic, constraint is at work.
For arlwerrpe (23), the host is wetyenye,(Eremophila longifolia) ‘‘emu bush.’’ The
absence of the host name in the edible grub name may be due to the cultural and
mythological importance of this plant. In some parts of the Arandic region, it is
used in men’s ceremonies. It is also used to cook Emus, a practice traditionally
undertaken by men alone. The name wetyenye is also used for the Emu leg bone,
solidifying the connection between this plant, Emus, and men. These exceptions
suggest that the hostþ-ayte naming strategy has phonological restrictions and is
semantically restricted to plant names or descriptives, where its meaning can be
deduced as figurative.
In contrast to the above examples of the under-application of the hostþ-ayte
naming strategy, there are two over-applications of the naming system where the
ethnospecies is inedible: rratherrkayte (26) and nakwelkelayte (27). It is possible that
these were once marginal foods, for, in neighboring Alyawarr, we find that ‘‘the
olden-time bush people used to eat this grub [nakwelkelayte] when they didn’t
have any food’’ (Green 1992:200). Nakwelkelayte is only partially transparent, as no
word nakwelkel is attested (compare with ‘‘cran’’ in ‘‘cranberry,’’ where ‘‘berry’’
would be equivalent to the -ayte suffix). In considering the source of this element,
we must consider the cultural importance of the plant on which the larva is
found. The native currant ahakeye (Psydrax latifolia) is highly revered because of
its delicious fruit and features in mythology, proper names, and ceremonial
songs. An array of special vocabulary is used for this plant, its flowers, fruits, and
their ripening. In addition, the fruit is not of the rlwene, ‘‘vegetable food,’’ class,
but instead considered ngayele, ‘‘food,’’ as if it were being raised above the
vegetable class (as is the case in other Arandic languages). The semantically
similar term enye is never used, possibly because ngayele is specifically ‘‘human
food,’’ whereas enye refers to food of any living creature. There are also
prohibitions pertaining to the life cycle of this fruit, such as the prohibition on
hunting perenties (Varanus giganteus) while they are ripening. Such terms and
behaviors are associated with a respectful way of talking and behaving, akin to
the formal register in English. This register has particular phonological
characteristics including word-initial ‘‘n’’ and long monomorphemic words,
both unusual in the ordinary register. Thus, nakwelkelayte is reminiscent of respect
register terms in Arandic languages. At the very least, the opacity of the
caterpillar name associated with it is in keeping with the elevated cultural status
of the plant on which it is found.
Unlike the caterpillar found on the native currant, there is no evidence to
suggest that rratherrkayte was ever eaten; the only observation made of this
caterpillar is that it is said to ‘‘nod to its girlfriend’’ and that it resides on a vine that
is used by people in a number of ways (Turpin and Ross 2012). While it is possible
that the caterpillar may have been eaten in hard times, another possible
explanation is that -ayte is used metaphorically in that it resembles other
caterpillars. Note too that ayepayte, ‘tar vine caterpillar,’’ is used to refer to fuel
tanker road trains, a metaphor based on their appearance rather than their edibility.
Despite these examples, the primary meaning of -ayte is nevertheless ‘‘edible
(grub).’’ Any inedible grub is always said not to be kayte and is simply described as
TURPIN and SI134 Vol. 37, No. 1
errpatye, ‘‘useless.’’ Furthermore, it is not possible to call a larvae an x-ayte (where x
is the name of the host plant), if it happens to be found on a plant that is not
traditionally associated with edible grubs. For example, perrare (Acacia ancistro-
carpa) does not host an edible grub and so the larva found in its roots is never
called perrarayte. We hypothesize that the few examples of inedible specifics
ending in -ayte are examples of species that may once have been eaten as a
marginal food, or that follow a marked antonymous naming convention to
highlight the religious importance of their host plant (e.g., nakwelkelayte,
rratherrkayte). Similarly, the few examples of edible insect larvae not ending in
-ayte highlight the religious importance of the (insect) ethnospecies (e.g., arlwerrpe).
Phonological Constraints on Naming
In most cases, -ayte, ‘‘edible insect larva,’’ is suffixed onto the full name of the
host plant, e.g., atnyemeþ-ayte, ‘witchetty bushþedible grub of.’’ However, in a few
cases, there is modification to the base (plant name). This appears to be motivated
by a constraint against a base ending in a trill (indicated by rr), depending on their
syllable structure, leading to the following modifications in these terms:
rawelarreþayte -.rawelayte
akelperreþayte -.akelpayte
arlperreþayte -.arlperrnhayte
Note, however, the exception mwerlerreþayte, whose base, despite ending in a
trill, is not modified. We hypothesize that this plant, which is found only in the
northern extremity of the Kaytetye region and whose name also occurs in many
northern languages, may be a later coinage. Reduplications are also avoided in
words for edible insect larvae, suggesting a constraint on word length.
arlethe-arlethe -.arlethayte
akeþelperre-elperre -.akelpayte
As discussed above, there may also be a constraint against short words
taking the -ayte suffix, as in the case of arrke and the edible larva kathipe.
