UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Lau fish taxonomy Tyhurst, Catherine H. 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 T95.pdf [ 10.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093845.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093845-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093845-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093845-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093845-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093845-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093845-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093845-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093845.ris

Full Text

LAU FISH TAXONOMY by CATHERINE H. TYHURST B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Anthropology and Sociology U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the re q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1976 (c) Catherine H. Tyhurst, 1976 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of J^KAAVQ^6 tiG^j M(\ $DOlV> h&y The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date tO / f V C Supervisor: Dr. Pierre Maranda i ABSTRACT This t h e s i s i s a p r e l i m i n a r y attempt to c o n s o l i d a t e m a t e r i a l s p e r t a i n i n g to Lau f i s h taxonomy (North M a l a i t a , Solomon I s l a n d s ) . Data u t i l i z e d ;come from two sources: those c o l l e c t e d by Maranda and Maranda (1966-1968) and those c o l l e c t e d by the author during a two-month f i e l d p e r i o d (October-December 1975). Two approaches to the a n a l y s i s of t e r m i n o l o g i c a l systems are explored f i r s t . A general d e s c r i p t i o n of the Lau Taxonomic Universe f o l l o w s i n which the major components are i n d i c a t e d . The focus then s h i f t s to a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of Lau F i s h taxonomy. M a t e r i a l presented here takes three forms: (1) A comprehensive l i s t of f i s h i d e n t i f i e d according to b i o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . (2) A summary of data obtained from informants' Memory L i s t s of f i s h names. The problems of taxonomic i n c l u s i o n and equivalence are considered. (3) A d i s c u s s i o n of those data t r a d i t i o n a l l y regarded as "Non-Taxonomic Terminology". D i s t i n c t i v e Features are then considered and some examples given. Upper Level Taxa are discussed f i r s t . F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the Features and C r i t e r i a f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Lower Level Taxa are o u t l i n e d . Suggestions f o r f u r t h e r i n q u i r y and p r o p o s i t i o n s concerning a n a l y t i c a l avenues c o n s t i t u t e the f i n a l p o r t i o n of t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgement i v Preface v I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Chapter 1: T h e o r e t i c a l Background and Methodology 3 Chapter 2: Ethnographic Context 29 Chapter 3: R e s u l t s 36 Chapter 4: Concluding Remarks 65 B i b l i o g r a p h y 78 Appendices 82 i i i LIST OF TABLES Table I Table I I Table I I I Table of F i s h Categories (Major S u b d i v i s i o n s of Taxon jLa.) and Constituent U n i t s I d e n t i f i a b l e i n M a r s h a l l (1964) 53 Subcategories of Upper L e v e l Taxon i a Obtained From Informants' 'Classed' Memory L i s t s 59 F i s h D i s t i n g u i s h e d by Sex, L i f e Stage, S i z e , E t c . 63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Diagram Representing the Ordering of Labels i n a Taxonomic Hierarchy by I n c l u s i o n and Contrast Figure 2 A Diagrammatic Scheme of U n i v e r s a l Taxonomic Category Types Based on Conclusions of B e r l i n (1971), and B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven (1971) 10 Figure 3 A Diagrammatic Representation of Major Domains and S u b d i v i s i o n s of the Lau Taxonomic Universe 39 Figure 4 Major S u b d i v i s i o n s of the Four Domains of the Lau Taxonomic Universe 40 Figure 5 Lau F i s h Taxonomy — L e v e l s of I n c l u s i o n 45 i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This t h e s i s was made p o s s i b l e by the help and encouragement of a number of people. Above a l l , acknowledgement i s due to Drs. E. and P. Maranda whose i n s p i r a t i o n goes back to years of undergraduate study and through whom, the f i n a l p o s s i b i l i t y of 'going to the f i e l d ' became r e a l i z e d . I am g r a t e f u l to the Marandas and to f e l l o w students i n Anthro-pology and other d i s c i p l i n e s , whose l e t t e r s (those r e c e i v e d and those s t i l l i n t r a n s i t ) provided i n v a l u a b l e i n t e l l e c t u a l f i r s t a i d during the months i n the f i e l d . The people of Lau Lagoon and the neighbouring B a e l e l e a r e g i o n are those to whom the grea t e s t debt i s owed. They accepted me, f e d me, housed me and taught me a great deal about t h e i r language and c u l t u r e . They gave me the g i f t of t h e i r open o p i n i o n and, by p e r m i t t i n g me to par-t i c i p a t e i n many d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s , taught me the r e l a t i v i t y of time and the importance of space. In the w r i t i n g of t h i s t h e s i s , I both acknowledge t h e i r k i n d -ness and ask the g r e a t e s t t a s k I have yet to demand: that they r e c e i v e and review t h i s m a t e r i a l and that they continue t o s t r i v e f o r t h e i r i n d i -v i d u a l i t y and c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y as they have always done. V PREFACE No work of t h i s k i n d i s exhaustive however, being l i m i t e d by the time spent i n c o l l e c t i n g the m a t e r i a l , the number and competence of the informants, and f i n a l l y the f i e l d w o r k e r ' s own competence, the extent of h i s knowledge and the v a r i e t y of h i s preoccupations. ( L e v i - S t r a u s s 1962: 153) Data presented i n t h i s t h e s i s were obtained i n the course of approximately two months' f i e l d w o r k , October - December 1975, among the Lau-speaking people of North M a l a i t a , Solomon I s l a n d s . My i n t e r e s t i n doing f i e l d w o r k i n t h i s area developed during the it ti p e r i o d that I was an undergraduate student of Dr. E l l i Kongas-Maranda. Subsequently, I became a research a s s i s t a n t to Dr. P i e r r e Maranda. Dur-ing t h i s time I received i n s t r u c t i o n i n the handling of ethnographic m a t e r i a l from both d e s c r i p t i v e and a n a l y t i c a l angles. My i n t e r e s t i n Oceania, and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n M a l a i t a as a c u l t u r e area of concentrated study,became f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d . This experience encouraged me to continue f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d s t u -d i e s i n Melanesian L i n g u i s t i c s and Ethnography i n the f i r s t year of my Masters Programme at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Having thus chosen M a l a i t a as an i s o l a t e d area of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , I began to explore p o s s i b i l i t i e s of doing f i e l d w o r k there. In A p r i l 1975 I was f o r t u n a t e to be awarded the opportunity to work as a f i e l d a s s i s -tant f o r Dr. E.K. Maranda during the f o l l o w i n g autumn months. Although I v i had worked w i t h m a t e r i a l s c o l l e c t e d by Drs. E. and P. Maranda (1967-68) f o r almost a year p r e v i o u s l y , I had no working knowledge of the language and no n o t i o n of a ' l i v i n g e n t e r p r i s e ' c a l l e d a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l f i e l d w o r k . My tasks as a student and a research a s s i s t a n t were three. F i r s t , to acquire a f u n c t i o n a l knowledge of the Lau language and c u l t u r e ; second, to conduct a review of the f i r s t p u b l i c a t i o n of a Lau d i c t i o n a r y compiled by C E . Fox w i t h an i n t r o d u c t i o n by E.K. Maranda (1974); t h i r d , t o pursue c e r t a i n problems and queries concerning Lau marine taxonomy that I had encountered and that had aroused my p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t . While the p r e s e n t a t i o n of m a t e r i a l p e r t a i n i n g to the l a t t e r concern i s the primary aim of t h i s t h e s i s , i t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , r e s t s upon the r e s u l t s of the f i r s t two tasks and, as such, i s a document of my e n t i r e f i e l d experience. 1 INTRODUCTION The c a p a c i t y , even the i m p e r a t i v e of the human mind to order the events of the e x t e r n a l world i n t o some sor t of i n t e l l i g i b l e system i s w i d e l y recognized ( c f . T y l e r 1969: 3-9). The growth of c o g n i t i v e anth-ropology, w i t h i t s focus on the o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s underlying behaviour, i t s concern w i t h typology and d e f i n i t i o n , i s a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of t h i s recog-n i t i o n . The s h i f t i n a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l emphasis that has accompanied t h i s growth i s evidenced by a new p e r s p e c t i v e and t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . I t i s assumed th a t each people has a unique system f o r p e r c e i v i n g and organ-i z i n g m a t e r i a l phenomena — t h i n g s , events, behaviour, and emotions (Good-enough 1957). The object of study i s not these m a t e r i a l phenomena them-s e l v e s , but the way they are organized i n the minds of men. C u l t u r e s then are not m a t e r i a l phenomena; they are c o g n i t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s of m a t e r i a l phenomena (T y l e r 1969: 3). As an i n t e g r a l part of t h i s approach, i n t e r e s t i n a b o r i g i n a l taxonomic systems has grown r a p i d l y over the l a s t two decades sand numer-ous documented d e s c r i p t i o n s of n a t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems have appeared (see Turner 1974; B e r l i n , Breedlove and L a u g h l i n , 1970; B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven, 1966; B e r l i n , 1968; Metzger and W i l l i a m s , 1962; Bulmer, 1967, 1970; Bulmer and T y l e r , 1968; C o n k l i n , 1954; Diamond, 1965; B r i g h t and B r i g h t , 1965; Frake, 1961; Goss, 1967; P r i c e , 1967). To my knowledge, the only d e t a i l e d study of n a t i v e z o o l o g i c a l taxonomies that e x i s t s has been done by Bulmer (1967, 1970) amongst the New Guinea Karam peoples. I n t e r e s t 2 seems to have been pr i m a r i l y directed to the c o l l e c t i o n and ana l y s i s of ethnophytotaxonomic materials. Plants, i t has been claimed, provide a concrete, d i s c r e t e and v i r t u a l l y universal semantic domain and for t h i s reason are exceptionally useful subjects f o r cognitive studies (Turner, 1974). Many other cognitive systems have also been explored, p a r t i c u l a r l y 1 kinship. Further studies i n the area of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of natural organisms are, i n my opinion, needed to complete such a corpus f o r two reasons. 1. Such studies have been long neglected. Botanical c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s have been favoured, perhaps p a r t l y due to an ethnocentric bias concerning the s t a b i l i t y , immobility and a g r i c u l t u r a l import of such organisms. 2. Animals (used here generally to describe a l l organisms that are neither humans nor plants) constitute a unique area of human cognition. Tyhurst (.1974), Levi-^Strauss (1963, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1971), and many others have elaborated t h i s point. The present thesis i s an attempt to consolidate materials c o l l e c -ted concerning Lau marine taxonomy,to o f f e r some general observations a r i s i n g from a preliminary study of the data and, i n the context of two a n a l y t i c a l approaches, to propose some areas and problems f o r further i n -ve s t i g a t i o n and concentrated examination. 1. Kinship has been the area most thoroughly examined (Wallace and Atkins, 1960; Conklin, 1964; Lounsbury, 1964; Romney and d'Andrade,1964; Atkins, 1960). 3 CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY The approach adopted i n t h i s study has been i n f l u e n c e d and d i r e c -ted by the methods and o r i e n t a t i o n s of a number of researchers who have described other f o l k taxonomic systems or who have discussed at l e n g t h the problems faced i n the study of c o g n i t i o n . i In t h i s chapter, ., two e t h n o s c i e n t i f i c approaches a r e P r e ~ sented b r i e f l y f i r s t . A d i s c u s s i o n of c e r t a i n notions of c r i t i c a l impor-tance to t h i s study f o l l o w s . A d e f i n i t i o n of the terminology and a d e l i n e a t i o n of the methodology u l t i m a t e l y adopted conclude the s e c t i o n . The problem of the discov e r y of f o l k c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s by r e l a t i v e l y r i g o r o u s e l i c i t i n g techniques and the und e r l y i n g aim of ac h i e v i n g a b e t t e r understanding of l e x i c a l / s e m a n t i c f i e l d s have been questions of debate among authors f o r more than a decade. Many researchers i n t h i s f i e l d have st r e s s e d the inadequacy of past s t u d i e s and have t r i e d to o u t l i n e more systematic procedures f o r the c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s of ethnosemantic data. The growing concern w i t h typology and d e f i n i t i o n , w i t h d i s c o v e r -ing how d i f f e r e n t peoples organize and use t h e i r c u l t u r e s (Ty l e r 1969: 3 ) , i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e of t h i s p eriod i n anthropology. A wealth of a r t i c l e s and indeed., f u l l l e n g t h volumes, have been w r i t t e n c o n t r a s t i n g and d i s c u s s i n g aspects of the nature and e v o l u t i o n of a "New Ethnography" (var-i o u s l y known as c o g n i t i v e anthropology, ethnoscience, formal and componen-t i a l a n a l y s i s , ethnosemantics, s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s , and so on) i n r e l a t i o n to 4 other t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s w i t h i n anthropology. Hence, n e i t h e r the ep i s t e m o l o g i c a l nor the h i s t o r i c a l aspects of t h i s approach w i l l be d i s -cussed at t h i s time. The c e n t r a l aim of ethnoscience i s to penetrate beyond mere m a t e r i a l and v e r b a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of a c u l t u r e to the l o g i c a l nexus of unde r l y i n g concepts, to present accurate d e s c r i p t i o n s of p a r t i c u l a r c o g n i -t i v e systems, or of p a r t i c u l a r semantic domains w i t h i n l a r g e r networks of meaning ( c f . below). The major assumption here i s that each c u l t u r e c o n s i s t s of a set of l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s which order r e l e v a n t phenomena. I t i s not the ma n i f e s t a t i o n s of m a t e r i a l phenomena but the l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s of order-ing that should c o n s t i t u t e the p r i n c i p a l area of i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r the an t h r o p o l o g i s t as "an adequate ethnographic d e s c r i p t i o n of the c u l t u r e of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i e t y presupposes a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the communication system and of the c u l t u r a l l y d efined s i t u a t i o n s i n which a l l r e l e v a n t d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the system occur" (Goodenough, 1957). They can be der i v e d "by an ethnographic technique which d e s c r i b e s c u l t u r e s from the i n s i d e out, r a t h e r than from the outside i n . Categories of d e s c r i p t i o n are i n i t i a l l y d e r i v e d from r e l e v a n t features i n a c u l t u r e r a t h e r than from the l e x i c o n of anthropology" ( T y l e r , 1969: 20). 5 1 Part I - Representational A n a l y s i s E t h n o s c i e n t i f i c procedures have been d e t a i l e d as f o l l o w s : CI) An inventory i s made of terminology w i t h i n a given semantic domain; C2) Information i s assembled on each l i n g u i s t i c form as a sem-a n t i c c l a s s of o b j e c t s ; C3) When p o s s i b l e , the c l a s s i f i c a t o r y dimensions imposed upon the f i e l d by n a t i v e l i n g u i s t i c usage are i s o l a t e d ; (4) Through a s e r i e s of c u l t u r a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e questions, sem-a n t i c d i s t i n c t i o n s (components) are e s t a b l i s h e d which apportion the terms i n t o s e t s and subsets, such that every item i n the domain i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from every other item by at l e a s t one component, and i s at the same time r e -l a t e d to every other item by i n c l u s i o n at some l e v e l i n a broader taxonomic category; and (5) A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s erected based on the successive i n c l u -s i o n and e x c l u s i o n of each defined item w i t h i n the domain (Lounsbury, 1963; B u r l i n g , 1964; B e r l i n , 1968). The procedures o u t l i n e d are accomplished through i n t e r v i e w s w i t h p r e f e r a b l y a l a r g e number of n a t i v e speakers. In order that there be no c u l t u r a l b i a s or misunderstandings on the part of the ethnographer, the i n t e r v i e w s should be conducted e n t i r e l y i n the language of the n a t i v e informant ( C o n k l i n , 1962; Werner, 1967), and care should be taken not to b i a s the informant's responses by a l l u s i o n s to other taxonomic systems f a m i l i a r to the researcher. (Turner 1974: 13) The most simple programme of e l i c i t a t i o n i s based on the conven-t i o n a l ' t r e e - l i k e ' a s s o c i a t i o n of successive or l i n k e d questions and responses. T h i s , i t i s claimed, enables an i n t e r v i e w e r to begin w i t h any given item w i t h i n a domain and to p o s i t i o n i t h o r i z o n t a l l y or v e r t i c a l l y i n a taxonomic scheme. I d e a l l y , t h i s method i n v o l v e s a downward progression through the taxonomic h i e r a r c h y by (given X as the i n i t i a l segregate w i t h i n a c u l t u r a l l y 1. I have chosen t h i s term here f o r purposes of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t h i s approach to the d e s c r i p t i o n of taxonomic systems from componential a n a l y s i s which w i l l be discussed l a t e r . 