4.5 Article

Species perceived to be dangerous are more likely to have distinctive local names

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13002-021-00493-6

关键词

Mozambique; Amphibians; Reptiles; Snakes; Snakebite; Indigenous; Local knowledge

资金

  1. University of Gothenburg
  2. WCS Christensen Conservation Leaders Scholarship
  3. World Wildlife Foundation-Education for Nature Scholarship
  4. Swedish Research Council [2017-03862]
  5. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  6. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  7. Antonelli Lab
  8. Swedish Research Council [2017-03862] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through a survey of 1037 households in nine villages in northern Mozambique, it was found that local people have more specific local names for snakes, knowing four to five times more names than for lizards and frogs, indicating that fear of dangerous species may increase the level of specificity in naming.
Background Species with direct uses, such as sources of food, shelter, building material and medicine tend to have more specific local names. But could the same apply for species that people fear? Methods To address this question, here we explore the behavior and perception of species diversity and dangerousness through a survey of 1037 households in nine villages in Cabo Delgado, northern Mozambique. We compare people's knowledge of snakes with that of lizards and amphibians. Results We find that northern Mozambicans know four to five times more local names for snakes than for lizards and frogs, despite the local species richness of snakes being comparable to the diversity of lizards and frogs. We further find that local knowledge was on par with the academic literature regarding snakebite symptoms. Conclusions Our results suggest that fear can increase the level of specificity in naming species among indigenous communities, which could lead to biases in the mapping and protection of species that include data from citizen reports.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据