Kaytetye Grub Names and Ethnoclassification Theory
The 29 terminal taxa presented in Table 1 comprise the total membership of
kayte. On linguistic (grammatical) grounds, and on the grounds that it contrasts
with categories such as ngkwarle, ‘‘sweet foods,’kayte appears to be a special
purpose category sensu Berlin (1992). However, it also comprises an element of
‘general purpose,’’ as its members are all insect larvae, in contrast to atnwenthe,
‘edible ground dwelling fleshy creatures.’’ Unlike the members of atnwenthe,
most members of kayte have complex names created through a regular binomial
system (the inclusion of the morpheme -ayte in a majority of names). Berlin
(1992:275) observes that binomials are rare as specifics within general purpose
categories (especially for hunter-gatherer languages), but we have presented an
extensive set of binomials for a special purpose category in Kaytetye, albeit one
that also has, as its basis, a natural class distinction.
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 135
The existence of so many binomial names for Kaytetye (and other Arandic
languages) ethnospecies is unprecedented in the Australian context. The lack of
binomial names in Indigenous Australian languages has been dealt with in
totally different ways by different researchers. Waddy (1988), in her otherwise
admirable survey of plant and animal names in the Anindilyakwa language,
forces her data into Berlin’s framework by positing large numbers of covert
complexes to group together terminal taxa, such as different types of turtles and
different types of stingrays, as the language lacks superordinate generic
categories that can be labeled ‘‘turtle’’ or ‘‘stingray.’’ Baker (2007), on the other
hand, simply notes that many Australian languages (Ngalakan, Wubuy, and
Arrernte in particular) lack generic labels that correspond to large plant genera
such as Acacia and Eucalyptus,preferringinsteadtogiveunanalyzable
mononomial names to many related species. The terminal taxa in these languages
thus appear to have the properties of both the generic and specific ethnotaxa
prescribed by Berlin (1992). They are generics because they are numerous, they
are ‘‘primary names;’’ they are the words of everyday usage; and they are
specifics because the distinct and unrelated names for various types of Acacia or
Eucalyptus correspond not to monotypic (scientific) genera, but to species within
polytypic (scientific) genera (cf. Berlin 1992:85–86).
The case of the Kaytetye grub names differs subtly from the phenomena
described by Waddy (1988) and Baker (2007). Here, the fact that words like
pwetnayte can be decomposed into a host name plus the ‘‘edible insect larva’’
morpheme makes these labels even more specific than the Acacia names in
Ngalakan. Brown (1985), in his groundbreaking paper, proposed that binomial
plant and animal names were ‘‘very rare’’ in hunter-gatherer languages. Berlin
was to later state in Chapter 7 of his 1992 monograph that ‘‘the recognition of folk
species [labeled with binomial or secondary names] in the ethnobiological
systems of traditional nonagricultural peoples is virtually nonexistent’
(1992:274). The handful of Australian languages sampled in Brown’s cross-
linguistic survey certainly seem to confirm his hypothesis: only four out of 181
taxa were binomials in Anindilyakwa along with zero out of 186 plant names in
Gugadja, and zero out of 390 animal names in Gupapuyngu. Si, in his fieldwork
with speakers of the unrelated Kune language of northern Australia, has
observed that here, too, binomials are rare.
Further surprises are evident in Kaytetye ethnobiological nomenclature. Just
as Bulmer (1985) argues for the Papua New Guinea language, Kalam, some terms
that could be considered trinomial are also attested in Kaytetye conversation
(example (8) above). A similar, yet less extensive, binomial naming system is
used for some members in the ngkwarle, ‘‘sweet foods,’’ class in Kaytetye and
other Arandic languages. The suffix þ-ampe is identifiable in a number of sweet
food names, although the relationship to the base is not always simple. Some
Kaytetye examples are shown below:
Yerrampe, ‘‘honey ant’’ (Camponotus sp.), cf. yerre ‘‘ant’
Ntyeyampe, ‘‘northern corkwood tree nectar,’’ cf. ntyweye, ‘‘forked leaf corkwood’’
arlperlampe, alkerampe, ‘‘sweet gum on the mulga tree,’’ cf. synonym arlperle
akampe, ‘‘various type of sweet nectar found on plants.’
TURPIN and SI136 Vol. 37, No. 1
The real-world basis for the grub names presented above is clearly one of
ecological linkage rather than morphological salience. Many of the grubs look
similar, even to experienced Kaytetye people, whereas their host plants are easily
distinguished. The Kaytetye system of naming grubs based on their host plants
serves the important utilitarian purpose of unambiguously telling Kaytetye
people that certain grubs are safe or good to eat. An unintended consequence of
such a system would naturally be that some grubs normally considered edible
might be rejected if found in an inappropriate host plant. The exact details of host
specificity among these insects are still a mystery (as is the scientific identification
to species level), but it is safe to say that a proposition such as ‘‘grubs of
(biological) species x are edible, while grubs of (biological) species y are not’
would be alien to the Kaytetye way of thinking. A more accurate statement
would be ‘‘atnyemayte are grubs growing in the roots of the atnyeme plant, and are
edible’’ (even if very dissimilar-looking grubs are harvested from a single plant,
as in Figure 5). The only exceptions would be the handful of grubs known to
occur on more than one host, such as akelpayte, the ‘‘big-headed’’ grub. This and
akweltyayte, the ‘‘armband’’ grub, are also unusual in being the only ones
explicitly distinguished by their physical appearance.
Finally, purely linguistic and cultural considerations seem to be the reason for a
small number of unusual grub names. The possible name arrkayte is not acceptable
to Kaytetye speakers because of a possible linguistic constraint against short names,
while arlwerrpe and nakwelkalayte have etymologies deeply embedded in culture
and religion. The case of arlwerrpe, though different in detail, is reminiscent of
Bulmer’s treatment of cassowary ethnoclassification for the Kalam (Bulmer 1967).