6 defined domain) asking "what kinds of X are there?" Given answers, e.g., X'jX'^X'" each d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by at l e a s t one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , one may pro-ceed i n the same fashion, asking successive questions about X', X" and X"', u n t i l the lower order taxa are established and explored. Then, i n order to investigate the p o s i t i o n of X within a l a r g e r , more i n c l u s i v e taxon, one may ask "what i s X a kind of?" and i n order to investigate hy-p o t h e t i c a l congeners, "what other kinds of X are there?" This questioning should, t h e o r e t i c a l l y , generate a taxonomic hierarchy which can be "mapped" producing a representation s i m i l a r to (though generally much more complex than the following (see Figure 1). It i s a uni-dimensional representation of postulated r e l a t i o n s between the taxa (t h e i r l a b e l s , and i m p l i c i t l y , t h e i r underlying features) of a f o l k taxonomy. It describes p i c t o r i a l l y a system of monolexemically l a b e l l e d f o l k segregates r e l a t e d by h i e r a r c h i c i n c l u s i o n between l e v e l s and by exclusion and contrast at a single l e v e l (Conklin, 1957, 1962; Lawrence, 1951; Simpson, 1961; Frake, 1962). Some of the a d d i t i o n a l requirements of "model" or "regular" tax-onomic systems (Woodger, 1952; Gregg, 1954; Simpson, 1961; Conklin, 1962) are: CI) at the highest l e v e l , there i s only one minimal ( l a r g e s t , unique) taxon which includes a l l other taxa i n the system; (2) the number of l e v e l s i s f i n i t e and uniform throughout the system; (3) there i s no overlap (that i s , taxa at the same l e v e l are always mutually exclusive!. 7 Figure 1: Diagram Representing the Ordering of Labels i n a Taxonomic Hierarchy by I n c l u s i o n and Contrast  8 The major assumption u n d e r l y i n g t h i s ' r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s ' i s that c a t e g o r i e s i n a f o l k taxa are merely l o g i c a l l y equivalent u n i t s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d o n ly by t h e i r c o n t r a s t i n g h i e r a r c h i c a l s t a t u s (Bulmer, 1967);, th a t f o l k taxonomies can be described by a s i m i l a r h i e r a r c h y of taxonomic types of v a r y i n g l e v e l s of s p e c i f i c i t y as can "our" s c i e n t i f i c system of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , although f o l k taxonomies seldom e x h i b i t the systematic and more h i g h l y s p e c i f i c l e v e l s of d i f f e n t i a t i o n corresponding to "spe-c i e s " and " v a r i e t y " . For those who adopt t h i s model of simple s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y , the consequent neglect of the question of r u l e s of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and of the nature of the conceptual and perceptual processes involved i n c l a s s i f y -ing n a t u r a l organisms and t h e i r preoccupation w i t h the question of the 1:1 correspondence between s c i e n t i f i c species and t e r m i n a l f o l k taxa i s r e g r e t -t a b l e but comprehensible. B e r l i n (1971) and B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven (1971), according to t h i s framework, have d e l i n e a t e d s i x v a r y i n g l e v e l s of s p e c i f i c i t y shown by f o l k phytotaxa i n t o s i x major types of c a t e g o r i e s , which,they i n d i c a t e can be found i n the l e x i c o n s of a l l languages. These, l a b e l l e d i n h i e r a r c h i c a l sequence from most general to most s p e c i f i c are: UNIQUE BEGINNER: This i s the highest l e v e l i n a given domain, i n c l u d i n g a l l other c a t e g o r i e s . In the case of phytotaxonomies, t h i s i s the taxonomic category i m p l i e d by the term " p l a n t " . 9 MAJOR LIFE-FORM: Only a few a b s t r a c t general t a x a , such as " t r e e " , " v i n e " , and "herb", are included at t h i s l e v e l . They cover the m a j o r i t y of l e s s e r ranked taxa i n the system, although some important generics are not included i n li f e - r f o r m taxa (see Bulmer, 1967). INTERMEDIATE: Taxa a t t h i s l e v e l , c a l l e d "covert c a t e g o r i e s " ( B e r l i n , Breedlove, and Raven, 1968), are r a t h e r ephemeral and ambiguous i n d e f i n i t i o n . They are more s p e c i f i c than l i f e - f o r m taxa and more general than generic t a x a , but show v a r y i n g de-grees of s p e c i f i c i t y w i t h i n t h i s range. When they do e x i s t , they are not u s u a l l y l a b e l l e d l i n g u i s t i c a l l y . GENERIC: The greatest number of taxa are included a t t h i s l e v e l w i t h i n any ethnobiotaxonomy, u s u a l l y about 500 (Raven, B e r l i n , and Breedlove, 1971). They are l i n g u i s t i c a l l y recognized as the usu-a l "names" of d i f f e r e n t kinds of p l a n t s . They correspond gen-e r a l l y to our E n g l i s h f o l k taxonomic concepts of "oak", "colum-b i n e " , "apple", and "squash". SPECIFIC: This i s a l e s s common type of category than generic. S p e c i f i c taxa c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y e x i s t as sets of a few members w i t h i n a given generic (e.g., "red oak", "white oak"). VARIETAL: This l e v e l i s recognized only o c c a s i o n a l l y i n f o l k phytotaxonomies, u s u a l l y f o r plant types of c r i t i c a l c u l t u r a l importance, such as c u l t i v a t e d p l a n t s (e.g., peppers, beans, c o r n ) . ( B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven, 1971, c i t e d i n Turner, 1974) These can be represented diagrammatically as i n Figure 2. The n o t i o n of " l i f e form", i t should be noted, i s a concept bor-rowed from botany. I t was f i r s t employed by C. Raunkiaer i n a communication to the Danish B o t a n i c a l Society December 1903. He d e l i n e a t e s the three f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a as a b a s i s on which to con s t r u c t a l i f e - f o r m c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 1. The character must, i n the f i r s t p l a c e , be e s s e n t i a l . . . . 2. I t must be f a i r l y easy to use so that we may e a s i l y see i n nature t o which l i f e - f o r m a pla n t belongs. 3. I t must represent a s i n g l e aspect of the p l a n t . . . . (Raunkiaer, 1934) 10 Figure 2: A Diagrammatic Scheme of U n i v e r s a l Taxonomic Category Types Based on Conclusions of B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven (1971). 11 The problems I envisage i n a p p l y i n g t h i s concept i n the study of n a t i v e taxonomic systems are two: f i r s t , according to Raunkiaer and other modern b o t a n i s t s , the determination of those "dominant" o r . " g e n e r a l " c l a s s e s that can be included i n the " l i f e - f o r m s " of a p a r t i c u l a r geogra-phic area i s , i n a sense, a r b i t r a r y , depending on the d i s c r e t i o n of the i n v e s t i g a t o r . Secondly, how does one determine the n a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s that belong to the l i f e - f o r m l e v e l of s p e c i f i c i t y i f they are not a r t i c u l a t e d v e r b a l l y , nor coded l i n g u i s t i c a l l y by the n a t i v e population? 12 Part II - Componential Analysis 1 Another 'representation' of taxonomic systems i s based on the analysis of a l e x i c a l domain with primary reference to the components or features of meaning underlying i t . In other words, the primary u n i t s of analysis are the semantic features of taxonomic u n i t s . The main objec-t t i v e of t h i s approach i s to discover the rules f o r determining the c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s °f taxonomic segregates, not merely the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the segregates themselves. The method by which the in v e s t i g a t o r : 1. searches for the dimensions of meaning underlying the cho-sen semantic domain and 2. maps the values on these dimensions (that i s the features of meaning) onto the set of previously selected lexemes (Kay 1966) i s known as componential a n a l y s i s . This method, f i r s t described i n r e l a t i o n to cognit i v e sys-tems by Goodenough (1956), and subsequently expanded to the an a l y s i s of kinship and other terminological systems (Lounsbury, 1956; Conklin, 1962; Frake, 1962) has frequently been discussed i n r e l a t i o n to the study of taxonomic systems (Sturtevant, 1964; Wallace, 1962; Spradley, 1972; Turner, 1. The term "representation" here i s used to designate the formal desc r i p -t i o n of a taxonomy. As taxonomies, paradigms and trees can be regarded as three d i f f e r e n t kinds of semantic structure, paradigms and trees can be used to r e f e r to two d i f f e r e n t kinds of representations of a taxonomic system. Thus, the discussion here i s confined to what have been described as tree structures and paradigmatic structures "with perfect taxonomy" (see Kay, 1966, for a f u l l discussion of these d i f -ferences) . 13 1974). In the l a t t e r context, three stages or "phases of a n a l y s i s " have been a r t i c u l a t e d by Psathas (1968): (1) GENERATING the components of a c e r t a i n domain w i t h i n the 1 taxonomic system by e l i c i t a t i o n . Native informants are presented w i t h a " s u b s t i t u t i o n frame" which they can complete with numerous p o s s i b l e r e s -ponses. The names (or "terms" as they are c a l l e d ) used by the respondents to c a t e g o r i z e v a r i o u s o b j e c t s are recorded at the same time they are pre-2 seated w i t h a " s t i m u l u s - o b j e c t " presumably belonging to that domain. (2) ORGANIZING the terms belonging to the domain i n question i n t o a taxonomy of sub-categories using the p r i n c i p l e s of i n c l u s i o n of reference and i n c l u s i o n by c o n t r a s t . Important concepts at t h i s stage of 3 a n a l y s i s are "segregate", " c o n t r a s t s e t " and "lexeme". A t e r m i n o l o g i c a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d a r r a y o f o b j e c t s i s a segregate (Conklin 1954, 1962; Louns-bury, 1956; Frake, 1962). A c o n t r a s t set has been defined as a s e r i e s of t e r m i n o l o g i c a l l y contrasted segregates which occur i n the same environment (Frake, 1962) or c u l t u r a l l y r e l e v a n t domain ( S t u r t e v a n t , 1964). Segregates i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a s t sets are r e l a t e d by i n c l u s i o n i n a taxonomy. Thus, 1. The term domain i s used here to r e f e r to the t o t a l semantic range of a *=• group of lexemes which, i n a given c u l t u r a l l y r e l e v a n t context share at l e a s t one fe a t u r e i n common. A 'domain' i s thus very p l a s t i c , i f not a r b i t r a r y , i n terms of semantic extension as, according to t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , i t s boundaries are chosen by the i n v e s t i g a t o r according to h i s own intended range of i n t e r e s t and i n q u i r y (as i m p l i e d by the un-f o r t u n a t e use of the verb "generating"). 2. For example, given the domain of colour and the stimulus object a colour sample, the question frame might be: The co l o u r o f t h i s i s c a l l e d 3. A d i s c u s s i o n of some of the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these concepts f o l l o w s (see below). 14 these methodological notions of i n c l u s i o n and contrast enable one to con-s t r u c t a taxonomic arrangement of terms which i n d i c a t e the structure of a p a r t i c u l a r domain of cognitive choices. (3) Componential a n a l y s i s , however, seeks not merely to discern some structure i n a domain of cognitive choices (that i s , to compile a mere l i s t of known members of a category), but to define the un i t s (words) that contrast with one another i n terms of a set of i n t e r s e c t i n g features, the 1 dimensions of contrast. This f i n a l phase of componential a n a l y s i s involves a determination of the components or rules that are instrumental i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r term to some object, i n the placing of d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l i within p a r t i c u l a r segregates or contrast sets (Burling, 1964). The paradigm i s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c representation or "mapping" of these d e f i n i n g a t t r i b u t e s i n terms of the lexemes t h e i r i n t e r s e c t i o n describes (Tyler, 1969; H a r r i s , 1971). The problem that a r i s e s at t h i s point concerns the presence of two contrasting (though infrequently d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ) objectives of resear-chers applying t h i s a n a l y t i c framework. On the one hand, the ethnographer assumedly searches f o r a set of rul e s which (on the basis of a s t i p u l a t e d set of contrastive semantic dimen-sions that are represented i n the terminological system) would unambiguously 1. Hymes (1961) also makes the d i s t i n c t i o n between these two "phases" of analysis as he contrasts the " s o r t i n g " of terms with the "assignment" of semantic features to the units being sorted. 15 s t a t e the c r i t e r i a by which a p a r t i c u l a r term could be a p p l i e d to some ob-j e c t . In t h i s case the ' t e s t ' f o r the u t i l i t y of the a n a l y s i s has been the accuracy w i t h which i t can ' p r e d i c t ' such naming. On the other hand, the an a l y s t purports to augment an understanding of the c r i t e r i a by which the n a t i v e speakers themselves decide what term to use f o r a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t . Many e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l c r i t i c i s m s concerning the st a t e d ' o b j e c t i -v i t y ' of the componential approach have been r a i s e d and debated. These 1 debates concerning the c o n t r a d i c t o r y nature of componential a n a l y s i s l e a d to a controversy i n both theory and p r a x i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the context of 2 i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of taxonomic systems. I t i s beyond the scope of t h i s the-s i s to comment i n d e t a i l on p o i n t s r a i s e d i n the course of these d i s c u s -s i o n s . I w i l l , however, i n d i c a t e b r i e f l y f i v e i s s u e s of p a r t i c u l a r r e l e -vance to t h i s study: (1) The n o t i o n of " c o n t r a s t s e t s " i n v o l v i n g b i n a r y d i s t i n c t i o n s between d e f i n i n g features has long been regarded as a necessary property of 3 taxonomic systems. 1. Which r a i s e s the question amongst others — how i s i t p o s s i b l e to give an accurate emic d e s c r i p t i o n of a peoples' taxonomic system i f the analy-t i c a l framework presupposes such a high degree of p r e - s t r u c t u r i n g and e t i c deduction? 2. See Turner, 1974, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of problems encountered i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of componential a n a l y s i s i n a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d s i t u a t i o n . 3. For example the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e i s given by Frake (1962) as the " D e f i n -i n g A t t r i b u t e s of the Contrast Set of Stem Habit i n the Subanun P l a n t Taxonomy". Contrast Set , Dimensions of Contrast Woodiness R i g i d i t y  gayu 'woody p l a n t s ' W R si g b e t 'herbaceous p l a n t s ' W R belagen 'vines' R 16 This tendency to confine componential a n a l y s i s to b i n a r y d i s t i n c -t i o n s , w h i l e f r e q u e n t l y a s c r i b e d to the ' a e s t h e t i c 1 q u a l i t y of such an arrangement, ( B u r l i n g , 1964), a l s o , I b e l i e v e , stems from two a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s : f i r s t , from o r i g i n a l and founding a p p l i c a t i o n of componential a n a l y s i s t o k i n s h i p systems i n which t h i s b i n a r y d i s t i n c t i o n between c r i -1 t i c a l f e a t u r e s has long been accepted as an o p e r a t i v e p r i n c i p l e ; second, from the two dimension l i m i t a t i o n imposed on diagrammatic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s which has been embedded i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the paradigm (see Stu r t e v a n t , 1964, i n Spradley, 1972: 141-142). (2) A d e f i n i t i o n of the term lexeme, as i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y i s : a segregate whose meaning cannot be p r e d i c t e d from a knowledge of i t s mor-p h o l o g i c a l c o n s t i t u e n t s . The determination of the lexemic status of a term r e q u i r e s , how-ever, a thorough a n a l y s i s o f the d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s of meaning of the term and i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s (Goodenough, 1956; Frake, 1962). Such an a n a l y s i s of the c r i t e r i a f o r p l a c i n g o b j e c t s i n t o d i s t i n c t c a t e g o r i e s can come only a f t e r the term, together w i t h those c o n t r a s t i n g terms r e l e v a n t to i t s use, has been i s o l a t e d as a segregate l a b e l . The a n a l y s i s of the c r i t e r i a — the components of meaning that determine category membership — i s however, regarded as the f i r s t o b j e c t i v e i n the f i n a l and most c r i t i c a l phase of 1. For example, the f o l l o w i n g model i s found i n the componential d e f i n i t i o n of almost every k i n s h i p study a p p l y i n g t h i s method of a n a l y s i s : Contrast Set Dimensions of Contrast Generation + 1 + 2 0 -1 -2 Sex M F L i n e a l i t y L i n e a l C o l l a t e r a l 17 componential a n a l y s i s . Thus, the p o s s i b i l i t y of the r e c u r s i v e or redundant nature of the semantic range of a f o l k segregate i s defined out of the system. The focus i s on i s o l a t i n g the segregates, determining co n t r a s t sets and i n c l u s i v e r e l a t i o n s . Then, presupposing the necessary ex i s t e n c e of a lexeme, one proceeds to examine the nature of lexemes — to d e l i n e a t e the r u l e s of a s s i g n i n g c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s to lexemes — by examining t h e i r c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s . 