Abstract
This paper presents evidence that cultivars of manioc (Manihot esculenta) have been selected for combinations of characters that allow them to be perceptually distinguished. This mode of selection is proposed to explain why cultivars are so variable in perceptually salient taxonomic characters unrelated to the use or survival of the plant. This paper reanalyzes published material on manioc and related species and presents new evidence from the inventory of manioc cultivars maintained by the Aguaruna Jívaro of northern Peru. Rogers and Fleming’s (1973) sample of manioc cultivars exhibits 3 characteristics implied by the model of selection for perceptual distinctiveness: high, continuous, and independent variation of nonadaptive taxonomic characters. The inventory of Aguaruna cultivars exhibits 2 additional characteristics predicted by the model: taxonomic characters of this local inventory vary as independently and nearly as greatly as those of the species as a whole. Anthropological evidence is presented to demonstrate that Aguaruna interact with the plants as predicted by the model: Aguaruna identify cultivars using many of the same characters as Rogers and Fleming and they confuse cultivars they regard as similar in stem color, petiole color, and leaf shape. The evidence suggests that procedures used by cultivators to identify cultivars leave their imprint on the plants; crops show the effect of the cultivator's eye as well as hand.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Ayensu, E. S., and D. G. Coursey. 1973. Guinea yams: The botany, ethnobotany, use and possible future of yams in West Africa. Econ. Bot. 27: 301–318.
Berlin, B. 1976. The concept of rank in ethnobiological classification: some evidence from Aguaruna folk biology. Amer. Ethnol. 3: 381–399.
—, and E. A. Berlin. 1978. Ethnobiología, subsistencia, y nutrición en una sociedád de la selva tropical: los Aguaruna (Jibaro).In A. Chirif, ed, Salúd y Nutritioń en Sociedades Nativas, p. 13–47. Centro de Investigation y Promotión Amazónica, Lima.
—, J. S. Boster, and J. P. O’Neill. 1981. The perceptual bases of ethnobiological classification: evidence from Aguaruna Jívaro ornithology. J. Ethnobiology 1: 95–108.
—, D. E. Breedlove, and P. H. Raven. 1966. Folk taxonomies and biological classification. Science 154: 273–275.
—, —, and —. 1973. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. Amer. Anthropol. 75: 214–242.
Boster, J. S. 1980. How the exceptions prove the rule: an analysis of informant disagreement in Aguaruna manioc identification. Ph.D. diss., Univ. California, Berkeley.
—. 1983. A comparison of the diversity of Jívaroan gardens with that of the tropical forest. Human Ecol. 11: 47–68.
-. 1984. Classification, cultivation, and selection in Aguaruna cultivars ofManihot esculenta (Euphorbiaceae).In G. Prance and J. Kallunki, ed, Ethnobotany in the Neotropics. Advances Econ. Bot. 1: 34–47.
-. In press a. ’Requiem for the omniscient informant’: There’s life in the old girl yet.In J. Dougherty, ed, Directions in Cognitive Anthropology. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
-. In press b. Inferring decision making from preferences and behavior: an analysis of Aguaruna Jivaro manioc selection. Human Ecol.
Brush, S. B., H. J. Carney, and Z. Huamán. 1981. Dynamics of Andean potato agriculture. Econ. Bot. 35: 70–88.
Conklin, H. C. 1957. Hanunóo agriculture: a report on an integral system of shifting cultivation in the Philippines. F.A.O. Forest. Developm. Paper, No. 12, Rome.
Dodds, K. 1965. The history and relationships of cultivated potatoes.In J. Hutchinson, ed, Essays on Crop Plant Evolution, p. 123–141. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Guallart, J. 1964. Los Jíbaros del Alto Marañón. América Indígena 24: 315–332.
Harlan, J. 1975. Crops and Man. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.
Hays, T. 1974. Mauna: Explorations in Ndumba Ethnobotany. Ph.D. diss., Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA.
Hunn, E. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. Amer. Anthropol. 82: 830–847.
Nordenskiold, E. 1924. The ethnography of South America as seen from Mojos in Bolivia. Comparative Ethnological Studies 3. Gothenburg.
Pielou, E. C. 1977. Mathematical Ecology. Wiley, New York.
Renvoize, B. S. 1973. The area of origin ofManihot esculenta as a crop plant—a review of the evidence. Econ. Bot. 26: 352–360.
Rogers, D. J. 1963. Studies ofManihot esculenta Crantz and related species. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 90: 43–54.
—. 1965. Some botanical and ethnological considerations ofManihot esculenta. Econ. Bot. 19: 369–377.
-, and S. G. Appan. 1973.Manihot andManihotoides (Euphorbiaceae): a computer-assisted study. Organization for Flora Neotropica, Monograph No. 13, New York.
—, and H. S. Fleming. 1973. A monographof Manihot esculenta with an explanation of the taximetrics methods used. Econ. Bot. 27: 1–113.
Uriarte, L. 1977. Poblaciones nativas de la Amazonía Peruana. Amazonia 1: 9–58.
Yen, D. E. 1968. Natural and human selection in the Pacific Sweet potato.In E. T. Drake, ed, Evolution and Environment, p. 387–142. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boster, J.S. Selection for perceptual distinctiveness: Evidence from aguaruna cultivars ofManihot esculenta . Econ Bot 39, 310–325 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858802
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858802