Conclusion
Edible insect larvae occupied a central position in traditional Australian
Aboriginal societies and some continue to play an important role in
contemporary society. Aboriginal languages have rich vocabulary of this domain,
as illustrated by the Kaytetye taxonomy discussed in this paper. Unfortunately,
kayte are becoming increasingly more marginalized and even excluded from
Indigenous diets (with the exception of witchetty grubs and river red gum
grubs), as new foods become more available in remote communities. Many lesser
preferred grubs were probably obtained opportunistically; that is, in the course of
travel for some other purpose, where, if passing the tell-tale signs of larval
activity, people would stop on their way to extract a quick snack. Changes in
lifestyle mean that people travel on foot far less often today and so harvesting
these lesser known grubs has essentially ceased. The resulting breakdown in the
transmission of traditional knowledge means that fewer younger people are able
to distinguish various types of insect species (for example akelpayte from other
root dwelling larvae found in the same plant). On the other hand, the binomial
naming system means that people who have never harvested the more unusual
edible larvae are able to do so, so long as they know the plant name and can
identify it. This has enabled a large number of people to be involved in the
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 137
collection of these foods for scientific identification. One practical result of this
work has been a pedagological book on kayte, which is used in the local school.
This book can be viewed online through the Living Archive of Aboriginal
Languages hosted by Charles Darwin University.
9
Our data also show that the division between ‘‘special’’ and ‘‘general’’
purpose classification systems is not clear cut for Kaytetye, as the five different
‘‘edible’’ classes do not contrast in their purpose (they are all edible and there is
no ‘‘inedible’’ class), but along natural (general) classification schemes.
Furthermore, the formation and use of the labels for specifics in the class kayte
runs counter to some purported universals of folk taxonomy and nomenclature.
Indeed, this may be true of Australian languages as a whole, which is why field
linguists in that continent should carry out detailed, culturally-informed
semantic analyses of plant and animal names. Consider, as an illustration of
the non-conformity of Australian languages to the encoding of higher order
classes in the names of terminal taxa, the following hierarchy for large hunted sea
creatures in the language, Lardil: kendabal,‘dugong/turtle’(possiblya
functional category used in the context of hunting) .bararun, ‘‘turtle’.the
terminal taxa yuburu, ‘‘leatherback turtle,’’ lebulbul, ‘‘hawksbill turtle,’’ and
dunkumudin, ‘‘greenback turtle’’ (McKnight 1999). Much of the vocabulary
associated with invertebrate species remains to be assigned scientific identifica-
tions, and to be better understood. This challenging task, which requires
significant cross-disciplinary collaboration, will further our understanding of
Indigenous knowledge of insects and help answer key questions about
widespread tendencies in the naming and categorization of folk taxa.
Notes
1
Despite the similarities in sound, there is no connection between the word for this class, kayte, and
the name of the language, Kaytetye.
2
The term ‘‘witchetty’’ probably comes from the South Australian language Arabana, where witjuti
refers to Acacia kempeana (Zborowski and Edwards 2007:94). Tindale (1953:59) used the term
‘‘witchetty grub’’ for the edible grub found in Acacia ligulata. The species was originally described as
the cossid moth, Xyleutes leucomochla (Turner) based on the adult and subsequent revision moved to
Endoxyla leucomochla. Current DNA sampling of atnyemayte, ‘‘witchetty grub,’’ collected in the
Kaytetye region shows this to be a different species: Endoxyla 10ANIC_09250 and possibly Endoxyla
duponchelii (Yen, personal communication, 2016).
3
Following common Australian usage, we use the term ‘‘grub’’ for any wood-dwelling larvae;
however, among entomologists the term is reserved for larvae of Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, and is
not typically used to refer to larval Lepidoptera.
4
Unless specified otherwise, ‘‘generic’’ and ‘‘specific’’ are used in the ordinary English sense of the
words, and do not necessarily indicate the ranks sensu Berlin (1992).
5
Linguistic abbreviations and symbols used are as follows: PRS: ‘‘present tense,’’ PRS:CNT ‘‘present
tense continuous aspect’’; PST:CNT ‘‘past tense continuous aspect,’’ RRG ‘‘river red gum tree.’’ !
signals compounds that are accepted by some Kaytetye speakers.
6
Early ethnographers Spencer and Gillen worked with two informants whose names are edible insect
larvae: Ntyarlke (Sphingidae) and Arlpalywerrnge ‘juvenile grub’’ (Gibson 2013:66).
TURPIN and SI138 Vol. 37, No. 1
7
Furthermore, as noted by one anonymous reviewer, there is an assumption that the larvae found in
one plant are the immature stages of an adult that has been identified as a particular species living on
this plant; however, it is possible that the plant is host to more than one species.
8
Koch (1997:281, 300) reconstructs -ayte ‘‘edible grub’’ from *parti, which he suggests is proto Pama-
Nyungan. Cognates in various south Australian languages include bardi in Wirangu, vardi in
Adnyamathanha (Koch, personal communication 2015).