1 I f you presuppose lexemes e x i s t , they can always be found. (3) A c r i t i c i s m f r e q u e n t l y l e v i e d against componential a n a l y s i s i s t h a t , even when pr o p e r l y conducted, i t y i e l d s only one of s e v e r a l d i f -f e r e n t and p o s s i b l e models of the semantic s t r u c t u r e of a t e r m i n o l o g i c a l system, each of which can a c c u r a t e l y account f o r the l e x i c a l items w i t h i n the system. There i s a v i r t u a l l y i n f i n i t e number of ways a l e x i c a l set can be componentially d i v i d e d . (Colby, 1966; c f . Wallace and A t k i n s , 1960; B u r l i n g , 1964; Goodenough, 1965) Componential a n a l y s i s has become (contrary to the a s p i r a t i o n s and d i r e c t i v e s o u t l i n e d by some e a r l y t h e o r e t i c i a n s i n the f i e l d ) i n c r e a s -i n g l y o r i e n t e d towards the development of d e t e r m i n i s t i c models based on the n e c e s s i t y of the determinacy of a s s o c i a t i o n s r a t h e r than becoming o r i e n t e d towards the generation of p r o b a b a l i s t i c models based on the c a r e f u l obser-v a t i o n of non-verbal and c o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n as w e l l as response e l i c i t -i n g devices a p p l i e d i n h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d and r e s t r i c t e d s o c i o - l i n g u i s t i c s i t u a t i o n s . 1. No one to my knowledge has ever explained why they should or i f they do e x i s t . Werner (1972) o f f e r s some i n t e r e s t i n g observations on the nature of lexemes and on the n o t i o n t h a t r e c u r s i v i t y and redundancy are,, perhaps, p r o p e r t i e s of a l l languages. 18 Response v a r i a t i o n s , which could h y p o t h e t i c a l l y , be incorporated into the construct of a p r o b a b i l i s t i c model presents an unsurmountable pro-blem to the execution of componential analysis (Turner, 1974; Jones, 1971; B u r l i n g , 1964). (4) An a d d i t i o n a l problem concerns the a n a l y t i c 'range' of t h i s method. " I t i s sometimes possible to analyze componentially a contrast set which forms one l e v e l of a f o l k taxonomy, but i t i s impossible to analyze i n t h i s way the whole taxonomy, even though the boundaries of the whole must define a domain: a single contrast set i s l i m i t e d to one taxonomic l e v e l " (Sturtevant, 1964; c f . Conklin, 1962«: 128, 1964; Frake, 1962). A l -most a l l componential analyses of f o l k taxonomies have been l i m i t e d to the study of upper-level segregates (e.g., Conklin, 1955; Frake, 1962; Werner, 1972; Sturtevant, 1968). The requirement of binary feature contrast has posed severe problems and raised numerous questions concerning the a p p l i -cation of componential analysis to lower-level taxa which frequently de-monstrate a multi-featured "n-ary" set of contrasting dimensions (Bulmer, 1967; Werner, 1972). Increasing s p e c i f i c i t y i n a taxonomic system appears to involve an increasing complexity of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the a t t r i -butes of the component taxa which componential analysis seems unable to 1 handle. 1. Other s p e c i f i c c r i t i c i s m s of componential analysis include the follow-ing. Componential a n a l y s i s i s s a i d to i n h i b i t comparisons between two or more cultures, since as soon as the semantic elements of a given c u l -ture are translated into terms of another c u l t u r e , they lose t h e i r d i s c r e t e and e s s e n t i a l nature (Colby, 1966; Turner, 1974). Another c r i t i c i s m r aised p a r t i c u l a r l y by B e r l i n (1971), B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven (1968) and t h e i r followers (e.g., Turner, 1974) i s that componential analysis frequently does not account for unlabelled f o l k segregates or "covert" categories. As I hare no d i r e c t experience of componential analysis i n (continued . . . .) 19 The l a s t point I wish to r a i s e i s a general one: the a c t u a l d e l i n e a t i o n of the semantic boundaries of taxa i n terms of i n c l u s i v e n e s s w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r domain c o n s t i t u t e s a problem common to both represen-t a t i o n a l and componential analyses. T h i s , however, i s e s s e n t i a l l y a meth-o d o l o g i c a l problem r e l a t i n g to the nature of the e l i c i t i n g frameworks adopted i n each case and to the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n (informant) sample. The existence of the "taxonomic equivalence" of coordinate terms i s a consequent and an i m p l i c i t assumption of both a n a l y t i c a l approaches underlying the n o t i o n of i n c l u s i v e n e s s as they d e f i n e i t , and as such, con-s t i t u t e s e s s e n t i a l l y an e p i s t e m i o l o g i c a l problem. I t i s expressed i n each case i n a d i f f e r e n t manner: (1) In a t r e e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l l l e x i c a l items occupying the same h o r i z o n t a l a x i s i n the two-dimensional space are assumed to have equal taxonomic s t a t u s . I f t h i s equivalence of taxonomic s t a t u s i s not a r t i c u -l a t e d ( e i t h e r v e r b a l l y or by l i n g u i s t i c coding) by the n a t i v e informants, I b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s an a r t i f a c t of t h i s approach — due to the ethnocen-t r i c nature of i t s b a s i c comparative model: Modern B i o l o g i c a l Taxonomy i n which a l l organisms at a s p e c i f i c l e v e l of i n c l u s i o n are rendered 'concep-1 t u a l l y e quivalent by a superordinate and a b s t r a c t concept. 1. (Continued from previous page....) terms of these c r i t i c i s m s , I o f f e r them merely on r e c o r d , as acknowledgements of l e g i t i m a t e and lengthy debates concerning the shortcomings of t h i s a n a l y t i c a l method. 1. For example a l l organisms regarded as i n d i v i d u a l species may be regarded as d i s t i n c t and unique e n t i t i e s , but they are f i r s t s p e c i e s ; wrasses, rainb o w - f i s h e s , and cods may a l l be thought of as uniquely d i f f e r e n t i a t e d groups of i n d i v i d u a l organisms (or groups of c l a s s e s of organisms), but they are a l l e q u i v a l e n t l y , b i o l o g i c a l f a m i l i e s . I f t h i s k ind of a b s t r a c -ted i n t e l l e c t u a l e n t e r p r i s e does not e x i s t a t the n a t i v e l e v e l , I suggest (Continued . . . .) 1 20 (2) In componential a n a l y s i s the d e l i n e a t i o n of the dimensions of c o n t r a s t f r e q u e n t l y r e s u l t s i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of l e x i c a l items i n t o groups which may or may not be assigned i n an a r b i t r a r y , i n t u i t i v e manner on the part of the researcher. Should balsam, hemlock and spruce be c l a s s e d together as "short needled" t r e e s (Christmas trees) as opposed to pines or should they a l l have equivalent taxonomic status? What i s the e s s e n t i a l " c o g n i t i v e " d i f f e r e n c e between hemlock and spruce? Is i t gross s i z e , type of needle, form of bark, or what? These are the types of questions which must be answered before any s i n g l e semantic a n a l y s i s can c l a i m to represent the c o g n i t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the people, or even c l a i m to be much more than an e x e r c i s e 1 of the a n a l y s t ' s imagination. 1. (Continued from previous page....) that the 'equivalence' of taxonomic st a t u s p o s t u l a t e d i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i s not j u s t i f i e d . In the context of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study, even c l a s s e s of organisms that could be i s o l a t e d as belonging to a s i m i l a r l e v e l of i n c l u s i o n , could not be regarded as 'equivalent' i n these terms. The question made no sense to my informants, and l i t t l e sense to me, at the time, and i n r e t r o s p e c t . 1. I f u l l y r e a l i z e that t h i s point r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n . To answer even the question — to what degree are, f o r example, f e a t h e r -l e s s bipeds an i n t u i t i v e n o t i o n of the Western m i n d — would I f e e l , r e q u i r e a f u l l l e n g t h paper. In t h i s context I wish merely to add that although componential a n a l y s i s i s perhaps more e x p l i c i t on t h i s p o i n t , both methods engage i n the same operation and even proponents of the componential approach seem unable to give a s u f f i c i e n t answer. 21 Part I I I - Terminology I have had considerable d i f f i c u l t y i n applying much of the d e s c r i p -t i v e terminology used by some researchers to r e f e r c o l l e c t i v e l y to the components of the v a r i o u s ' l e v e l s ' of o r g a n i z a t i o n present i n taxonomic systems to the data w i t h which I am working. Of p a r t i c u l a r problem was the scheme o u t l i n e d by B e r l i n , Breed-lo v e and Raven (1971). The category 'Unique Beginner' i s I f e e l burdened by the no t i o n of an a l l - i n c l u s i v e E n g l i s h term " p l a n t " that d e l i n e a t e s a general group-ing of organisms that are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from the r e s t of the taxonomic universe. This f e a t u r e (the d i s c r e t e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of p l a n t s from other organisms) may c o n s t i t u t e a u n i v e r s a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the l e x i c o n s of a l l languages but i t does not n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t i t u t e a formal cause (a s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e ) f o r the d i v i s i o n of the taxonomic universe i n t o semantic domains c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y (as i s evidenced i n t h i s case). I t i s impossible, f o r example, to di s c u s s the semantic dimensions of the Lau category j i a without reference to the l a r g e r , more i n c l u s i v e term a s i and to the congeners of i a w i t h i n the l a r g e r taxon ( p a r t i c u l a r l y the congener k i i k i i - see Chapter 3). I t would only be p o s s i b l e to consider the c a t e -gory i a as a 'Unique Beginner.'' i f an a r b i t r a r y and imposed framework was a p p l i e d to the Lau taxonomic system. The category 'Major L i f e - f o r m ' as defined by B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven s i m i l a r l y appears to be a concept i n a p p l i c a b l e to the Lau taxo-nomic system. There are no d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e " l i f e - f o r m markers" such as 22 those given by Turner (1974: 32). Those Lau categories corresponding to English 'glosses' that might be considered as 'Major Life-forms' (e.g., s h e l l f i s h , sharks, dolphins, t u r t l e s , e e l s , rays, etc.) constitute d i f -ferent l e v e l s of inclusiveness i n Lau taxonomy — a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which i s not consistent with the o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n of the term. Other terms frequently used to describe the v e r t i c a l dimensions of gen e r a l i z a t i o n (or s p e c i f i c a t i o n ) of a f o l k taxonomy have a broader scope of meaning and are more loos e l y defined. These include the following: "major" (or most i n c l u s i v e groupings) "primary taxa" "upper l e v e l taxa" intermediate groupings "secondary taxa" i f they are immediate subdivisions of primary taxa " t e r t i a r y . t a x a " i f they are immediate subdivisions of secondary taxa "quaternary taxa" i f they are immediate subdivisions of t e r t i a r y taxa units with no standardly named terminal taxa or smallest subdivisions regardless of t h e i r units of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n h i e r a r c h i c a l status Due to the nature of these problems, I have defined the most important d e s c r i p t i v e terms used i n t h i s paper as they are to be understood i n the context of the following discussion: Domain The t o t a l semantic range of a group of segregates which are described by the most i n c l u s i v e term possible, as indicated by the native informants. Taxon Any conceptually v a l i d category within a taxonomy, or the name of such a category. Category Any c l a s s i f i c a t o r y d i v i s i o n within the taxonomic system. 23 Class Segregate Upper L e v e l Taxon (Taxa) Lower L e v e l Taxon (Taxa) Terminal Taxon A grouping of lower order e n t i t i e s i n t o a category regarded as forming a group according to s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a . The name of any taxon i n a f o l k taxonomy. A domain and i t s major s u b d i v i s i o n s . The major s u b d i v i s i o n s , c l a s s e s and c a t e -g o r i e s of upper l e v e l taxa. Taxonomic u n i t s w i t h no standardly named s u b d i v i s i o n s r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r h i e r -a r c h i c a l s t a t u s . 24 Part i y - Method The data c o l l e c t e d during the two month pe r i o d spent i n the f i e l d were obtained i n the f o l l o w i n g ways. No formal e l i c i t i n g procedures were f o l l o w e d . I n f a c t , as my main o b j e c t i v e s were language a c q u i s i t i o n and the review of Fox's 'Lau D i c t i o n a r y ' , work done i n t h i s area was, i n comparison, somewhat i n c i d e n -t a l , although I conducted a r e g u l a r schedule of i n q u i r y . C o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h n a t i v e informants took place i n the f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n s . During the course of d a i l y sessions w i t h my primary i n f o r -mants i n which the d i c t i o n a r y r e v i s i o n and language d r i l l s took place a group of about 8-10 men and s e v e r a l c h i l d r e n would gather on the steps of the l e a f hut i n which work was going on. These men, almost a l l of whom belonged to surrounding households i n the f e r a (from time to time men from the neighbouring a r t i f i c i a l i s l a n d and others who came to o f f e r or request goods would a l s o j o i n the group) f r e q u e n t l y j o i n e d i n the con-v e r s a t i o n , commenting on the m a t e r i a l being d i s c u s s e d , o f f e r i n g t h e i r o p i n i o n s , questioning or confirming those of my p r i n c i p a l informants. O c c a s i o n a l l y , the group would be j o i n e d by a man r e t u r n i n g from a f i s h -i n g e x p e d i t i o n , b r i n g i n g w i t h him a f i s h to o f f e r as a g i f t . In the e a r l y stages of my stay i n the f i e l d , I would use t h i s as an opp o r t u n i t y to i n i t i a t e a d i s c u s s i o n of f i s h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i t h the help of m y . p r i n c i p a l informants. / 25 I would ask them to i d e n t i f y the specimen by name and to describe to me i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s to other f i s h that I had come to recognize. I would then ask the men to i d e n t i f y the f i s h ( i f i t was p o s s i b l e to f i n d a corresponding p l a t e ) i n M a r s h a l l ' s Compendium (Ma r s h a l l 1964). Whenever a "new" f i s h was brought to me I took a photograph as w e l l . Towards the middle of my p e r i o d i n Lau Lagoon I began to conduct prearranged meetings three times a week w i t h f i v e fishermen e x c l u s i v e l y to d i s c u s s f i s h specimens caught during morning f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n s . Several d i f f i c u l t i e s arose. I had access only to f i s h intended f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n to the households. Other f i s h remained i n the men's area out of my range of s c r u t i n y . The greatest number of f i s h brought i n t o the v i l l a g e were caught on market days and r e q u i r e d almost immediate prepara-t i o n , i f they were to be o f f e r e d cooked, as was most o f t e n the case. F i s h taken raw to markets were u s u a l l y d e l i v e r e d to the women j u s t p r i o r to t h e i r departure f o r the r i v e r mouths where the u s i a are l o c a t e d . In any case, as a l l f i s h caught were intended f o r consumption, i n some form, r e l a t i v e l y r a p i d p r e p a r a t i o n was necessary due to the speed of decay i n t r o p i c a l heat. Due to these f a c t o r s i t was d i f f i c u l t to conduct a lengthy d i s -cussion about the f i s h i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the specimens a c t u a l l y present. Most of the inform a t i o n I c o l l e c t e d about the p a r t i c u l a r charac-t e r i s t i c s of each named specimen, about the c r i t e r i a f o r the grouping of i n d i v i d u a l s i n t o named c l a s s e s , and about the s p e c i f i c f eatures of r e l a t e d groupings was thus obtained i n the absence of any l i v e specimens. 