Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 8, Issue 11, pp 1457–1467 | Cite as

The limitations of vernacular names in an inventory study, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

  • Peter Wilkie
  • Amiril Saridan
Article

Abstract

One hectare of primary forest in Central Kalimantan was enumerated and all trees ≥10 cm dbh tagged and identified to species as far as possible. Two informants, regarded as the most knowledgeable on forest trees by the local community, supplied the vernacular names for the trees. The study found that only 12% of vernacular names given by one informant and 22% by the second could be equated consistently to taxa. Of these taxa 77% were given the same vernacular name by both informants and the remaining 23% had an obvious common origin (cognate). Many of these taxa were distinctive or had a use to the informants. The results have important implications for the conversion of vernacular names to scientific names by anyone carrying out inventory work in Kalimantan.

inventory Kalimantan logging concessionaires reliability vernacular names 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon (1996) Country brief, Indonesia Forestry Action Programme (IFAP), Chapter IV, Management of Natural Production Forest, Jakarta. Ministry of Forestry, Republic of IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JAR (1980) A Check List of the Trees of Sarawak. Forest Department Sarawak, KuchingGoogle Scholar
  3. Argent G, Saridan A, Campbell E and Wilkie P (eds) (1997) Manual of the Larger and More Important Non dipterocarp Trees of Central Kalimantan. Two volumes, 1–705. Forest Research Institute, Samarinda, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashton PS (1964) A Manual of the Dipterocarp Trees of Brunei State. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashton PS (1968) A Manual of the Dipterocarp Trees of Brunei State and Sarawak – supplement. Sarawak Forest Department, KuchingGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlin B, Breedlove DE and Raven PH (1966) Folk taxonomies and biological classification. Science 154: 273–275Google Scholar
  7. Berlin B, Breedlove DE and Raven PH (1968) Covert categories and folk taxonomies. American Anthropologist 70: 290–299Google Scholar
  8. Collins MN, Sayer JA and Whitmore TC (eds) (1991) The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia and the Pacific. B.P., Macmillan, IUCN, WCMCGoogle Scholar
  9. Corner EJH (1940) Wayside Trees of Malaya. Vol. 1. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamond JM (1979) Review of Majnep and Bulmer, 1977. Journal of the Polynesian Society 88: 116–117Google Scholar
  11. Ding Hou (1978) Anacardiaceae. Flora Malesiana, Series I 8: 395–548Google Scholar
  12. Ellen RF (1978) Nuaulu Settlement and Ecology: An Approach to the Environmental Relations of an Eastern Indonesian Community. Verhandelingen. Martinus Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  13. Fowler CS and Leland J (1967) Some Northern Paiute native categories. Ethnology 6: 381–404Google Scholar
  14. Fox JED (1970) Preferred checklist of Sabah trees. Sabah Forest Record 7Google Scholar
  15. Jarvie JK and Perumal B (1993) Notes on the Iban classification of trees in Lambir National Park, Sarawak. Tropical Biology 1 (2): 77–88Google Scholar
  16. Sillitoe P (1980) Confusion in the classifications. How the Wola name their plants. Ethnos 45: 133–156Google Scholar
  17. Whitmore TC, Tantra I and Sutisna U (1990) Tree flora of Indonesia. Check List for Kalimantan. Forestry research and development centre, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Wyatt-Smith J (1979) Pocket Checklist of Timber Trees 3rd edn (2nd revision by KM Kochummen) Malayan Forest Records 17Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Wilkie
    • 1
  • Amiril Saridan
    • 2
  1. 1.Royal Botanic GardenInverleith RowEdinburgh
  2. 2.Balai Penelitian Kehutanan Samarinda, Jalan A. Wahab Syahranie, SempajaSamarinda, Kalimantan TimurIndonesia

Personalised recommendations