9
http://laal.cdu.edu.au
Acknowledgments
We thank the many Kaytetye people with whom we have collaborated in the field:
Tommy Thompson, Michael Hayes, Anna Pope, Amy Ngamperle, Hilda Ngamperle, Lena
Ngamperle, Rachel Dinny, Rhonda Moore, Carol Thompson, Janie Ampetyane, Shirly
Ampetyane, Danielle Thompson, Elsie Numina, the late Bronwyn Young, and especially
Alison Ross, who played a pivotal role both in the field and in creating the community
resource Kayte: Edible Insect Larvae, which can be viewed online at http://laal.cdu.edu.au/
record/cdu:49883/info/. We also thank Alan Yen and Conrad Bilney for their assistance in
collecting and identifying specimens in the field and especially Jenella Loye, Scott Carol,
and Nora Mishanec who also assisted in producing the Kaytetye grub book for the
community. We acknowledge Alan Yen and Myfany Turpin as the copyright holders of
photographs reproduced here. We acknowledge the Australian Research Council for
financial support for this research.
References Cited
Agnihotri, S., and A. Si. 2012. Solega Ethno-
ornithology. Journal of Ethnobiology 32:185–211.
Baker, B. 2007. Ethnobiological Classification
and the Environment in Northern Australia.
In Mental States, edited by A. C. Schalley and
D. Khlentzos, pp. 239–265. John Benjamins
Publishing Company, Philadelphia.
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification.
Principles of Categorization of Plants and Ani-
mals in Traditional Societies. Princeton Univer-
sity Press, New Jersey.
Bodenheimer, F. S. 1951. Insects as Human Food: A
Chapter of the Ecology of Man. Dr. W. Junk
Publishers, The Hague.
Brown, C. 1985. Mode of Subsistence and Folk
Biological Taxonomy. Current Anthropology
26:43–64.
Bulmer, R. 1967. Why is the Cassowary not a
Bird? Man 2:5–25.
Bulmer, R. 1985. Response to Brown (1985).
Current Anthropology 26:54–55.
CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industri-
al Research Organisation) Division of Ento-
mology. 1991. The Insects of Australia: A
Textbook for Students and Research Workers,
2
nd
edition. Melbourne University Press,
Carlton, Victoria.
Gibson, J. 2013. Addressing the Arrernte: FJ
Gillen’s 1896 Engwura Speech. Australian
Aboriginal Studies 1:57–72.
Gillam, M. 2003. The Subtlety of Creation. In
Bush Mag: Journal of the Outback, edited by H.
Womack. [Bush Mag], Alice Springs, N.T.
Green, J. 1992. Alyawarr to English Dictionary.
IAD Press, Alice Springs, Northern Territory.
Green, J. 2010. Central and Eastern Anmatyerr to
English Dictionary. IAD Press, Alice Springs,
Northern Territory.
Henderson, J., and V. Dobson. 1994. Eastern and
Central Arrernte to English Dictionary. IAD
Press, Alice Springs, Northern Territory.
Hercus, L. 1989. Preparing Grass Witchetty
Grubs. Records of the South Australian Museum
23:51–57.
Hercus, L. 1992. Glimpses of the Karangura.
Records of the South Australian Museum 25:139–
159.
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY2017 139
Hunn, E. 1982. The Utilitarian Factor in Folk
Biological Classification. American Anthropol-
ogist 84:830–847.
Koch, H. 1997. Pama-Nyungan Reflexes in the
Arandic Languages. In Boundary Rider: Essays
in Honour of Geoffrey O’Grady, edited by D.
Tryon and M. Walsh, pp. 271–302. Pacific
Linguistics, Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT.
Koch, H. 2001. Basic Vocabulary of the Arandic
Languages: From Classification to Recon-
struction. In Forty Years On: Ken Hale and
Australian Languages, edited by J. Simpson, D.
Nash, M. Laughren, P. Austin, and B. Alpher,
pp. 71–87. Pacific Linguistics, Australian
National University, Canberra, ACT.
Latz, P. 1995. Bushfires and Bushtucker. IAD Press,
Alice Springs, Northern Territory.
McKnight, D. 1999. People, Countries and the
Rainbow Serpent: Systems of Classification
Among the Lardil of Mornington Island. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Mulvaney, J., H. Morphy, and A. Petch, eds.
1997. My Dear Spencer: The Letters of F. J. Gillen
to Baldwin Spencer.HylandHouse,Mel-
bourne, Victoria.
Si, A. 2016. The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of
the Solega: A Linguistic Perspective. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
Si, A., and M. Turpin. 2015. The Importance of
Insects in Australian Aboriginal Society: A
Dictionary Survey. Ethnobiology Letters 6:175–
182.
Sutton, P. 1980. Linguistic Aspects of Ethnobo-
tanical Research. Pacific Linguistics Series A
59:303–314.
Tindale, N. B. 1953. On S ome Au st ra li an
Cossidae including the Moth of the Witjuti
(Witchetty) Grub. Transactions of the Royal
Society of South Australia 76:56–65.
Tindale, N. B. 1966. Insects as Food for the
Australian Aborigines. Australian Natural
History 15:179–183.
Turner, M. K. 1994. Bush Foods: Arrernte Foods of
Central Australia. IAD Press, Alice Springs,
Northern Territory.
Turpin, M., 2013. Semantic Extension in Kayte-
tye Flora and Fauna Terms. Australian Journal
of Linguistics 33:488–518.
Turpin, M., V. Dobson, M. K. Turner, and A. N.
Ross. 2013. The Spotted Nightjar Calls when
Dingo Pups are Born: Ecological and Social
Indicators in Central Australia. Journal of
Ethnobiology 33:7–32.