26 Understandably, due to the short duration of my stay, the sea-sonal a v a i l a b i l i t y of c e r t a i n v a r i e t i e s of f i s h and my l i m i t e d access to specimens, I had to r e l y on informants' memory l i s t s of f i s h names, on discussion of the Maranda and Maranda 1967-1968 Fish F i l e , on informant i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i l l u s t r a t i o n s from Marshall (1964) f o r purposes of e l i c i t i n g a d d i t i o n a l f i s h names. I also attempted, on several occasions, to question women about the naming and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of f i s h . The women expressed very l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n the subject, frequently informing me that I should ask the men as they knew much more about i t ("The men know w e l l " ) . More productive interviews with the women, however, took place as they prepared f i s h f o r markets,sorting the f i s h into " l o t s " (bata) before cooking i n the f i r e . I asked them to name the f i s h ^ t o explain to me how they recognized them and why c e r t a i n f i s h were sorted together. An i n t e r e s t i n g pattern emerged here which I s h a l l discuss l a t e r . From time to time, spontaneous evening sessions on the subject of f i s h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n would a r i s e as i n d i v i d u a l s ( i n t h i s case predominant-l y men and young boys) passed through the hut i n which I was working and noticed Marshall's volume. In these instances, I did not i n i t i a t e nor enter into the discussions. Rather, they began with a conversation between two or more men and several c h i l d r e n concerning the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of coloured i l l u s t r a t i o n s . Frequently, there would be some disagreement about the precise c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a c e r t a i n f i s h and, i n the ensuing debate, the c r i t i c a l features f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the f i s h i n question would 27 be invoked, discussed f u r t h e r and a judgement proclaimed. I tape-recorded ei g h t such conversations which I regard to be of s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r e s t . At t h i s p o i n t , however, I have only my handwritten notes as my tapes have not yet returned from the f i e l d . I t was f o l l o w i n g such encounters t h a t I s e i z e d the opportunity 1 to ask questions about other components of the Lau taxonomic universe. In a d d i t i o n to data concerning the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of " f i s h " , I a l s o c o l l e c t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of informat i o n about s h e l l f i s h , which the Lau c l a s s i f y as a separate category ( k i i k i i ) . I have numerous specimens and a r e l a t i v e l y d e t a i l e d account of taxonomic terms and a t t r i b u t e s s t i l l on t h e i r way from M a l a i t a . Due to t h i s I s h a l l not present the data at t h i s time. I f e e l , however, that s e v e r a l general observations are of s i g n i f i c a n c e to the m a t e r i a l contained i n t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n . The women i n t h i s case were my primary informants. The men r e s -ponded to my questioning about s h e l l f i s h i n a manner s i m i l a r to th a t of the women concerning f i s h . "The women know." Some i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s emerged, however, i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f f e r e d by men and women that w i l l a l s o be mentioned l a t e r . In summary, the c o g n i t i v e data r e s u l t i n g from the e l i c i t a t i o n procedures o u t l i n e d above take two forms: 1. Men seemed much more w i l l i n g to d i s c u s s these subjects i n t h i s context i n comparison to the s t r u c t u r e d d a i l y s e s s i o n s . I t was a l s o the on l y other such s o c i a l l y acceptable opportunity I had to explore the area w i t h a group of male a d u l t s i n an in f o r m a l s i t u a t i o n and to explore f u r t h e r the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i o u s types of named organisms, t h e i r seasonal v a r i a t i o n , growth f e a t u r e s , h a b i t a t s and to acq u i r e some i n -formation about f i s h i n g techniques, t e r r i t o r i e s and p r a c t i c e s . 28 1. A s e r i e s of a c t u a l Lau names a p p l i e d to d i f f e r e n t kinds of marine organisms. 2. Supplementary information i n the form of unstructured statements and opinions about r e l a t i o n s h i p s between marine organisms and about d i s -t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s c r i t i c a l to the determination of t h e i r taxonomic p o s i t i o n , d erived from i n f o r m a l conversations. 29 CHAPTER 2 ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT The Lau-speaking people of North M a l a i t a l i v e on a r t i f i c a l i s l a n d s they have b u i l t i n a lagoon (approximately 20 m i l e s long) on the north-east coast of the i s l a n d . They are p r i n c i p a l l y fishermen although they have small shore gardens s i t u a t e d on the mainland. F i s h i n g i s done by men only and s h e l l f i s h c o l l e c t i n g s o l e l y by women. The tending of garden p l o t s i s done by both sexes. Taro, kumara and yams are the p r i n c i p a l crops. P i g s , which can only be eaten by men at ceremonial occasions are kept i n r a i s e d pens b u i l t by p i l e s at the water's edge. S h e l l f i s h can be consumed only by women, w h i l e most f i s h can be eaten 1 by everyone. C e r t a i n f i s h , however, are taboo i n c e r t a i n circumstances. There are two fundamental p r i n c i p l e s which penetrate every aspect of Lau l i f e . The a x i s of n a t u r a l space — h i l l and sea — and the a x i s of s o c i a l space — male and female — are invoked i n the d e f i n i t i o n and c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n of most observable e n t i t i e s i n the e x t e r n a l world and i n the c u l -t u r a l universe r e s p e c t i v e l y . The s e l f d e f i n i t i o n of the Lau i s t o a ' i a s i , 'sea people', as opposed to neighbouring t o a ' i t o l o , ' i n l a n d d w e l l e r s ' . . . L i f e i n pagan i s l a n d s i s s t r u c t u r e d according to two determinants: women's b i o l o g i c a l rhythm and men's c u l t u r a l rhythm, the former p r i v a t e l y and the l a t t e r according to c l a n s . . . The d i v i s i o n of space i n t o male-neutral-female found i n the v i l l a g e design and i n the design of the f a m i l y house i s repeated i n the f a m i l y canoe.... (E. Kongas Maranda 1974: pp. 178, 186, 185) 1. A d i s c u s s i o n of taboo f i s h i s not w i t h i n the scope of t h i s present work as i t would i n v o l v e a d e t a i l e d examination of many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l domains i n c l u d i n g r i t e s of passage, r i t u a l s t a t e s and myth. 30 There are f i v e major conceptual zones i n the d i v i s i o n of n a t u r a l space which are named as f o l l o w s : t o l o ' h i l l s , f o r e s t , i n l a n d ' hara 'shore, gardening zone on the shore; gardens' a s i h a r a 'lagoon' a s i 'sea; d i v i d e d f i s h i n g grounds' matakwa 'deep ocean' The p r i n c i p a l e x p l o i t a t i o n zones are hara and a s i . Men and women (and grown c h i l d r e n ) garden i n hara, men f i s h i n asi....The middle zone, a s i h a r a c o n s i s t s of mai (areas exposed a t low t i d e ) where women gather s h e l l s , and f e r a ( a r t i f i c a l i s l a n d community v i l -lage) where people l i v e ( I b i d . ) . There are a l s o a number of named regions w i t h i n the zone a s i . These are used p r i m a r i l y w i t h reference to f i s h i n g — i n d e s c r i b i n g the l o -c a t i o n where a p a r t i c u l a r f i s h was caught or where i t can c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y be found: deep areas near the shore deep areas between t a a l u ' — shallow areas created by small r e e f s i n the lagoon the area of deep water j u s t outside the outer reef 'owned' f i s h i n g t e r r i t o r y The regions " t o l o " , h i l l , and matakwa, sea, are regarded as two extreme p o l e s , the d e l i m i t e r s of n a t u r a l space. Tolo and matakwa...are thought to be dangerous because they are unknown and because they are i n h a b i t e d by a l i e n s p i r i t s ( s p i r i t s of f o r e i g n clans and t r i b e s i n " t o l o " , the s p i r i t of the ocean i n matakwa) ( I b i d . , p. 181). Lau settlements are d i v i d e d i n t o three p a r t s s i m i l a r l y defined according to two extreme zones: the women's s e c l u s i o n area, maanabisi, and matakwa hara  matakwa l i u f a f o i l e a l a t a 31 the men's s e c l u s i o n area, maanabeu. The region between the two, the f e r a i s s e x u a l l y n e u t r a l . I t contains the f a m i l y houses and the v i l l a g e p l a z a and playground c a l l e d the l a b a t a . The maanabeu i s sacred and abu (taboo) to a l l women and female c h i l d r e n . " I t contains the a l t a r s , s k u l l p i t s , and other very sacred r e l i c s of the c l a n which only a p r i e s t can be i n touch, men's clubhouses named a f t e r l i n e a g e s and men's l a v a t o r i e s or "men's path" ( I b i d . , p. 182). Nets, spears, l i n e s and other f i s h i n g equipment are al s o kept there. The s i g h t of a net i s taboo to women. Men leave the maanabeu to f i s h and r e t u r n there to deposit t h e i r equipment before coming back to one of the l a n d i n g places i n the f e r a to d i s t r i b u t e the catch to t h e i r house-h o l d . I was, under the circumstances, unable to conduct a study of f i s h i n g techniques. Men would t a l k openly to me about f i s h i n g methods, but I was not permitted to watch men f i s h i n g , nor to see or touch n e t s , spears, poles or f i s h i n g gear of any ki n d . The men maintained that i t would " b r i n g them bad l u c k " and " r u i n t h e i r chances of a good catch" i f I contacted or p a r t i -c i p a t e d i n any aspects of t h e i r f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s . I t was a l s o d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about "taboo" f i s h from the men. The inf o r m a t i o n that I have was c o l l e c t e d p r i m a r i l y from women speaking w i t h me i n the women's area. F i s h are abundant i n the lagoon and i n the adjacent waters (open 1 sea). Catches of f i s h have f o u r p o s s i b l e d e s t i n a t i o n s : to be consumed by the household of the fisherman; to be d i s t r i b u t e d ( i n cases of surplus) to 1. E x c l u s i v e of l a r g e orders of f i s h d e l i v e r e d to h i l l people f o r ceremon-i a l purposes; c f . (P .'Maranda -1969). 32 1 the households of l e s s f o r t u n a t e fishermen; to be traded or s o l d f o r vege-t a b l e s i n one of the twenty-three market places s c a t t e r e d along the coast or to be given as g i f t s to h i l l f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s at market time. As the n e u t r a l or "common" v i l l a g e area, the f e r a stands i n r e l a t i o n to the two d i v i s i o n s or "po l e s " i n the sex dich o t o m i z a t i o n of Lau s o c i a l space, the market place represents the zone of convergence of h i l l and sea i n which f i s h are the p r i n c i p a l items of exchange. As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y the Lau are predominantly a f i s h i n g peo-pl e . There appears to be, on the face of i t , an undeniably c l o s e r e l a t i o n -ship between the Lau people and the products and rhythm of the sea (E.K. Maranda 1974; Ross 1974). Information c o l l e c t e d by P. Maranda (1969), however, introduces some doubt as to the c e n t r a l r o l e and hence the c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of f i s h i n Lau l i f e . This data, based on a survey of food preferences and a study of consumption r a t i o n s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the Lau p r e f e r t a r o and yam to f i s h and th a t t h e i r d i e t c o n s i s t s of between 900 and 1,300 grams of vegetables and only 140 grams of f i s h per day. Despite the apparent c o n t r a d i c t i o n that the data immediately suggests — that f i s h are not as c u l t u r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a c o l l e c t i o n of n a t u r a l organisms to the Lau as one might expect — inf o r m a t i o n I obtained from the Lau i n d i c a t e s that t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n f a c t ( a n t i t h e t i c a l l y ) r e i n f o r c e s the i n t e g r a l importance of f i s h i n r e l a t i o n to people i n Lau l i f e and thought. I a l s o was informed that the Lau p r e f e r taro and yam to f i s h . In a d d i t i o n , I was t o l d that i t was " h i l l " t a r o and yam ( i t o l o ) , marketed 1. Or to the households of men who have not gone f i s h i n g t h a t day. 33 taro and yam (e usia) that they preferred. Taro and yam from t h e i r own gardens were regarded as i n f e r i o r and only eaten " i f no h i l l taro or yam were a v a i l a b l e " or " i f they were served with f i s h " . I was given numer-ous g i f t s of raw taro, yam and kumara — a l l of which i t was emphasized, were "good g i f t s because they came from the t o l o " , from the h i l l s . I was never given taro, yam or kumara grown i n Lau gardens, unless i t was cooked and served to me with cooked f i s h . When I asked why h i l l taro, yam or kumara were regarded as superior to the Lau produce, I was always given the answer that they were 1 bigger and they were bigger because ,they came from the h i l l s . No other q u a l i t y of taro was ever mentioned i n t h i s context (that i s , i n the com-parison of h i l l to Lau t a r o ) , although of the 28 d i f f e r e n t types of taro named by the Lau of which 18 are sai d to grow only i n the h i l l s , character-i s t i c s of taste, growing season and general morphology were invoked f r e -quently as c r i t i c a l c r i t e r i a f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of taro belonging to both of the contrasted categories. The same c r i t i c a l c r i t e r i a are used for the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of f i s h (see below). I was informed, and I observed myself, that the h i l l women tend to trade taro, yam and kumara for f i s h and to s e l l other vegetables 2 and f r u i t s more frequently f o r money — Aust r a l i a n S h i l l i n g s . 1. Although I was co n s i s t e n t l y informed that h i l l taro are bigger, I could observe no systematic s i z e d i f f e r e n c e between the produce bought at the markets and grown by the h i l l people, and that from Lau gardens. 2. During my stay I at no time observed the use of the t r a d i t i o n a l cur-rency — dolphin teeth — f o r the purchase of f i s h or any other mar-ket item. 34 The Lau women a l s o seem to p r e f e r to obta i n taro and k a i through the exchange of f i s h . One woman, Sousou, informed me one day that she was short of taro and that she had th e r e f o r e i n s t r u c t e d her husband to go f i s h i n g that morning i n order to have enough f i s h to ob-t a i n the 20 al o she needed. Upon f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i n g , I discovered that she planned to take 50 A u s t r a l i a n cents to market — more than enough money to buy the de s i r e d number of taro had she wished to do so. She t o l d me that " F i s h are b e t t e r f o r taro and I can buy bananas and tobacco w i t h money ( s e l e n i ) . " She returned from the market w i t h 30 cents; ten cents were spent on Chinese cabbage, ten cents on tobacco, four f i s h were exchanged f o r twenty taro and two f i s h Cone bata) f o r one hand of bananas. I t i s my impression that there i s an unquestionable conceptual d i f f e r e n c e between h i l l and Lau taro which i s not l i n g u i s t i c a l l y coded. The h i l l taro that the Lau o b t a i n ( u n l i k e t h e i r own taro) have been, i n a l l cases, s o c i a l l y mediated by the a c t i v i t y of t h e i r exchange f o r f i s h . F i s h emerge as the p r i n c i p a l social-cum-economic operators by which not j u s t the t r a n s f e r of goods i s achieved, but t h e i r transformation a l s o . The question of the c o g n i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between market f i s h and vegetables w i l l be r a i s e d again l a t e r but, at t h i s p o i n t , I j u s t wish to s t r e s s that the question of the c u l t u r a l importance of f i s h to the Lau 35 not only In an economic or s o c i a l but i n a symbolic sense should not be posed merely i n terms of what goods they p r e f e r to consume or do consume, but i n terms of how they t h i n k about the products and the process of ob-t a i n i n g the goods of consumption. 36 . CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Par t I - The Lau Taxonomic Universe In terms of the c o l l e c t i o n of information p e r t i n e n t to t h i s the-s i s I was p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h the Lau taxonomy of marine organisms. I found, however, that i t was f i r s t necessary to e s t a b l i s h the p o s i t i o n of these phenomena w i t h i n a l a r g e r frame of reference s i n c e i t was impossible to i n v e s t i g a t e the nature and the p r i n c i p l e s of t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n 1 complete i s o l a t i o n . The data that I managed to c o l l e c t p e r t a i n i n g to taxonomic groupings other than those d e a l i n g w i t h marine l i f e ( p a r t i c u l a r l y f i s h ) are very incomplete and were not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n v e s t i g a t e d . I merely wished, given the l a c k of s u f f i c i e n t time, my l i m i t e d l i n g u i s t i c compe-tence, and the number of other tasks I had to complete, to record the r e n d i t i o n s and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s given to me by my informants concerning the general s t r u c t u r e of the Lau taxonomic universe as they construe i t . The Lau category i a was always used as a reference p o i n t i n these encounters. Thus, before d i s c u s s i n g the nature of Lau ethno-ichthyology i n d e t a i l , I s h a l l d e scribe b r i e f l y the s t r u c t u r e of the Lau taxonomic u n i -1. This e n t e r p r i s e was necessary not only f o r my purpose of attempting to e s t a b l i s h l i n g u i s t i c boundaries between groups of n a t u r a l phenomena and f o r my c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s between these component p a r t s , but f o r the Lau a l s o i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s of how the domain a s i was defined and c o n s t i t u t e d . 