Folk taxonomy: Difference between revisions
imported>Joe Quick No edit summary |
imported>Joe Quick mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
'''Folk taxonomies''' are systems of categorization created by non-scientists in order to organize, name, and understand the natural world. Folk taxonomies frequently diverge on some points from the [[phylogeny]] established by the scientific study of [[taxonomy]] but they also tend to align with scientific classifications on other points: sometimes folk taxonomies lump together many biological species under a single name or place species from several different biological orders in the same group, sometimes there is one-to-one correspondence, and sometimes folk taxonomies differentiate where scientific taxonomies do not.<ref> Brent Berlin, Dennis E. Breedlove, Peter H. Raven. (1966). Folk Taxonomies and Biological Classification. ''Science'' 154(3746): 273-275.</ref><ref>Alejandro López, Scott Atran, John D. Coley, Douglas L. Medin, and Edward E. Smith. (1997). The Tree of Life: Universal and Cultural Features of Folkbiological Taxonomies and Inductions. ''Cognitive Psychology'' 32: 251-295.</ref> Differentiation between types in folk taxonomies is determined by a wide variety of attributes, some of which may not be immediately obvious to outsiders | '''Folk taxonomies''' are systems of categorization created by non-scientists in order to organize, name, and understand the natural world. Folk taxonomies frequently diverge on some points from the [[phylogeny]] established by the scientific study of [[taxonomy]] but they also tend to align with scientific classifications on other points: sometimes folk taxonomies lump together many biological species under a single name or place species from several different biological orders in the same group, sometimes there is one-to-one correspondence, and sometimes folk taxonomies differentiate where scientific taxonomies do not.<ref> Brent Berlin, Dennis E. Breedlove, Peter H. Raven. (1966). Folk Taxonomies and Biological Classification. ''Science'' 154(3746): 273-275.</ref><ref>Alejandro López, Scott Atran, John D. Coley, Douglas L. Medin, and Edward E. Smith. (1997). The Tree of Life: Universal and Cultural Features of Folkbiological Taxonomies and Inductions. ''Cognitive Psychology'' 32: 251-295.</ref> Differentiation between types in folk taxonomies is determined by a wide variety of attributes, some of which may not be immediately obvious to outsiders; [[Morphology_(biology)|morphology]] and [[behavior]] are important but so are the [[Culture (social)|cultural]] significance and practical [[Utility (anthropology)|utility]] of the species constituting each group. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 14:29, 12 August 2009
Folk taxonomies are systems of categorization created by non-scientists in order to organize, name, and understand the natural world. Folk taxonomies frequently diverge on some points from the phylogeny established by the scientific study of taxonomy but they also tend to align with scientific classifications on other points: sometimes folk taxonomies lump together many biological species under a single name or place species from several different biological orders in the same group, sometimes there is one-to-one correspondence, and sometimes folk taxonomies differentiate where scientific taxonomies do not.[1][2] Differentiation between types in folk taxonomies is determined by a wide variety of attributes, some of which may not be immediately obvious to outsiders; morphology and behavior are important but so are the cultural significance and practical utility of the species constituting each group.
References
- ↑ Brent Berlin, Dennis E. Breedlove, Peter H. Raven. (1966). Folk Taxonomies and Biological Classification. Science 154(3746): 273-275.
- ↑ Alejandro López, Scott Atran, John D. Coley, Douglas L. Medin, and Edward E. Smith. (1997). The Tree of Life: Universal and Cultural Features of Folkbiological Taxonomies and Inductions. Cognitive Psychology 32: 251-295.