Turpin, M., and A. Ross. 2012. Kaytetye to English
Dictionary. IAD Press, Alice Springs, North-
ern Territory.
van Huis, A., K. van Itterbeeck, H. Klunder, E.
Mertens, A. Halloran, G. Muir, and P. Van-
tomme. 2013. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for
Food and Feed Security. Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Wadd y, J . 1988 . Classification of Plants and Animals
from a Groote Eylandt Aboriginal Point of View.
Australian National University North Australia
Research Unit, Darwin, Northern Territory.
Watts, L., A. N. Campbell, C. Kemarr, and M.
Tur p in. 2 0 08. Awely Rrkwer-akert.Ethno-
graphic Film Featuring Anmatyerr Knowl-
edge of the Country, Totems and Ceremonies
of Rrkwer. 2 videodiscs (DVD) (49 þ25 min.).
Central Australian Research Network, Alice
Springs, Northern Territory.
Wilkins, D. 1993. Linguistic Evidence in Support
of a Holistic Approach to Traditional Ecolog-
ical Knowledge. In Tra d it i o n a l E c o l o g i c a l
Knowledge, edited by N. Williams and G.
Baines, pp. 71–93. CRES, Canberra, ACT.
Yen, A. 2005. Insects and Other Invertebrate
Foods of the Australian Aborigines. In
Ecological Implications of Minilivestock: Poten-
tial of Insects, Rodents, Frogs and Snails, edited
by M. G. Paoletti, pp. 367–388. Science
Publishers, Enfield, New Hampshire.
Yen, A. 2009. Edible Insects: Traditional Knowl-
edge or Western Phobia? Entomological Re-
search 39:289–298.
Yen, A. 2010. Edible Insects and Other Inverte-
brates in Australia: Future Prospects. In Forest
Insects as Food: Humans Bite Back, Proceedings
of a Workshop on Asia-Pacific Resources and their
Potential for Development, edited by P. B.
Durst, D. V. Johnson, R. L. Leslie, and K.
Shono, pp. 65–84. FAO Regional Office for
Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Yen, A. 2012. Edible Insects and Management of
Country. Ecological Management and Restora-
tion 13:97–99.
Yen, A. 2015. Conservation of Lepidoptera used
as Human Food and Medicine. Current
Opinion in Insect Science 12:102–108.
Zborowski, P., and T. Edwards. 2007. A Guide to
Australian Moths. CSIRO Publishing, Colling-
wood, Victoria.
TURPIN and SI140 Vol. 37, No. 1
... Much effort is now being directed to accessing, archiving and promoting the information lodged with indigenous knowledge holders around which particular insects are edible, as well as how to find, capture, prepare and preserve them (Lesnik 2017;Selaledi et al. 2021). This age-old information must, however, be linked with the verifiable scientific names of the insects for it to be useful in a global context (Turpin and Si 2017). ...
... However, edible grasshoppers in South Africa are largely uncharacterised, making it challenging to link nutritional properties and biological characteristics with species names; this, in turn, hinders progress of potential commercialisation (Stull and Patz 2020). Ambiguity around species names also has a detrimental effect on ecological investigations into the potential impact of wild harvesting (Turpin and Si 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
The diversity of edible grasshoppers worldwide remains largely undocumented due to inconsistent reporting of ethno- and scientific species, and paucity of reference DNA sequences. This study uses traditional knowledge and scientific methods for identification of ethnospecies, taxonomic species, and phylogenetic groups that likely represent genetic species. Community members in the Limpopo province of South Africa assisted with specimen collection (n = 176) and identification of 34 ethnospecies (i.e. vernacular names given by the local communities). Scientific taxa were identified by alpha taxonomy and DNA barcode sequence queries on BOLD Systems and GenBank. Genetic groups likely representing distinct species were determined by phylogenetic analysis and intragroup p-distances. Acrididae dominated the dataset with nine subfamilies and 17 genera represented. Database queries yielded high sequence similarity/identity matches (> 95%) for only 58.6% of the sequences on BOLD and 37.1% on GenBank, thus highlighting the low representation of African Orthoptera in public repositories. Phylogenetic analysis and pairwise distances revealed 36 genetic groups likely representing distinct species. Comparison of the results obtained from the different sources of information showed incomplete overlap, and numerous inconsistencies. Despite the difficulties, the overall diversity of edible grasshoppers traditionally utilized in South Africa is higher than previously reported. This work may inform future studies for documenting edible insects in Africa and other world regions.
... 6 Local goals might not stem from linguistic theorizing or typologizing, or even grammatical description. They could include documenting the language of traditional ecological knowledge (Pérez Báez 2016, Turpin & Si 2017, travel narratives and wayfinding (Berez-Kroeker 2019), or discursive patterns used in crafts such as weaving (Wells 2019). Another way of putting this is that while the main goals of traditional fieldwork are to document, describe, and analyze grammatical patterns and linguistic forms, in some language communities the main goals are to document language use in a range of contexts, including bilingual or multilingual contexts-and, perhaps, to forestall or reverse language shift. ...
... 6 Local goals might not stem from linguistic theorizing or typologizing, or even grammatical description. They could include documenting the language of traditional ecological knowledge (Pérez Báez 2016, Turpin & Si 2017, travel narratives and wayfinding (Berez-Kroeker 2019), or discursive patterns used in crafts such as weaving (Wells 2019). Another way of putting this is that while the main goals of traditional fieldwork are to document, describe, and analyze grammatical patterns and linguistic forms, in some language communities the main goals are to document language use in a range of contexts, including bilingual or multilingual contexts-and, perhaps, to forestall or reverse language shift. ...