37 verse as I came to understand i t , i n d i c a t i n g i t s p r i n c i p a l components as they were explained to me. As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , the contrast between h i l l and sea ( t o l o and a s i ) i s a c e n t r a l p r i n c i p l e i n Lau s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n . I t a l s o emerges as the dominant dichotomy i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of almost a l l l i v i n g organisms. According to the Lau, f i s h and 'sea people' occupy the same domain, but are not t r u e congeners as toa i a s i a l s o has a weak, but marked, conceptual l i n k to the domain imola to which ' h i l l people' al s o belong. According to one of the two myths of o r i g i n of the a r t i f i c i a l i s l a n d s , these were b u i l t i n order to meet the demand f o r f i s h by the mountain people. Several i n d i v i d u a l i s l a n d s are s a i d to have o r i g i n a t e d i n the same way: r e e f s were given to new-comers from the sea by c l a n heads i n the mountains o p p o s i t e , under the p r o v i s i o n that the i s l a n d e r s would trade t h e i r catches fo r vegetables i n some s p e c i f i c market p l a c e s , and, s p e c i a l l y , t hat they would supply the clans of the i n t e r i o r w i t h f i s h f o r ceremonial purposes (Maranda 1969). I a l s o was informed of the very c l o s e a n c e s t r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Lau and the h i l l people ( s p e c i f i c a l l y the B a e l e l e a ) . The Lau t o l d me t h a t they came o r i g i n a l l y from Maanoba, a ' r e a l ' i s l a n d at the northern t i p of M a l a i t a and that they were o r i g i n a l l y l a n d - d w e l l e r s u n t i l they f l e d to the Lagoon because of f e a r t h a t they would become i n v o l v e d ("because they might be harmed") i n warfare that erupted between v a r i o u s groups of B a e l e l e a people. Even during r e n d i t i o n s such as t h i s , the Lau s t r e s s t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y . They reacted w i t h i n c r e d u l i t y to my questions concerning how they knew that they "were Lau" before they migrated to the lagoon i f , indeed, they were once i n l a n d d w e l l e r s and now acquire s e l f -38 d e f i n i t i o n from t h e i r 'sea ex i s t e n c e ' . To the Lau, these queries were senseless. The Lau themselves represented t h e i r universe g r a p h i c a l l y when e x p l a i n i n g to me how the various domains are conceptualized. F i g u r e 3 i s 1 my reproduction of these r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . In Figure 4 the major domains- and', s u b d i v i s i o n s of i .the Lau taxonomic universe are given w i t h t h e i r a ppropriate d e s c r i p t i v e 'glosses' i n E n g l i s h . I was unable to d i s c o v e r a segregate f o r domesticated p l a n t s that was l e x i c a l l y recognized although I was t o l d that t a r o , yam and kumara are not r e a l l y . ' a l . "because they are not k w a s i , ( w i l d ) " . I was a l s o unable to e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between mokotoro,crocodiles; malo, snakes; akwa'akwa,mud hoppers,and any other taxon, although I was i n -s t r u c t e d that each of these l i v e s at ("belongs to") r i v e r mouths between a s i and t o l o . I encountered s i m i l a r problems w i t h v a r i o u s marine organisms which I could not p o s i t i o n taxonomically. Ramela, sea cucumbers; bebero, s t a r f i s h ; b i b i n u , sea u r c h i n s ; u r a , c r a y f i s h ; k a r u , land crabs; ua, sea-crabs, are a l l names f o r n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g organisms f o r which I could e s t a b l i s h no c o n s i s t e n t l y defined taxonomic s t a t u s . According to the women, ramela, bebero, b i b i n u , ura, a l l belong to the category k i i k i i , s h e l l f i s h , although they were regarded as co n c e p t u a l l y d i s t i n c t from other s h e l l f i s h 1. These drawings were made i n f o r m a l l y by four men as a device f o r i l l u s -t r a t i n g t h e i r remarks. As they t a l k e d , they would draw w i t h t h e i r hands i n the a i r , i n the sand or on paper, the general four-component f i g u r e I have reproduced here. . I have taken the l i b e r t y to modify t h e i r graphic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s somewhat by i n d i c a t i n g some of the i n t e r n a l c o n s t i t u e n t s of the major domains. The men acknowledged the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s o f these i n t e r n a l c a t e g o r i e s i n t h e i r v e r b a l e x p l a n a t i o n s , but d i d not i l l u s t r a t e them i c o n o g r a p h i c a l l y . They d i d not, however, object to my r e n d i t i o n . On the c o n t r a r y they informed t h a t I was l e a r n -i n g q u i t e w e l l ( n i a haitamana a s i ' a n a , "she knows"). 39 Figure 3. A Diagrammatic Representation of the Major Domains and S u b d i v i -sions of the Lau Taxonomic Universe Taxonomic s t a t u s not determined. •«•••«•• Conceptually v a l i d taxon e x i s t s which i s not named i n Lau. See t e x t . Agalo n i a s i , a malevolent s p i r i t i n / o f the sea and baekwa i a s i , a name r e f e r r i n g to the magic of sharks used to overcome the d e l e -t e r i o u s h i l l magic of baekwa i t o l d , a magical h i l l snake, are regarded by the Lau as belonging to the domain a s i as are a l l marine organisms. As the Lau s t a t e that both of these are d i s t i n c t from " l i v i n g " sea creatures t h e i r taxonomic s t a t u s i s i n question and beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s . Figure 4: Major S u b d i v i s i o n s of the Four Domains of the Lau Taxonomic Universe E n g l i s h Major E n g l i s h A d d i t i o n a l E n g l i s h Domain Gloss S u b d i v i s i o n s Gloss Subdivisions Gloss Imola 'human being' toa i t o l o ' h i l l people' 'person' toa i a s i 'sea people' A s i 'sea'; 'sea toa i a s i 'sea people' wat er' unnamed k i i k i i s h e l l f i s h Approx. 30 major sub-categories-not d i s -cussed i n t h i s t h e s i s ' i a f i s h 4 major subcategories: k i r i o - dolphins baekwa - sharks fonu - t u r t l e s ' i a - f i s h unknown unknown Includes karu, ramela, bebebero, b i b i n u , ua, ura - see t e x t manu i a s i 'sea b i r d s ' The subcategories of ngwa,were,not i n v e s t i g a t e d i n d e t a i l . The f o l -lowing kinds of organisms, however, were found to belong i n t h i s c l a s s : chickens, h i l l t u r t l e s , r a t s , p i g s , dogs, cats. ' a l ' t r e e s , p l a n t s , shrub s' manu i t o l o ' h i l l b i r d s ' Tolo ' h i l l ' ; ' l a n d ' t o a i a s i ' h i l l people' ngwa 'creatures that crawl on land' Continued 4>-O Figure 4 (Continued . . . .) E n g l i s h Major E n g l i s h Domain Gloss S u b d i v i s i o n s Gloss Manu 'creatures that f l y ' ; ' b i r d s ' ; ' f l y i n g i n s e c t s ' manu i t o l o ' h i l l b i r d manu i a s i 'sea b i r d s A d d i t i o n a l Subdivisions E n g l i s h Gloss 42 that are (have) karongo, s h e l l s . According to the men, however, these four organisms were n e i t h e r k i i k i i , karongo nor i a — they were respec-t i v e l y ramela, bebero, b i b i n u and ura. The p o s s i b i l i t y of the exi s t e n c e of a "covert category" ( B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven 1968) or "covert c a t e g o r i e s " encompassing these organisms i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e , but much f u r -ther i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s necessary to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r taxonomic s t a t u s i n r e l a t i o n to each other and to other forms of marine l i f e . Another point t h a t emerged during t h i s course of i n q u i r y i s , I f e e l , worth mentioning. I t i s my impression that k i i k i i and ^ a con-s t i t u t e a co n c e p t u a l l y v a l i d taxon that i s not named. There are many 1 words f o r "some" i n Lau, many of which are o r g a n i s m - s p e c i f i c . The word gwe or more o f t e n kwe, i s l i m i t e d to f i s h and to s h e l l f i s h . T his may a l s o be a f e a t u r e of Lau male and female semantics as I never heard a man use the word i n reference to k i i k i i . He would, i n v a r i a b l y , use the p l u r a l s u f f i x - g i . I a l s o have the impression, however, that there i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n -ship between the use of the term "some" i n s p e c i f i c contexts (that i s , when i t i s used to r e f e r to those organisms to which i t i s l i m i t e d ) and to the idea t h a t the organism(s) named have been caught, gathered, p i c k e d , c o l l e c -t e d , e t c . , f o r a purpose ( f o r example, e a t i n g , marketing, d i s t r i b u t i n g and so on). I f t h i s impression i s j u s t i f i e d , men would never use the term gwe i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to s h e l l f i s h i n any case, as f o r men, s h e l l f i s h are taboo. 1. I i n c l u d e here words that mean, l i t e r a l l y , " t en" i n E n g l i s h , but t h a t can a l s o be used, i n Lau, to r e f e r to "a number o f " s p e c i f i c t h i n g s . 43 As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , much f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , based on a r i g o r o u s l y defined and s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a p p l i e d p r o t o c o l i s needed to give 1 an accurate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the Lau taxonomic universe. I have attempted here merely to provide a backdrop to the f o l l o w i n g comments that r e l a t e to a s p e c i f i c p o r t i o n of t h i s system. 1. Such a study would r e q u i r e i n f o r m a t i o n from many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l spheres i n c l u d i n g myth, economic and s o c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s , modes of production and consumption i n a d d i t i o n to v e r b a l r e n d i t i o n s and r e s -ponses to questions s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t i n g to taxonomy. A complemen-t a r y study of ' h i l l ' f o l k taxonomy would be an extremely v a l u a b l e e n t e r p r i s e as would the r e s u l t i n g comparative a n a l y s i s of the two systems. 44 1 Lau ' f i s h ' taxonomy at i t s g r e a t e s t depth has s i x d i s t i n c t 2 l e v e l s of i n c l u s i o n , f i v e of which are l e x i c a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d (see Figure 5). B i o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at the species l e v e l (according to M a r s h a l l 1964) was made f o r 230 named Lau f i s h ; 230 Lau names correspond to 275 b i o l o g i c a l species. 1008 Lau names f o r f i s h were i s o l a t e d i n a l l . A comprehensive l i s t of these names ( i n d i c a t i n g the source of t h i s information) i s given i n Appendix I (Maranda and Maranda 1967-1968) and Appendix 2 (Tyhurst 1975). Table I contains a l i s t of a l l f i s h named and organized i n t o f i f t h - l e v e l sub-categoreis by the Lau that are a l s o i d e n t i f i a b l e i n Mar-s h a l l (1964). U n i d e n t i f i e d f i s h belonging to the same category are i n d i -cated. Table I i n d i c a t e s an aspect of Lau f i s h taxonomy that may be of i n t e r e s t to some researchers i n t h i s f i e l d , but that i s ou t s i d e the scope 3 and the i n t e r e s t of t h i s i n q u i r y : i n a l l cases but two the boundaries of Lau sub-categories c o i n c i d e w i t h those of the Family l e v e l (or the Sub-Family l e v e l i f such e x i s t s ) d e l i m i t e r s of b i o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . A l l co n s t i t u e n t u n i t s named by the Lau a l s o correspond to such sub-units of b i o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Whether or not t h i s observed correspondence would be borne out i n a more comprehensive study i s not known at t h i s time as there e x i s t s to date, no adequate inventory of Solomon Is l a n d s f i s h . 1. " F i s h " here have been a r t i f i c i a l l y i s o l a t e d as a taxonomic domain and s h a l l be t r e a t e d as such f o r the purposes of c l a r i t y i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n of lower l e v e l taxa. As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , although s h e l l -f i s h c o n s t i t u t e an extremely important and c l o s e l y r e l a t e d c o g n i t i v e category, they w i l l not be discussed i n d e t a i l at t h i s time. 2. Provided the aforementioned impression that k i i k i i and ia c o n s t i t u t e a c o n c e p t u a l l y v a l i d , un-named taxon i s j u s t i f i e d . 3. These two cases are discussed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . Figure 5: Lau F i s h Taxonomy - Levels of I n c l u s i o n Domain 1 taxon 2 taxa 3 taxa 4° taxa f onu fonu ' i a * bulonga* fonu akwa* fonu b a l a * fonu f a l a t a * fonu beo* 5 taxa i a baekwa b. l e l e o * b. l e t o * b. i i i * balenge hara* a n i karongo* A s i Un-named k i r i o k i r i o robo* unubulu* usulung-walo* t a i f e * robo walade* robo o l o * gaia robo* goumudu* gwaa k i i k i i Other Marine Organisms (See Ch. 3, Part I) i a 35 named cl a s s e s (Tables I I & I I I ) gwaa- 200 named hasu* sub-categories ' i a (Tables I , I I tekwa* and I I I ) gwaa* * Terminal Taxon. 46 Part I I - Memory L i s t s As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , the c o l l e c t i o n of l i s t s of f i s h names from memory was e f f e c t e d i n response to two d i f f e r e n t kinds of questions. In the f i r s t , informants were asked simply to r e c a l l a l l the f i s h names they could at one s i t t i n g . These were recorded i n the sequence they were remem-bered. In the second case, the question, which was posed a f t e r an i n t e r -v a l of at l e a s t two weeks i n a l l cases, requested t h a t the informants group 1 the f i s h names i n t o " c l a s s e s " . At t h i s p o i n t I was aware that some ki n d of "grouping" of f i s h names i n t o higher l e v e l taxa e x i s t e d as I was f r e q u e n t l y informed t h a t f i s h "had two names: a f i r s t name and a second name." This i n f o r m a t i o n was acquired when I n o t i c e d that the f i r s t name of a f i s h was f r e q u e n t l y used f o r two f i s h that were regarded as d i s t i n c t "types" and I asked how two d i f f e r e n t f i s h could have the same name. The answer given was that they d i d not have the same name although they were the same f i s h . A f t e r my confusion subsided, I decided to see i f the c l u s t e r i n g I expected to f i n d d i d i n f a c t e x i s t , i . e . , could I ask the men to arrange the f i s h i n t o groups at a l l ? I f so, were the members of these groups unambiguously assigned by i n c l u s i o n ? T h i r t y - e i g h t such " c l a s s e s " were named by f i v e out of nine informants (see Table I I ) . Some i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e s emerge upon comparison of the "two ki n d s " of f i s h l i s t s and upon comparison of these names and t h e i r sequencing w i t h those c o l l e c t e d i n s i m i l a r circumstances by P. Maranda 1967-68. 1. The Maranda 'memory' l i s t s , although recorded i n sequence from the i n f o r -mants' r e c o l l e c t i o n s were a l s o arranged, by request, according to h a b i t a t . 47 The c l u s t e r i n g of e n t r i e s i n the 'unclassed' memory l i s t s i s extremely s i m i l a r to that of the l i s t s arranged by c l a s s e s . An example might serve to c l a r i f y t h i s o b servation. According to the c l a s s e d l i s t s the category k i r i o c o n t a i n s , amongst o t h e r s , the f o l l o w i n g : gwaa gwaaha.su i a tekwa robo unubulu usulurigwalo t a i f e goumudu raa susubora s a r a i b i n a In a l l cases i n the 'unclassed' l i s t s , these e n t r i e s are l i s t e d i n the im-mediate environment of the word k i r i o , e:g.: k i r i o unubulu raa goumudu s a r a i b i n a susubora gwahaasu k i r i o robo unubulu raa usulungwalo t a i f e gwaa i a tekwa k i r i o unubulu robo raa t a i f e susubora unubulu k i r i o robo raa goumudu gwaahasu This p a t t e r n — the c l u s t e r i n g of f i s h i n the 'unclassed' l i s t s that are regarded as members of the same category i n the classed l i s t s — e x i s t s f o r every major category named. The names of the members of the same category seem to serve as key words i n t h e i r mutual a s s o c i a t i o n . The consistency w i t h which t h i s p a t t e r n has emerged i s , I b e l i e v e , a f i r m i n d i c a t o r t h a t such lower l e v e l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n - does indeed occur. 