... Insect eating is common in many countries included in this study; however, large percentages of these target populations do not currently participate. Entomophagy is certainly influenced by experience and exposure, personal preference, consumer knowledge, availability, religious and traditional beliefs, as well as cultural practices [106,[131][132][133][134][135]. However, little is known regarding best practices for promoting widespread adoption; some sensorial-, educational-, and design-focused strategies have been proposed [136,137]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Most global dietary forecasts predict a reduction in nutritional deficiencies over the next several decades driven by significant increases in environmentally unsustainable livestock and animal source food consumption. Here, we explore a more environmentally sensitive alternative to improve global nutrition, consuming insects. Our study focuses on Africa and Asia, two continents with a history of eating insects and high rates of nutritional deficiency. We model the impact of adding modest amounts (2.5, 5 and 10 g per day, dry weight) of regionally appropriate and farmable species on total nutrient intake and population-wide risk of deficiency for specific nutrients of concern: protein, zinc, folate, and vitamin B12. We also estimate the total potential change in dietary iron. Five grams per day of insect consumption could alleviate a considerable amount of risk of nutritional deficiency: 67 million (95% uncertainty interval: 49-84 million) fewer people at risk of protein deficiency, 166 million (120-220 million) fewer people at risk of zinc deficiency, 237 million (120-439 million) fewer people at risk of folate deficiency, and 251 million (28-2271) fewer people at risk for vitamin B12 deficiency. For iron, per capita supplies could increase by 3% (0.8%-6.0%) with insects, and even more so for vulnerable groups in countries currently suffering severe rates of anemia: 4.2% (0.5%-8.8%) for women of childbearing age and 4.1% (0.4%-10.0%) for children under 5. Doubling or halving insect intake per capita causes the benefits for nutritional deficiency risk to roughly double or halve accordingly. Effects are most pronounced in South and Central Asia, though sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Southeast Asia also see considerable reduction in nutritional risk. These results demonstrate the potential for insects to fill a crucial role in providing nutrition for these populous and rapidly developing regions while safeguarding the global environment.
... The local people use their own knowledge to name plants, animals and microorganisms (Phaka et al., 2019;Wang et al., 2020). The traditional knowledge of classification, identification and nomenclature has shown significant values in nature conservation and biodiversity uses (Turpin & Si, 2017;Ulicsni et al., 2016). Traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity (TK) covers the folk nomencluture systems, uses of bioresources available, and management of ecosystems by the local people of a given area (Khasbagan et al., 2000). ...
Article
Full-text available
Cistanche deserticola Y. C. Ma is an important medicinal plant in Mongolia. Despite its significant role in local healing systems, little traditional knowledge had been reported. The present study investigated folk names of Cistanche deserticola Y.C. Ma and other species of the same community in Umnugobi Province, South Gobi region of Mongolia, based on ethnobotanical approaches. The high correspondence between folk names and scientific names of plant species occurring in Cistanche-associated community shows the scientific meaning of folk nomenclature and classification in Mongolia. The Mongolian and folk names of plants were formed on the basis of observations and understanding of wild plants including their morphology, phenology and traditional uses as well. Results from this study will support the conservation of Cistanche deserticola itself, a rare and endangered plant species listed in the Monglian Red Data Book. Our documentation of folk nomenclature based on 96 plant species in the Cistanche community, as a part of traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity, will be very helpful for making strategy of plant biodiversity conservation in Mongolia.
... Edible insects are reported to contain higher amounts of proteins compared to other protein sources, such as meat and dairy products (Banjo et al. 2006). In a study conducted by Oibiokpa et al. (2018), they found that the cricket has the highest protein quality compared to termite, grasshopper, and moth caterpillar, while the "witchetty grub" in Australia is said to contain 50% protein and 47% fat (Si and Turpin 2015;Turpin and Si 2017). In particular, adults and larvae of Odonata are reported to contain 46% to 65% of protein based on the protein content assessment of Xiaoming et al. (2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
Cudera RB, Razon BC, Millondaga KJI. 2020. Cultural and ecological significance of Odonata (Insecta) to the T'boli of Lake Sebu, Mindanao, Philippines. Biodiversitas 21: 2536-2554. Lake Sebu in Mindanao, Philippines, covered by the Allah Valley Protected Landscape, is home to the T'boli ethnolinguistic group. This study focuses on the cultural and ecological significance of the Odonata (insect order of dragonflies and damselflies) to the T'boli people who are known to have a close connection to their natural environment. According to the T'boli who participated in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, the Odonate larvae of Family Libellulidae and Aeshnidae known as Kmimi and Ogong El respectively are handpicked by the village members as a food source shared in the community when resources are scarce. The Odonata larvae are also used to cure illnesses and are locally believed to be important components for a love potion. In agriculture, T'boli farmers utilize the adult form of Odonata known as Klowong as natural biocontrol agents. Moreover, the Odonata larvae are prominent images in T'boli oral literature, specifically folklore and lullabies, teaching the children the importance of maintaining a harmonious relationship with nature. The results show that the presence of endemic species of Odonata indicates a healthy freshwater environment in the area; thus, studies on the sustainable use and conservation measures of the Odonata should be conducted.
Article
The giant wood moth, Endoxyla cinereus (Tepper, 1890) (Cossidae: Zeuzerinae), is the heaviest known moth in the world and a traditional food resource to Indigenous Australians, but it is primarily understood as a pest. Research on its pest status has highlighted the different interactions this moth has with plants and animals, suggesting that it plays an important role in Australian ecosystems. Here, I review the literature on Endoxyla cinereus to compile and illustrate its life history and species‐specific ecological interactions for the first time. This life history is then applied to interpret the ecological role that this species plays in shaping forest communities, serving as a key food resource to other animals and creating habitat in the form of tree hollows. Based on this, the giant wood moth is an ecosystem engineer. The human impact of this species is then reviewed including indigenous use of E . cinereus and other Endoxyla spp., and the forestry pest status of these moths. Consideration of the moth's long, cryptic life history reveals the scientific knowledge possessed by Indigenous Australians on harvesting wood moth larvae, while future studies on earlier life stages and pest, identity may aid the development of sustainable pest management. Finally, the taxonomic status of Endoxyla cinereus is briefly discussed, as previous research suggests the presence of either cryptic or misidentified species. Future research on the giant wood moth may aid both natural and cultural conservation programmes and provide novel solutions for managing the species as a pest. This review provides a framework for studying the giant wood moth and documenting the life history of other wood moths.
Article
Full-text available
The study aims to identify the cultural aspects inside the names of banana processed foods through an ethnosemantic approach. The discussed research includes the forms of linguistic units used as the names, the basis for naming, the modernization of traditional food names, and the classification of folk foods. Presented data were obtained through the observation method and the literature studies. The data were analyzed in a qualitative and quantitative methodology. Qualitatively, the data were analyzed by distributional method with immediate constituent technique. The quantitative analysis method was used to figure out the percentage of the use of the essential food naming in the names of bananas processed foods, the number of the traditional name food development becoming modern food, and the number of food name filling in the categories of the folk food system classification. The results showed two forms of food names, namely words and phrases. The basis for naming food is divided into eleven categories, such as the naming based on the basic ingredients, the types of essential elements, the shapes, the processing methods, the additional ingredients, the characters, the brand, the size, the taste, the manufacturer's name, and the place name. The terms of these foods have been modernization, and some are not. The names of the traditional foods such as “nagasari”, “pisang rebus”, and “tape pisang” have not undergone modernization. Meanwhile, traditional foods are undergoing modernization, such as “pisang goreng” has been developing into 24 variants, “pisang bakar” into three variants, “bongko pisang” into three variants, “kolak pisang” into three variants, “sale pisang” into four variants, “ledre pisang” into five variants, “rambak pisang” into three variants, and “keripik pisang” into six variants. In addition, the name of banana processed food is also found in a new modified form. Regarding the classification of folk food, the names of the banana processed foods are classified into five categories: the unique beginner (the type of the food), the food form (the form of the food), the generic, the specific, and the specific the varietal.Studi ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi aspek budaya di balik nama-nama makanan olahan buah pisang melalui pendekatan etnosemantis. Masalah yang dibahas meliputi bentuk-bentuk satuan kebahasaan yang digunakan sebagai nama, dasar penamaan, modernisasi nama makanan tradisional, dan klasifikasi folk makanan. Data yang disajikan diperoleh melalui metode observasi dan studi pustaka. Data tersebut kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif dan kuantitatif. Secara kualitatif, data dianalisis dengan metode agih teknik bagi unsur langsung. Adapun analisis kuantitatif digunakan untuk mengetahui persentase penggunaan dasar penamaan makanan dalam nama-nama makanan olahan pisang, jumlah perkembangan nama makanan tradisional yang menjadi makanan modern, dan jumlah nama makanan yang mengisi kategori-kategori dalam sistem klasifikasi folk makanan tersebut. Hasil analisis menunjukkan dua bentuk nama makanan olahan pisang, yakni kata dan frasa. Dasar penamaannya dibedakan menjadi sebelas, yakni penamaan berdasarkan bahan pokok, jenis bahan pokok, bentuk, cara pengolahan, bahan tambahan, sifat, merek, ukuran, rasa, nama pembuat, dan nama tempat. Nama-nama makanan tersebut ada yang mengalami modernisasi dan ada yang tidak. Nama makanan tradisional nagasari, pisang rebus, dan tape pisang tidak mengalami modernisasi. Sementara itu, makanan tradisional pisang goreng berkembang menjadi 24 varian, pisang bakar menjadi tiga varian, bongko pisang menjadi tiga varian, kolak pisang menjadi tiga varian, sale pisang menjadi empat varian, ledre pisang menjadi lima varian, rambak pisang menjadi tiga varian, dan keripik pisang menjadi enam varian. Selain itu, nama makanan olahan pisang juga ditemukan dalam bentuk modifikasi baru. Mengenai klasifikasi folk makanan, nama makanan olahan pisang dikelompokkan menjadi lima kategori, yaitu unique beginner (jenis makanan), food form (bentuk makanan), generik, spesifik, dan varietal.