48 Another i n t e r e s t i n g aspect concerns the categories mamada and hanga, alinga and hau. These are the only four classes that do not correspond to unique "Family" l e v e l groupings i n b i o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as do a l l other i d e n t i f i e d classes within the more i n c l u s i v e taxon i a . Rather, they divide the organisms c o n s t i t u t i n g one b i o l o g i c a l family into two Lau groups. In the f i r s t case, I was informed that mamada and hanga are very s i m i l a r but that a l l hanga tend to be t h i n and small and to have smooth dorsal f i n s whereas mamada are t h i c k and have sharp spines oh t h e i r dorsal f i n s . This conceptual proximity i s borne out by the fac t that i n a l l the l i s t s of f i s h names (both 'classed' and 'unclassed') c o l l e c t e d from Lau informants, hanga and mamada d i r e c t l y precede or follow one another. In the second case, I was t o l d that hau and mamula were d i s t i n c t groups which do bear resemblances to one another, but whose di f f e r e n c e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s i z e and markings outweigh the s i m i l a r i t i e s : hau are lar g e , a l i n g a small; hau have two pointed dorsal f i n s and "long" (horizontal) markings, alinga have one pointed and one " f l a t " 1 (blunt) dorsal f i n and "short" ( v e r t i c a l ) markings. Unlike hanga and mamada, alinga and hau seem 1 to occur independently of one another i n the memory l i s t s . (In one case, a l i n g a was omitted altogether and, afterwards, the informant, when prompted, t o l d me that he had "forgotten" to mention i t . ) 1. Further, more systematic inquiry would be needed to explore t h i s ade-quately. The question of the kinds of research protocol that might be appropriate to obtain t h i s information i s discussed i n the concluding Chapter of t h i s exposition. 49 Fol l o w i n g the same l i n e of reasoning as above, perhaps the apparent conceptual independence i n d i c a t e d by the high v a r i a b i l i t y i n the order of r e c a l l of c e r t a i n named categories i s a l s o a measure of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e d i s c r e t e n e s s . 50 Part III - "Non-taxonomic" Terminology In addition to the terminology associated with various kinds of plants and groups of plants ( i . e . , s p e c i f i c , generic and l i f e -form category names), each language has a substantial lexicon of botanical terms which, although perhaps r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r a ssociation to one or two types of plants, cannot be considered as having taxonomic status. (Turner 1974: p. 65) This argument, that the naming of an organism according to stage of growth, state, sex, etc., does not constitute a taxonomic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n seems to me to be misdirected. The model upon which t h i s assumption i s based i s perhaps ethno-c e n t r i c . In E n g l i s h , a s i n g l e named category c o n s i s t i n g of named, morpho-l o g i c a l l y s i m i l a r organisms may also be divided up according to differences common to a l l the constituent organisms. Hence, i n English (and possibly i n other, but not n e c e s s a r i l y a l l l e x i c o n s ) , "A c o l t could not be said to be 'a kind of horse', i n the same way that an Appaloosais a kind of horse" (Turner 1974: p. 66). The two p r i n c i p l e s of a taxonomic structure — organization by i n c l u s i o n of reference and the d i s c r e t e nature of constituent categories — (the l a t t e r being v i o l a t e d i n the above example) both e x i s t i n the Lau c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of f i s h according to sex, s i z e and stages of growth. Whether a c o l t i s a kind of horse i n the same way that a Guernsey i s a kind of cow i s a problem c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of our method of 'dividing-up the universe' into taxonomically equivalent kinds of u n i t s , 51 not one n e c e s s a r i l y common to the d i v i s i o n of the external world into named taxonomic e n t i t i e s . D i s t i n c t i o n s made between constituents of major subdivisions of the category i a (according to l i f e stage, s i z e , sex, etc.) are d i s c r e t e and unambiguous i n the same way that d i s t i n c t i o n s are made according to "tax-onomic" c r i t e r i a i n Turner's use of the term. The following example i n which both kinds of d i s t i n c t i o n s are made may serve to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point. (This information was given i n response to my questioning of how the various kinds of muu were distinguished.) muu class name muu n i f u r a i black muu sio mainly white alaga mainly white and black over the whole body kurumusi small alaga but head short, looks l i k e f a l a t a (head), bigger than kakarai kakarai muu when very small, young babao when muu n i f u r a i i s "too small" but bigger than kakarai Kakarai are j u v e n i l e muu n i f u r a i , muu sio and alaga. Kakarai, though small and seasonal are of s i g n i f i c a n t market value as they are fles h y , v i r t u a l l y boneless and as they school i n great numbers unlike the juv e n i l e s of many other f i s h . They are 'packed' i n bamboo tubes and sold by the women in the markets. Kurumusi and babao are considered to be of l i t t l e market value due to t h e i r s i z e (4-6") unless they are cooked i n 'bata' ( l o t s ) and sold or traded i n that way. The prime referent of kakarai i s muu, the "kinds" of kakarai are unimportant and seldom recog-nized: when asked what category kurumusi belonged to, I was always t o l d "muu". A kurumusi i s a small alaga, but the prime referent of kurumusi 52 i s s t i l l muu. In the same way, a babao i s a small muu n i f u r a i , but i t 1 i s f i r s t a muu. Other c r i t i c a l f e a t u r e s are inseparable from s i z e , growth stage, sex, e t c . i n the assignment of f i s h to s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s . The subject of c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s w i l l be discussed l a t e r . In the case of mamula, c r i t e r i a f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of con-s t i t u e n t s were: stages of growth according to s i z e , d i s t i n c t colour changes, morphology and t a s t e (according to the Lau informants). Information c o l -l e c t e d by E. Maranda on the b a s i s of M a r s h a l l i l l u s t r a t i o n s , i d e n t i f i e s F i s h #233, P l a t e #30 Cardux emburyi as mamula. I was t o l d that the same f i s h ( P l a t e #30, #233) was c a l l e d modomu. Upon questioning the termino l o -g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e , I was informed that modomu was. indeed a mamula, but that the i l l u s t r a t i o n was unquestionably of a modomu because of the d i s t i n c t c o l o u r a t i o n and the head shape of the f i s h p i c t u r e d . I was a l s o informed that these f e a t u r e s (colour and head shape) were "not c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mamula at the modomu growth stage and s i z e . " 1. Table I I I gives a d d i t i o n a l examples of f i s h d i s t i n g u i s h e d by sex, s i z e , stages of growth. 2. The f i s h i l l u s t r a t e d i n M a r s h a l l has a reported l e n g t h of 21 inches. Modomu, according to the Lau, i s approximately 2-3 f e e t i n len g t h . TABLE I: TABLE OF FISH CATEGORIES (MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF TAXON _^IA) AND CONSTITUENT UNITS IDENTIFIABLE IN MARSHALL LAU NAME FAMILY: BALISTIDAE (458-463)* Trigger fishes Bubu Marshall P l a t e Genus Species Common Name Sequence bubu i d a i 458** B a l i s t e s c o n o p i c i l l i u m big spotted t r i g g e r f i s h bubu babalu 459 B a l i s t e s fuscus yellow spotted t r i g g e r f i s h bubu bubulu 461 Balistapus undulatus redlined t r i g g e r f i s h bubu kekedea 462 B a l i s t e s rotundatus spotted tri g g e r f i s h U n i d e n t i f i e d : Bubu kwao, Bubu koni bebe FAMILY: CHAETODONTIDAE SUB-FAMILY: CHAETODONTINAE (256-268)* B u t t e r f l y fishes bebefakatekwa 258 Forcipiger l o n g i r o s t r i s l o n g b i l l b u t t e r f l y f i s h bebe t a t a f i r i o g o u 260 Parachaetodon ocellatus six-spined b u t t e r f l y f i s h bebe adekwalao 261 Chaetodon auriga threadfin b u t t e r f l y f i s h bebe fakasusu 262 Chaetodon vagabundus c r i s s - c r o s s b u t t e r f l y f i s h bebe i f u r a i f o n u 263 Chaetodon l i n e o l a t u s l i n e d b u t t e r f l y f i s h bebe gogoa 265 Chaetodon aureofasciatus golden-striped b u t t e r f l y f i s h bebe takwa 266 Chaetodon t r i f a c i a l i s right-angled b u t t e r f l y f i s h bebe sulukwakio 268 Heniochus acuminatus f e a t h e r - f i n b u l l - f i s h suru FAMILY: LUTJANIDAE SUB-FAMILY: LETHRININAE (210-213)* Emperor fishes suru gou 210 Lethrinus mahensa yellow-tailed emperor suru h a o l a i 211 Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor suru kekedea 212 Lethrinus chrystostromus sweet-lip emperor suru fotobala 213 Lethrinus f l e t u s red-finned emperor Un i d e n t i f i e d : suru akwaro, suru kekero, suru taabou, suru i matakwa, suru agalo, hatamela, goufu, ngwango TABLE I (Continued) kalua FAMILY; MUGILIDAE NO SUB-FAMILY (386-398)* Mullets kalua goma nione kalua"* kalua"' kalua unu tada kalua"' 387 389 394 395 396 Mugil Mugil Mugil Mugil Mugil g e o r a n tade c r e n i l a b i s ramsayi diadema f a n t a i l mullet tade mullet warty-nosed mullet ramsay's mullet basket mullet U n i d e n t i f i e d : kwaibia, e l u e l u gogouru gogouru abakoa gogouru abakoa moulu gogouru gwiagwia FAMILY: ANT ENNARIIDAE NO SUB-FAMILY 494 495 496 497 Histiophryne Antennarius Antennarius Tathicarpus (493-497)" b o u g a i n v i l l i i s t r i a t u s moluccensis muscosus Angler fishes smooth angler st r i p e d angler black angler harlequin angler Un i d e n t i f i e d : gogouru nofu gwiagwia FAMILY: SCORPAENIDAE (404-427) Subdivision of mail-fi s h e s gwiagwia gwegwe" 404 Ruboralga c a r d i n a l i s red scorpion cod gwiagwia ngwangwaeso" 407 Scorpaenodes gnamensis guam scorpion cod gwiagwia gogouru 406 Sebastapistos bynoeusis marbled coral cod gwiagwia i n a d i 410 Pterois v o l i t a n s red f i r e f i s h gwiagwia"* 411 Brachirus zebra zebra f i r e f i s h gwiagwia"" 416 Synanceja horrida stone f i s h gwiagwia nofu" 424 Adventor elongatus sandpaper f i s h TABLE I (Continued) hau FAMILY: SCOMBRIDAE NO SUB-FAMILY (339-348) Tunas and mackarels hau roomaa hau gwarafeta hau'" hau gela hau" * hau faramela 339 342 343 344 345 346 R a s r e l l i g e r Gymnosarda Luthynnus euthynnus Cybiosarda Neothunnus kanagurta nuda p i l a m i s d e l e t t e r a t u s elegans macropterus long-jawed mackarel s c a l e l e s s tuna bonito l i t t l e tuna Watson's bonito P a c i f i c y e l l o w - f i n n e d tuna U n i d e n t i f i e d : hau i n i t o , hau m a l i f u , hau kakale, hau mela, f i l u f i l u , sangata a l i n g a FAMILY: SCOMBRIDAE NO SUB-FAMILY (349-354) Tunas and makerels a l i n g a b u l u " a l i n g a " " a l i n g a bokofu" 349 350 352 Scomberomorus Scomberomorus Scomberomorus commerson queenslandicus semifasciatus narrow-banded makerel \ Queensland school makerel broad-banded makerel U n i d e n t i f i e d : a l i n g a f a a l u mara maelafu" mona b a b a l i FAMILY: CALLYONTIDAE NO SUB-FAMILY koso + 317 318 319 319 Leptoscarus Cryptotomus Callyodon Callyodon (317-319) va i g e n s i s spinidens f a s c i a t u s f a s c i a t u s P arrot f i s h e s marbled parrot f i s h h a l f - t o o t h e d p a r r o t f i s h s urf parrot f i s h surf parrot f i s h U n i d e n t i f i e d : mona tada, s i s i l e mara, f o e f o e , magali a a l a TABLE I (Continued) hanga hanga bualafa hanga *ia hahafa" hanga bubulua" hanga n i one" hanga i malau hanga gwaila" FAMILY: LABRIDAE NO SUB-FAMILY 303 310 311 312 313 314 Hemigymnus C h e i l i e Anampses Novaculichthys Chelinus Chelinus (300-314) melapterus inermis geographicus taeniourus f as.ciatus undulatus Wrasses, rainbow f i s h e s , pig f i s h e s  black-eyed t h i c k l i p sharp-nosed wrasse scri b b l e d wrasse bar-cheeked wrasse s c a r l e t breasted wrasse hump-headed wrasse Un i d e n t i f i e d : hanga mamada, hanga keketo mamada FAMILY: LABRIDAE NO SUB-FAMILY Wrasses, rainbow f i s h e s , pig f i s h e s  mamada hanga" 302 mamada 'ia kekedea" 301 mamada eno" 300 Ste t h o j u l i s Psendolabrus Labroides s t r i g i v e n t e r guntheri dimidiatus l i n e d rainbow f i s h Giinther's rainbow f i s h blue-streak U n i d e n t i f i e d : mamada ubu one, mamada fakasusu ulafu FAMILY: SERRANIDAE (168-173) Sea basses and rock cods ul a f u 168 Diploprion bifasciatum yellow emperor ul a f u kekero 170 Epinephelus fasciatus black-tipped rock cod ulafu a f i l u 171 Epinephelus tauvina estuary rock cod ula f u rafua 173 Epinephelus merra honeycomb rock cod Unid e n t i f i e d : u l a f u hadai, u l a f u haga TABLE I (Continued) baekwa ORDER: SELACHII Sharks baekwa" baekwa i i i " baekwa goulo" baekwa l e l e o " 03 019 020 Galeidae Sphridae Oreledolobidae Name given to 7 b i o l o g i c a l species - d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Solomons unknown galeocerdo cuv i e r T iger shark Sphrus l e w i n i hammerhead shark Nebrius concolor tawny shark U n i d e n t i f i e d : Talenge hara, a n i karougo k i r i o Subcategory I Dolphins, Porpoises, Whales (not i l l u s t r a t e d i n Marshall) Common Name k i r i o robo unubulu t a i f e goumudu raa susubora D a l l ' s Porpoise, Commeisous Dolphin Round Head Porpoise, Right Whale Dolphin Common Dolphin La P l a t a Dolphin Harbour Porpoise Mangrove Dolphin Mangrove Dolphin U n i d e n t i f i e d : s a r a i b i n a , usulungwalo Subcategory I I gwaa gwaahasu or gwaasasu i a tekwa Gray Whale Whale Dugong TABLE I (Continued) fonu T u r t l e s Common Name fonu i a " Green t u r t l e Chelonia Mydas fonu i a Hawksbill t u r t l e Chelonia Imoricata bulonga Leatherback Dermochilys Coriacea Unidentified: fonu akwa, fonu bala, fonu f a l a t a , fonu beo * Numbers i n parentheses correspond to the reference numbers of a l l f i s h (both those i l l u s t r a t e d and those described only i n text) that are included i n the Family indicated (Marshall: 1964). ** Numbers correspond to those f i s h i l l u s t r a t e d i n Marshall and i d e n t i f i e d by the Lau informants. . " Black and white i l l u s t r a t i o n s only a v a i l a b l e i n Marshall (1964) as basis f o r Lau. No other Lau name given. + No precise i d e n t i f i c a t i o n made, but f i s h named i s regarded by the Lau as being very s i m i l a r to, but d i s t i n c t from,fish i l l u s t r a t e d i n Marshall. Notes: B i o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n obtained e x c l u s i v e l y from data c o l l e c t e d by Maranda and Maranda 1967-1968. See text f o r discussion. 59 TABLE I I : SUBCATEGORIES OF UPPER LEVEL TAXON IA OBTAINED FROM INFORMANTS' 'CLASSED' MEMORY LISTS (ALPHA-SORTED)* 1. a i f a t a r a o 2. a l i a a l i a bora a l i a b a l a unudola angafa angafa kedea angafa gougou saru angafa ' i t o 3. a l i n g a a l i n g a b u l u a l i n g a bokofu a l i n g a f a a l u 4. ba'aa ba'aa bu l u menamena a l a g a l a maeto maeto i d a i maeto tabakau bolo b e l e f a u b a l i sau 5. baekwa baekwa l e l e o baekwa l e t o baekwa i l l talenge hara a n i karongo 6. bebe bebe fakatekwa bebe t a t a f i r i o g o u bebe adekwalao bebe fakasusu bebe i f u r a i fonu bebe gogoa bebe tekwa bebe sulukwakio 7. b i l a u b i l a u k i l a k i l a i a n i 'one f a i l u kwasi kweo 8. bokofu boubou bokofu i matakwa ngidubola faa faa mai nara rereo i s i ' i s i o'oto susu one i s i ' o f u unu'unu n i g i n i g i doo i a l o 9. bubu bubu i d a i babalu fahato bubu i a s i bubu bubulu bubu kekedea bubu kwao bubu koru 10. d a a f i d a a f i 'afu d a a f i fonu e l u akwa maelafu 11. doru TABLE I I (Continued) 12. fonu fonu i a bulonga fonu akwa fonu b a l a fonu f a l a t a fonu beo 13. geru 14. gogouru gogouru albkoa abakoa moulu gogouru gwiagwia gogouru nofu 15. gwareo kwaikwai rau abuni 16. gwiagwia gwiagwia gwegwe gwiagwia ngwangwaeso gwiagwia gogouru gwiagwia i n a d i gwiagwia nofu 17. h a l e m a l i f u rau ' a l i t e 18. hanga hanga gwaila hanga b u a l a f a hanga ni'one hanga i a hahafa hanga i malau hanga mamada hanga kekero hanga bubulua 19. hau hau roomaa hau gwarafeta hau g e l a hau faramela 19. (Continued) hau i n i t o hau m a l i f u hau kakale hau mela f i l u f i l u sangata 20. i a bua 21. kalua kalua goma ni'one kalua unu tada kwaibia e l u e l u 22. k i r i o _ I robo unubulu usulungwalo t a i f e robo walade robo o l o ga i a robo boumudu k i r i o I I gwaa ~ gwaahasu - gwaasasu i a tekwa 23. mamada mamada hanga mamada i a kekedea mamada eno mamada fakasusu 24. mara mara d i k w a f i s i s i l e mara moua moua tada koso b a b a l i b u r a s i amera foefoe magali 'a a l a maelafu TABLE II (Continued) 25. matasi matasi fou ragaraga foukwai aga f o l o tolibaranga eno lae maf u gou mae o alo rae b a l i b i l a ukauka malagwaila gwaila fakaebua kekefe'ulu g u l i boa mara i ' i l e magali 'a'ala gofala gofala'inomae 26. modomu ma l a modomu gu r i modomu bora bora u s i l i a e l i u t a f a 2 7. muu muu s i o muu n i f u r a i alaga kurumusi kakarai babao 29. ooa ooa n i kwaru ume kweo ume bora ume hango ume takwalao 30. raemae raemae i malau raemae i n i t o raemae sulubuu raemae tetere'uo 31. rido akwasi mai 32. rora rora i malau rora i matakwa 34. s i f o - s i s i f o 35. suru suru taa bou suru akwaro suru h a o l a i suru agalo hatamela suru gou suru kedea gouf u maa sulua ugwango fotobala b i l u alakwaga g o u t o l i aani ni'one 28. nara nara bulu nara kwao nara fouboso nara faka tekwa 36. tataso 37. uala romaa mama kwai 62 TABLE I I (Continued) 37. (Continued) maosi buma f a r a n a d i - uka kefo a l i f o u gougou rada 38. u l a f u u l a f u r a f u a u l a f u haga u l a f u bebero u l a f u kekero u l a f u h a o l a i * A l l the c l a s s e s l i s t e d here were named by f i v e ouf of nine informants. Members of these c l a s s e s represent a summation of a l l those f i s h named by these informants. 