Article
Discussions regarding entomophagy in humans have been typically led by entomologists. While anthropologists devote much time to understanding diverse human subsistence practices, historical and cultural variation in insect consumption remains largely unexplained. This review explores the relation between variable ecologies, subsistence strategies, and social norms on insect consumption patterns across past and contemporary human populations. Ecological factors, such as the nutritional contribution of edible insects relative to those of other foraged or farmed resources available, may help explain variation in their consumption. Additionally, our evolved social learning strategies may help propagate social norms that prohibit or prioritize the consumption of some or all edible insects, independent of their profitability. By adopting a behavioral ecological and cultural evolutionary approach, this review aims to resolve current debates on insect consumption and provide directions for future research.
Thesis
Full-text available
The traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of a language community is not only a repository of that community's cultural and intellectual heritage, but also a rich source of detailed information with the potential to inform conservation policies and basic scientific research. In this thesis, I present some key aspects of Solega TEK, which is shown to be a complex, inter-related network of detailed observations of natural phenomena, well-reasoned and often highly accurate theorising, as well as a belief system, derived from cultural norms, regarding the relationships between humans and other species on the one hand, and between non-human species on the other. In addition, the appendices to the thesis contain a sketch grammar of Solega and a small lexicon of around 2,300 entries. The thesis begins with a brief survey of the types of research usually carried out under the heading of ethnobiology, and shows that language-based studies are stongly biased towards investigations of ethno-taxonomy and nomenclature. I then argue the importance of studying TEK in its proper context, and that making context and encyclopaedic knowledge the objects of study are essential for a proper understanding of TEK. In Chapter 2, I provide a further critique of the acontextualised approach to uncovering 'universals' in ethno-taxonomy and nomenclature, and suggest that some basic assumptions implicit in this enterprise are seriously flawed. Chapter 3 develops this theme further by investigating Solega ways of naming and classifying birds, and provides an alternative approach - one that takes into account not only linguistic context and variation, but also Solega knowledge of the behaviour and ecology of these birds. Moving away from classifications, in Chapter 4, I describe the manner in which the Solega perceive various named landscapes. These, along with the plants and animals that inhabit them, form a mental map - a three dimensional mosaic - that is constantly updated in sync with the annual cycling of the seasons, the life cycles of plants and the migrations of culturally significant animals. Further details of these seasonal cycles, as well as other forest 'signs' that Solega people can detect and use to their advantage, are to be found in Chapter 5, along with Solega perspectives on the place of humans in the natural environment. Chapter 6 focuses in some detail on the Solega's knowledge of the behaviour, reproductive biology and ecology of one very important group of animals, the honeybees. Comparing Solega observations with those of a pre-industrial beekeeping society, I show that the former's knowledge of certain hard-to-observe honeybee behaviours rivals, and in some cases exceeds, that of the latter. Finally, in the last chapter, I reiterate the need to develop novel approaches to carrying out ethnobiological research from a linguistic perspective - approaches that acknowledge the fact that classifications are but a small part of a language community's TEK, and that contextualised studies, which take into account variation, diachrony and encyclopaedic knowledge, are required to obtain an unbiased picture of people's understanding of the natural world. -- provided by Candidate.
Article
Full-text available
Many butterflies and moths are of conservation concern and formally recognised as being at risk. There are nearly 400 species of Lepidoptera used as human food or medicine, and the demand for some species has increased to the extent that they are overexploited. Most are harvested in the wild, and there is a need to develop harvesting and habitat management protocols to ensure sustainability. Detailed scientific information on most species is lacking. Management plans to conserve selected species are necessary, and traditional knowledge is an important and valuable foundation. Some of the better known species could be excellent flagship taxa because they can be a symbol for food security, traditional knowledge and culture, conservation of insect biodiversity, and their habitats.
Chapter
It has been known for many centuries that insects are eaten as delicacies in many parts of the world. Reports have come down from antiquity of insects, especially locusts, being eaten by primitive peoples. Honey has been known as a prized food from time immemorial. Yet entomophagy, apart from honey consumption, has always been regarded as a curiosity or as barbarism. Although a number of recent authors such as Netolitzky (1918/20), Bequaert (1921), Hardy et Righet (1933), Gourou (1947) and others have hinted at the actual and potential nutritive value of insects for primitive man, the present writer began his study a few years ago largely out of curiosity. It is actually astonishing that the real and basic importance of insects as food for early and primitive man has been so long ignored. One of the main reasons is that a fuller understanding of the requirements of a well-balanced diet and of its necessary vitamin content, over and above the mere calorific value of food, has only been gained in our days. The French Colonial Service has played a leading role in investigating the actual diet of tropical peoples, followed by those of the British and Dutch empires.
Book
This book examines the nature of folk classification, including biological, food, totemic and linguistic systems of plant and animal taxonomy, by the Anindiyakwa people of Groote Eyelandt. It discusses the suggestion that all folk classification is complexive, based on associations and not hierarchical. It seeks to show that complexive classification most commonly appears in the realm of symbolic and not biological classification. Compares and contrasts the nature of classification systems on a case by case basis. Considers data in the light of historical records, and discusses theoretical and practical implications of the research undertaken.
Chapter
The contributions to this volume focus on what language and language use reveals about cognitive structure and underlying cognitive categories. Wide-ranging and thought-provoking essays from linguists and psychologists within this volume investigate the insights conceptual categorization can give into the organization and structure of the mind and specific mental states. Topics and linguistic phenomena discussed include narratives and story telling, language development, figurative language, linguistic categorization, linguistic relativity, and the linguistic coding of mental states such as perceptions and beliefs. With contributions at the forefront of current debate, this book will appeal to anyone with an interest in language and the cognitive structures that support it.