63 TABLE I I I : FISH DISTINGUISHED BY SEX, LIFE STAGE, SIZE, ETC. Mamula Class Name Family Mugilidae Genus u n i d e n t i f i e d Approx. Lengths a l i uugu edaeda ulul u s i a e modomu o r o l i u C r i t e r i a : 1- 2 inches 2- 8 inches 8-12 inches 1- 2 feet 2- 3 feet 3- 8 feet Size changes i n l i f e stages of growth, d i s t i n c t colour changes, morphology, taste Kukurubulu Class Name Gwaila (older name) Genus u n i d e n t i f i e d Approx. Lengths r a r s i f o u kurubulu oba kukurubulu - gwela C r i t e r i a : 2 feet max. 2- 3 feet 3- 4 feet 3 feet Size, s i z e changes i n growth, taste 111 Class Name Family Carapidae Sphyraena j e l l o Pick handled barracuda mamalito ono basaula Approx^ Length Under .1 foot 1- 2 feet 2- 3 feet C r i t e r i a : Size and colour changes during growth, taste 64 TABLE I I I (Continued) Mara Class Name b a b a l i (male & female) b a b a l i (male) B u r a s i - Amera b a b a l i (female) Malogwaila C r i t e r i a : Sex, morphology, colour Note: Family C a l l y o n t i d a e Callyodon f a s c i a t u s Surf p a r r o t f i s h M a r s h a l l notes the marked d i f f e r e n c e i n general morphology and colour between the two sexes of t h i s species K i r i o a robo Class Name Right whale d o l p h i n , harbor porpoise Size Dolphins & Porpoises robo olo robo walade gaia robo Smallest robo "takes one man to beach robo ' o l o " Larger than robo o l o "takes four men to beach robo walade" Larger than robo walade "takes ten-twenty men to beach gaia robo" 65 CHAPTER 4 In t h i s f i n a l chapter, -I s h a l l r e t u r n to some of the p o i n t s a l -ready o u t l i n e d and di s c u s s some important areas of f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r i s i n g from t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y study of Lau f i s h taxonomy. These p o i n t s w i l l be formulated i n terms of questions and pro-p o s i t i o n s r a t h e r than d e f i n i t i v e statements about v a r i o u s aspects of the m a t e r i a l at hand. The f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter w i l l deal w i t h the t o p i c of semantic d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , of problems of d e f i n i n g the c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s u n d erlying Lau taxonomy. The second s e c t i o n explores avenues of f u r t h e r study and a n a l y s i s . Features I t should be c l e a r that these ' f e a t u r e s ' or semantic dimensions are not i n themselves minimal aspects or u n i t s of meaning. Each dimension i s but an a x i s along which meaning s h i f t s , and meaning emerges on each dimension when (and only when) i n appropriate combination w i t h s p e c i f i c values along at l e a s t two other axes or dimensions. These dimensions, then, can be considered operators on which operations may take place — opera-t i o n s which are expressions of r e l a t i o n s h i p , not i r r e d u c i b l e u n i t s of mean-ing . Indeed, a search f o r minimally meaningful u n i t s more fundamental than the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l design forms themselves i n a graphic system such as the Southeastern Nubas as has been shown, f r u i t l e s s - l i k e searching f o r the 'meanings' of phonemes, as i t were. " I t i s the catalogue of c r i -t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s between meaning — the r e l a t i o n s h i p s — that we seek, not i r r e d u c i b l e u n i t s of meaning" ( F a r i s , 1972: 99). The problems f a c i n g the a n a l y s t i n h i s search f o r the c r i t i c a l semantic f e a t u r e s of taxonomic systems are very s i m i l a r to those a r t i c u l a -ted above. I f one a c t i v e l y searches f o r minimally meaningful u n i t s the i m p o s i t i o n of p r e - e x i s t i n g e t h n o c e n t r i c d i s t i n c t i o n s i s a constant danger. I f one expects n a t i v e informants to a r t i c u l a t e and c l e a r l y d e f i n e these u n i t s they f r e q u e n t l y do not appear.. Those who are p r a c t i t i o n e r s of a c u l t u r a l code do not o f t e n v e r b a l l y a r t i c u l a t e i t s c r i t e r i a l f e a t u r e s a l -67 though they can u s u a l l y agree to t h e i r adequacy (or inadequacy) once pre-1 sented w i t h them. Many w r i t e r s i n t h i s area have r e c e n t l y pointed out that taxono-mic systems are as t h i s d i s c u s s i o n w i l l i n d i c a t e , normally of much greater complexity than i s suggested by the manipulation of simple b i n a r y c o n t r a s t s between f e a t u r e s commonly c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the work of some s t u d i e s i n 2 t h i s area ( L e v i - S t r a u s s , 1963; C o n k l i n , 1962; Frake, 1961, 1962; B e r l i n , 1970; B e r l i n , Breedlove and Raven, 1970, 1971; Lounsbury, 1964). Both e x p l i c i t ethnomodels and the i m p l i c i t p r i n c i p l e s on which they are based are w e l l worth i n v e s t i g a t i n g — but they are s i m i l a r l y , both hard to get and hard to get a t . The n o t i o n s of the e x i s t e n c e of these two 'types' of model i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y p r o d u c t i v e , but i n terms of p r a x i s , they t e l l us nothing about how i t i s p o s s i b l e 1) to e l i c i t and 2) to recognize them. 1. By " p r e s e n t a t i o n " I am not j u s t r e f e r r i n g to the a c t i v i t y of the f i e l d r e s earcher, but a l s o to an a c t i v i t y that takes place amongst the people themselves, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the taxonomic s t a t u s of an object comes i n t o question. 2. In the a p p l i c a t i o n of both r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l and componential analyses. 68 Upper L e v e l Taxa In the case of Lau ' f i s h ' taxonomy, a c u l t u r a l l y accepted and agreed-upon set of f e a t u r e components has emerged by which i t i s p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y the c l a s s e s , i . e . , upper l e v e l taxa and t h e i r d i v i s i o n s , to which v a r i o u s f i s h belong. The e l i c i t i n g and d i s c o v e r y of these f e a t u r e s w i t h i n the l e x i -c a l l y coded f o l k c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n v o l v e s the most formidable tasks of ask-i n g the r i g h t kinds of questions, seeing enough organisms about which to ask these q u e s t i o n s , and being present i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s i n which spontaneous d i s c u s s i o n s about these a t t r i b u t e s a r i s e amongst the people themselves. I d e a l l y , one would l i k e to be able to ask what are the m i n i m a l l y necessary f e a t u r e s f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r organism; w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c taxonj i d e a l l y one would l i k e to be able to uncover a l l the semantic dimensions necessary to e f f e c t a s h i f t i n meaning i n the taxonomic universe and a s s i g n f e a t u r e a t t r i b u t e v alues. I t was impossible i n my case to undertake a d e t a i l e d examination of a l l the components of Lau taxo-nomic system. The features d i s t i n g u i s h e d at the upper taxonomic l e v e l s , i . e . , at the l e v e l s of d i s t i n c t i o n s between haekwa, k i r i o , f o n u , i a and between major c l a s s e s of ' i a can be, and are discussed i n terms of the presence and absence of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e s , of a " b i n a r y c o n t r a s t " between complemen-t a r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n many cases. The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e l i s t s the features 69 of c r i t i c a l importance to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the four main s u b - d i v i s i o n s of a s i . These are der i v e d from i n t e r v i e w s w i t h male informants i n which I asked them to e x p l a i n to me how they recognized members of each of these categories and how they t o l d them apart. Feature Category Name  Lau E n g l i s h K i r i o Baekwa 'Ia Fonu l i f o t e e t h + - ± manga spout + - -babanga g i l l s - + + bobona d o r s a l f i n - - + e'efo s c a l e s - - + suu to breach + + -s i d u t u r t l e s h e l l + aba arms + t u r t l e penis + colour mentioned as - - + -important f e a t u r e . k i r i o , baekwa and ^ _ ia appear to be r e l a t e d by the presence or absence of c r i t i c a l f e a t u r e s c o n s t i t u t i n g a d i s c r e t e set. fonu, however, does not seem to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n r e l a t i o n to t h i s set at a l l , but r a t h e r i s defined according to the presence of three unique c h a r a c t e r s . My informants i n d i c a t e d that there could be no problem i n i d e n t i f y i n g a t u r t l e i n any case, as a l l t u r t l e s looked s i m i l a r and were shaped q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y from a l l other f i s h . A s i m i l a r 'kind' of d i s t i n c t i o n , made according to the presence or absence of c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s , was made i n explanations o f f e r e d to me concerning the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t f i s h belonging to the 70 major c l a s s e s of i a . I was not able to conduct a comprehensive survey of the f e a t u r e s of a l l named c l a s s e s but of those I d i d i n v e s t i g a t e a p a t t e r n seems to emerge. The f o l l o w i n g i s an example. Feature Class Name Lau a g a l i tekwa bobona ffa k a 1 [tekwa f Chgoran |tekwaJ f k i i k i i u u n a \ ( t a s i a J Coloured English round long dorsal f i n 5iong\ ' (mouth) Tlongl IjioseJ Cv-shaped1 { t a i l f i n j Suru + + + Bebe + I i i + + + + + Kalua + + + A l l people consulted,both men and women, seemed to be able to agree on the general i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l specimen i n terms of one of the named c l a s s e s . The women, de s p i t e t h e i r marked l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n t a l k i n g to me about f i s h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n everyday s i t u a t i o n s became much more w i l l i n g to d i s c u s s these matters p r i o r to markets, as they pre-pared the f i s h , s o r t i n g some i n t o ' l o t s ' (bata). They i d e n t i f i e d the f i s h as they wrapped them i n l e a v e s , p o i n t i n g to each i n d i v i d u a l specimen and c a l l i n g i t by name. I asked them how they sorted the f i s h i n t o l o t s , t hat i s , how they decided which f i s h i n the catch belonged together. I was a l -ways given the same response: f i s h were sorted according to s i z e and t a s t e . F i s h they regarded as "too s m a l l " to s e l l or trade i n d i v i d u a l l y were grouped together f i r s t . F i s h t h a t were s a i d to be "good t a s t i n g " were then d i v i d e d 71 from those thought to be bony or l e s s t a s t y . Good t a s t i n g f i s h were sorted i n t o bata, the number i n each l o t depending on the s i z e of each i n d i v i d u a l f i s h . Less d e s i r a b l e f i s h were a l s o put together and f r e q u e n t l y these would be eaten by the household or by the women on the way to market. Women always i d e n t i f i e d the f i s h according to t h e i r c l a s s names. S p e c i f i c names were never used, even i n cases such as mamula, a c l a s s of f i s h c a t e g o r i z e d , according to the men, by s i z e and growth stage. F i s h belonging to d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s were s a i d to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d because they e i t h e r belonged together or they d i d not i n terms of the two preceding c r i t e r i a . A suru, I was advised, was so c a l l e d because i t t a s t e d good, l i k e a k a l u a , but tended to be sh o r t e r and more bony than a mamula. Mamula and i l l , I was t o l d , were always sorted independently of any other c l a s s of f i s h . Muu could be grouped w i t h any other k i n d of f i s h a v a i l a b l e as they were s a i d to be g e n e r a l l y small and f a i r l y good t a s t i n g . The p a t t e r n that emerges here again concerns the p o s s i b i l i t y of the e x i s t e n c e of two d i s t i n c t but i n t e r r e l a t e d semantic systems amongst the Lau — one male and one female. Men and women both recognize the same taxonomic boundaries i n the case of f i s h , but d i s t i n g u i s h i n g features are s a i d to be d i f f e r e n t . A more thorough and lengthy study of f i s h naming p r a c t i c e s would be re q u i r e d before any d e f i n i t i v e statement could be made concerning these p a t t e r n s . I f e e l , however, t h a t there i s enough evidence to warrant such an i n v e s t i g a t i o n and that the question i s of i n t e r e s t not only i n t h i s context, but i n terms of any study hoping to discover the r u l e s u nderlying c o g n i t i v e processes of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 72 Lower L e v e l Taxa As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s between lower order taxa (which are considered here to be t e r m i n a l taxa i n terms of the e n t i r e taxonomic scheme), i s made almost e x c l u s i v e l y by men. The d i s t i n c t i v e f e atures of i n d i v i d u a l f i s h regarded as belonging to the same c l a s s are g e n e r a l l y of the same ki n d as those used to d i s c r i m i n a t e between the c l a s s e s themselves. There i s one important d i f f e r e n c e , however, that emerges upon comparison between the two l e v e l s of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . At the c l a s s l e v e l , d i s t i n c t i o n s appear to be made according to the presence or absence of a number of c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s . At the l e v e l of t e r m i n a l t a x a , d i s -c r i m i n a t i o n s are made not according to b i n a r y d i s t i n c t i o n s but according to r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these f e a t u r e s : f o r example — bebe t a t a f i r i o g o u i s s a i d to be rounder than bebe i f u r a i fonu but not as round as bebe gogoa. Bebe i f u r a i fonu has a longer mouth than bebe gogoa but not as long as bebe adekwalao or bebe faka tekwa. Bebe t a t a f i r i o g o u i s s a i d to have a long d o r s a l f i n but not as long as bebe adekwalao. Bebe sulukwakio.is regarded as having a d o r s a l f i n longer than bebe adekwalao but a s h o r t e r t a i l f i n . Bebe faka susu i s s a i d to be longer than bebe gogoa but not as long as bebe tekwa. A l l bebe are s a i d to t a s t e s i m i l a r but d i s t i n c t accord-ing to v a r y i n g degrees of f l e s h i n e s s and t e x t u r e . They are a l l s a i d to be c o l o u r f u l , but some are more c o l o u r f u l than o t h e r s , some are s t r i p e d , some more or l e s s than others. As i n the case of f e a t u r e s invoked to d i s t i n g u i s h between c l a s s e s , these r e l a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a cannot be h i e r a r c h i c a l l y ranked, nor reduced to minimal u n i t s of meaning. 73 A c l a s s of f i s h i s defined according to a complex matrix of r e l a t i o n s between d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s , an i n d i v i d u a l f i s h according to the r e l a t i o n s between r e l a t i o n s between d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s . This has impor-tant i m p l i c a t i o n s i n terms of the p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n of methods such as componential and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s to such m a t e r i a l . Both componen-t i a l and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e the manipulation of d i s c r e t e u n i t s of meaning. A componatial d e f i n i t i o n of f i s h c l a s s e s may be a f e a s i b l e enter-p r i s e due to the b i n a r y nature of d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s — but i t would t e l l one nothing beyond informa t i o n conveyed by the data i t s e l f . Not only t h a t , as a method, componential a n a l y s i s would impede i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the nature of d i s t i n c t i o n s between t e r m i n a l taxa belonging to the same c l a s s as such b i n a r y d i s t i n c t i o n s apparently do not e x i s t i n the Lau taxonomic system. An a l t e r n a t e approach that has been developed f o r the purpose of conducting s t u d i e s of complex c o g n i t i v e systems i s put forward by W. Geohe-gan. In a h i g h l y t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n , Geohegan (1971) presents an a x i o -matic theory of semantic domains by t r e a t i n g them as coding r u l e s , t h a t i s , sequenced d e c i s i o n s about the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of semantic f e a t u r e s i n the cog-n i t i v e process of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . Although I w i l l not d i s c u s s t h i s theory at l e n g t h here, I wish to point out s e v e r a l of the advantages that I see i n Geohegan's approach i n c o n t r a s t to the other two methods I have already considered. .) Geohegan t r e a t s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n as a c o g n i t i v e process i n v o l v i n g con-c e p t u a l operations by which c e r t a i n observable e n t i t i e s are handled and c l a s s i f i e d rendering them i n t e l l i g i b l e to t h e i r users. The other two 74 approaches deal only w i t h the 'end-products' (the a c t u a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ) and the ' s t i m u l i ' (the observable e n t i t i e s ) i n v o l v e d i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a taxonomic scheme. The necessary property of the equivalence of taxonomic s t a t u s between terms i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme i s not a problem i n Geohegan's approach. A c a t e g o r i z a t i o n process i s represented i n t h i s case by a network of ' d e c i s i o n s ' made on;the b a s i s of the correspondence or l a c k of correspondence between an e n t i t y and the p r o p e r t i e s or set of pro-p e r t i e s which c h a r a c t e r i z e a category. Terminal taxa would thus be the end products of such operations or s e r i e s of operations. Other taxa would represent intermediate nodes, or ste p s , " s t a t e s " , i n the d e c i s i o n process. Redundancy i s not a problem i n Geohegan's approach e i t h e r , as r e c u r s i v i t y of language represents a f u n c t i o n i n i t s own r i g h t . C a t e g o r i z a t i o n can be represented as a p r o b a b l i s t i c , not d e t e r m i n i s t i c process. In other words, the semantic range of a term i n , f o r example, the environment of another could be assessed. An example might help to c l a r i f y t h i s p o i n t . In the case of Lau f i s h taxonomy (according to the p r e l i m i n a r y f i n d i n g s of t h i s t h e s i s ) , a l l t u r t l e s are i a (the upper l e v e l taxon) but no t u r t l e s are i a (the lower l e v e l s u b d i v i s i o n of the same taxon). I t might be productive to look at the frequency of the use of s p e c i f i c l a b e l s i n terms of c e r t a i n s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c con-t e x t s and word environments. When a man catches t u r t l e s and other f i s h does he say that he has so many f i s h or so many t u r t l e s and f i s h , or so many t u r t l e s and so many kinds of f i s h ? In other words, what i s 75 the prime r e f e r e n t of t u r t l e ? I s i a (as a lower l e v e l taxon) r e a l l y a d i s c r e t e category, or i s i t merely a term f o r a l l f i s h that are not baekwa, k i r i o and fonu? Despite these advantageous aspects of Geohegan's s e t - t h e o r e t i c s t r u c t u r e there i s one extremely important point that he completely f a i l s to mention. In order to o f f e r a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a process or of compo-nent operations one must f i r s t acquire the r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . This i s , i n my o p i n i o n , the most important problem that now faces the a n a l y s t . How does one go about c o l l e c t i n g data not o n l y concerning the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of named ca t e g o r i e s but a l s o attempting to d i s c o v e r something about the r u l e s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ? Word a s s o c i a t i o n t e s t s might be u s e f u l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the degree of a s s o c i a t i o n of concepts and as such, provide an assessment 1 of semantic c o n g r u i t y between c e r t a i n key words chosen by the researcher. The d i s c o v e r y of d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s or p r o p e r t i e s of s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s presents an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t problem. Questions such as those posed i n t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y attempt to e s t a b l i s h some of the d e f i n i n g features of f i s h c a t e g o r i e s might be productive i f a p p l i e d on a l a r g e r s c a l e and,if they i n v o l v e d a l a r g e r more s t r a t i f i e d informant sample. Some a d d i t i o n a l problems mentioned e a r l i e r t h a t , i n my o p i n i o n , should be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n greater d e t a i l are as f o l l o w s : 1. The p o s s i b i l i t y of the existence of two d i s t i n c t but i n t e r -r e l a t e d semantic systems (one male and the other female) i n the naming of 1. The 'memory l i s t s ' discussed p r e v i o u s l y can, I f e e l , be regarded as a type of word a s s o c i a t i o n t e s t i n which the problem of the e t i c s e l e c -t i o n of key words i s not at i s s u e . The t r o u b l e w i t h r e l i a n c e on t h i s k i n d of data, however, i s that one, n e c e s s a r i l y , imposes l i m i t s to the f u l l e x p l o r a t i o n of a semantic domain. 76 marine organisms should be explored. This would r e q u i r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n using two samples of informants d i v i d e d according to sex. The same r e -search p r o t o c o l would have to be u t i l i z e d i n each case, the r e s u l t s r e -corded and a comparison made. A d d i t i o n a l information i n the form of statements made by the people concerning t h e i r own view of these patterns as w e l l as data r e s u l t i n g from observations of the a c t u a l use of terms of reference i n s o c i o - l i n g u i s t i c context should be included. 2. The taxonomic s t a t u s of many named marine organisms recorded i n the course of t h i s study has not been e s t a b l i s h e d . Further i n v e s t i g a -t i o n of these should be conducted. A d d i t i o n a l organisms completely un-explored at t h i s time should be examined. For example, how are c o r a l and seaweeds c l a s s i f i e d ? One would expect, on the b a s i s of p r e l i m i n a r y i n f o r -mation, that the strong conceptual l i n k that we make between c o r a l , sea-weed and land ( c o r a l as r o c k - l i k e , seaweed as p l a n t - l i k e ) would be over-ridden by the strong d i c h o t o m i z a t i o n between t o l o and a s i i n the Lau taxo-nomic universe. T h i s , however, remains to be e s t a b l i s h e d . 3. A f u r t h e r i n q u i r y i n t o the a t t r i b u t i o n of d i s t i n c t i v e f e a -tures to marine organisms at v a r y i n g l e v e l s of s p e c i f i c i t y — p a r t i c u l a r l y those d e a l i n g w i t h morphological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and colour — might be conducted by asking the Lau people themselves to produce v i s u a l represen-t a t i o n s of a number of s p e c i f i c organisms. Such drawings could then be compared to v e r b a l explanations of d i f f e r e n c e s between same. 4. A complementary study of B a e l e l e a ethno^ichthyology might be u s e f u l not only f o r comparative purposes, b u t , i n the context of market be-havior,- such an i n q u i r y might serve to f a c i l i t a t e understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between ; 77 a r t i c l e s of exchange. That i s , .for, example, i f Baelelea vegetables are to' 'sea' 1 vegetables (to the Lau) as Lau f i s h are to ' h i l l ' f i s h (to the Baelelea) f u r t h e r speculations as to the transformations of o b j e c t s by s o c i a l exchange might; be warranted. In b r i e f summary, t h i s t h e s i s has been an attempt to c o n s o l i d a t e p r e - e x i s t i n g data (concerning some aspects of Lau marine taxonomy) and to o f f e r some p r e l i m i n a r y f i n d i n g s . The major domains and s u b d i v i s i o n s of the Lau taxonomic universe have been presented as have a c e r t a i n number of lower order taxa. The question of the e l i c i t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s has been r a i s e d . C e r t a i n p r o p o s i t i o n s have been o u t l i n e d and b r i e f l y discussed. The t o p i c i s a vast one and my i n v e s t i g a -t i o n i s s c a r c e l y a beginning. I have found that i t has generated many qustions and answered none. I t i s my hope, however, that some of the pro-blems r a i s e d at t h i s time can be and are worth f o l l o w i n g to t h e i r completion i n the f u t u r e . I t i s my s i n c e r e d e s i r e to be a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h i s endeavour. 1. Freshwater and f r e q u e n t l y s a l t water f i s h are as e a s i l y a v a i l a b l e to the h i l l people i f they catch them themselves, as are Lau domestic vegetables to the sea people. 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY B e r l i n , B., (1971). Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomen-clature. Working Paper No. 29, Language-Behavior Research Laboratory, Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a , 51 p. c i t e d i n Turner, Nancy Jean, 1974, Plant taxonomic systems and ethnobotany of three contemporary Indian groups of the P a c i f i c Northwest, Syesis 7, p. 29. B e r l i n , B., D. Breedlove and R. Laughlin, (1970). L e x i c a l Retention and  Cu l t u r a l S i g n i f i c a n c e i n T z e l t a l - T z o t z i l Comparative Ethnobotany. Univ e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . B e r l i n , Brent, Dennis'E. Breedlove and Peter H. Raven (1968). Covert Cate-gories and Folk Taxonomies. American Anthropologist, 70: 291-299. Black, Mary. E l i c i t i n g Folk Taxonomy in Ojibwa, i n S. Tyler (ed.), (1969), Cognitive Anthropology, pp. 165-190. Bri g h t , J . and Bright, W. (1965). Semantic Structures i n Northwestern C a l i -f o r n i a and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. American Anthropologist, 67 (5), Part 2 (Special P u b l i c a t i o n ) . Bulmer, Ralph (1967). Why i s the Cassowary Not a Bird? A Problem of Zoological Taxonomy Among the Karam of the New Guinea Highlands. Man 2: 5-25. (1970). Which came f i r s t , the chicken or the egg-head, i n Echanges et Communications, J. Po u i l l o n and P. Maranda (eds.), Tome I I . Mouton and Co., Paris , pp. 1069-1091. Bulmer, R. and T y l e r , M. (1968). Karam c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of frogs. J . Poly- nesian Soc. , 77: 333-385. Bur l i n g , Robbins (1964). Cognition and Componential A n a l y s i s : God's Truth or Hocus-Pocus? American Anthropologist, 66: 20-28. Colby, B.N. (1966). Ethnographic semantics: a preliminary survey. Cur- rent Anthropology, 7: 3-17. Conklin, H.C. (1954). The r e l a t i o n of Hanunoo culture to the plant world. Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n i n anthropology, Yale University. (1957). Ethnobotanical Problems i n the Comparative Study of Folk Taxonomy. Proceedings of Ninth P a c i f i c Science Congress (4) Botany, pp. 299-301 (pub. 1962). 79 Conklin, H.C. (1962). Lexicographical treatment of Folk Taxonomies,in F.W. Householder and S. Saporta (eds.), Problems i n Lexicography, Bloomington, Indiana, U n i v e r s i t y Research Center i n Anthropology, Fo l k l o r e and L i n g u i s t i c s . (1972). Folk C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , A T o p i c a l l y Arranged Bibliography of Contemporary and Background References Through 1971. Department of Anthropology, Yale Un i v e r s i t y . Diamond, J . (1965). Zoological c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system of a p r i m i t i v e people. Science, 151: 1102-1104. F a r i s , James C. (1972). Nuba Personal A r t . Un i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, Toronto. Fox, C E . (1974). Lau Dictionary. Department of L i n g u i s t i c s , Research School of P a c i f i c Studies, A u s t r a l i a n National U n i v e r s i t y . Frake, CO. (1961). The Diagnosis of Disease Among the Subanum of Mindanao. American Anthropologist, 63: 113-131. (1962). The Ethnographic Study of Cognitive Systems, Anthropology and Human Behavior, Washington, D.C Anthropological Society of Wash-ington. Geohegan, W.H. (1971). Information Processing Systems i n Culture, i n Paul Kay (ed.), (1971), Explorations i n Mathematical Anthropology, pp. 3-35. Goodenough, W. (1956). Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning. Language 32 (1): 195-216. (1957). C u l t u r a l Anthropology and L i n g u i s t i c s , Georgetown Uni-v e r s i t y Monograph Series on Language and L i n g u i s t i c s No. 19, pp. 167-163. (1965). Yankee Kinship Terminology: a problem i n Componential Analysis. American Anthropologist, 67 (5), Part 2 (Special P u b l i c a t i o n ) . Goss, J . (1967). Ute Language, Kin, Myth, and Nature: a demonstration of a multi-dimensional f o l k taxonomy. Anthrop; L i n g u i s t 9 (9): 1-11. Gregg, J.R. (1954). The Language of Taxonomy, An A p p l i c a t i o n of Symbolic  Logic to the Study of C l a s s i f i c a t o r y Systems. New York, Columbia Uni v e r s i t y Press. 80 H a r r i s , Marvin (1968). The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Thomas Y. Crowell Company. New York. Kay, Paul (1966). Comment on "Ethnographic Semantics: a preliminary survey", by B.N. Colby. Current Anthropology 7: 20-23. Lawrence, G.H.M. (1951). Taxonomy of vascular plants. New York, MacMillan. Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). S t r u c t u r a l Anthropology. Basic Books, New York. (1966). The Savage Mind. U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, Chi-cago . (1967). Totemism. Beacon Press, Boston. (1969). The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Beacon Press, Boston. (1971). L'homme Nu. Plon, Par i s . Lounsbury, F.G. (1956). A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Language 32: 158-194. Maranda, P. (1969). Lau Markets: A Sketch. (Unpublished manuscript) Maranda, P i e r r e et E l l i Kongas Maranda (1970). Le crane et l'uterus. Deux theoremes Nord-Malaitains, i n Echanges et Communications, J . Pou i l l o n and P. Maranda (eds.) Tome I I . Mouton and Co., P a r i s , pp. 829-861. Maranda, E l l i Kongas (1974). Lau, Malaita: "A Woman Is an A l i e n S p i r i t " i n , Many S i s t e r s : Women i n Cro s s - c u l t u r a l Perspective, Carolyn J. Matthiasson (ed.). The Free Press, New York, pp. 177-202. Marshall, T.C. (1964). Fishes of the B a r r i e r Reef and Coastal Waters of  Queensland. Angus and Robertson Ltd., London. Metzger, D. and Williams, G. (1962). Patterns of Primary Personal Reference  i n a T z e l t a l Community, Anthropology Research Projects. Preliminary Report No. 10. Stanford Un i v e r s i t y , Stanford, C a l i f o r n i a (not seen, reference from Frake, 1964). P r i c e , P. (1967). Two types of taxonomy: a Huichol ethnobotanical example. Anthropol. L i n g u i s t . 9 (7): 1-28. Psathas, George (1968). Ethnomethods and phenomenology. S o c i a l Research 35: 500-520. 81 Raunkiaer, C. (1934). The L i f e Forms of Plants and S t a t i s t i c a l Plant Geo- graphy being Collected Papers of C. Raunkiaer. Oxford, The Clarendon Press. Raven, Peter H., Brent B e r l i n and Dennis E. Breedlove (1971). The Origins of Taxonomy. Science 174: 1210-1213. Simpson, George Gaylord (1961). P r i n c i p l e s of Animal Taxonomy. New York, Columbia University Press. Spradley, James P. (ed.) (1972). Culture and Cognition Rules, Maps and  Plans. Chandler Publishing Company, Toronto. Sturtevant, William C. (1964). Studies i n ethnoscience. American Anthro- pologist 66: 99-131. Turner, Nancy Jean (1974). Plant taxonomic systems and ethnobotany of three contemporary Indian groups of the P a c i f i c Northwest (Haida, B e l l a Coola and L i l l o o e t ) , Syesis 7: 1-104 (Suppl. 1). Tyhurst, CH. (1974). The Sasquatch: an Inquiry into the Logic of Modern Western Thought (unpublished paper written f o r Anthropology 332, Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia). Ty l e r , Stephen A. (ed.) (1969). Cognitive Anthropology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., Toronto. Wallace, Anthony, F.C (1962). Culture and Cognition. Science 135: 351-357. Wallace, A. and Atkins, J. (1960). The meaning of Kinship Terms. American  Anthropologist 62: 58-79. Werner, Oswald (1972). Ethnoscience 1972. Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 271-308. Woodger, J.H. (1952). Biology and Language, an introduction to the method- ology of the b i o l o g i c a l sciences including medicine. Cambridge, The Uni v e r s i t y Press. APPENDIX APPENDIX I A l p h a b e t i c a l l i s t i n g of Lau F i s h Names (from data c o l l e c t e d by Maranda and Maranda (1967-1968) and compiled by Tyhurst (1975)). APPENDIX I I A l p h a b e t i c a l l i s t i n g of Lau f i s h names i d e n t i f i e d by the Lau from M a r s h a l l (1964) i l l u s t r a t i o n s and compiled by Tyhurst (1975). APPENDIX I I I Photographs of a d d i t i o n a l f i s h i d e n t i f i e d by the L a u belone'in~ to u p n e r I f v e l taxon ' l a and of other marine organisms named — • taxonomic s t a t u s undetermined. 83 APPENDIX I 84 L I S T OF LAU F I S H NAMES (MALAITA, SOLOMON ISLANDS) F I N A L COPY AS OF 28 V I I 1975 ALPHABETICAL L I S T I N G OF LAU FISH NAMES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCLUDED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING NUMERICAL CODES AND CORRESPONDING F I E L D I D E N T I F I C A T I O N S . CODE/FIELD SUB-CODE INFORMATION FIRST ENTRY LAU NAME 85 2 ENGLISH "COMMON NAME" ACCORDING TO SOURCE GIVEN UNDER CODE 4 3 "SYSTEMATIC" NAME ACCORDING TO SOURCE GIVEN UNDER CODE 4 4 SOURCES: A SOURCE OF INFORMATION CONTAINED UNDER CODES * FIRST ENTRY* TO *3» 4M# MARSHALL PAGE # 4H# HA1STEAD PAGE # 4H# WEBSTER PAGE # 4C FROM MARANDA & MARANDA FIELD FILE CARDS 4CS FROM MARANDA 6 MARANDA FIELD FILE CARDS; SLIDE OR PHOTOGRAPH AVAILABLE 4F FOX IAU DICTIONARY 5 SOURCES: B INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM INFORMANTS' MEMORY LISTS OF FISH TYPES FIELD FORMAT: 5 L DIGIT HABITAT *5' INDICATES CODE OR FIELD 'DIGIT 1 INDICATES PAGE IN FIELD NOTES AND LOCATION OF INFORMANT (1,2 = ULUFERA; 3,4,5 = ATA'A; 6,7,8 = FOUSDA) 6 INFORMATION GIVEN REPRESENTS EN ENGLISH "COMMON NAME" AS AN EQUIVALENT FOR THE LISTED LAU NAME BUT NC FORMAL SOURCE OF THIS TRANSLATION IS AVAILABLE SOURCES: C INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM LISTS COMPILED IN T H E FIELD CONCERNING THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FISHES CAUGHT AND IDENTIFIED BY THE INFORMANTS AND RECORDED BY MARANDA & MARANDA 0 »7« INDICATES CODE OR FIELD »K» INDICATES THAT INFORMATION IS FROM THE INFORMANTS• "CATCH LIST" •XX' GIVES INFORMANTS' LOCATION: FO = FOUEDA, FF = FUNAFOU, SF = SULUFOU •YY YY YY* GIVES DATE IN DAY, MONTH, YEAR 'O' GIVES FISH SIZE (SIZE X,Y,Z, AND SHELLS) SIZE (ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY) X= 5/-Y» V -Z= 10 FISHES FOR 1/-S= SHELLS •DIGITS' GIVE NUMBER FISHES PER TYPE PER DATE FISH NAMES WITH RITUAL OR TABU SIGNIFICANCE REFERENCE: TOATA, 3 PAGES; CF. HANDWRITTEN NOTE FIELD FORMAT: 7 K XX YY YY YY DIGITS 8T 9 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EXISTS IN ORIGINAL DATA FIELD FORMAT 9 X DIGIT 8 6 •9' INDICATES CODE OR FIELD 'X» GIVES ONE OF THE SOURCE-SYMBOLS OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: L = MEMORY LISTS, K = CATCH LISTS, C/CS = CARD FILES WITH/HITHOOI SLIDE/PHCTOG RAPH DIGIT INDICATES PAGE ON SOURCE LISTS 10 "RELATED" NAMES OF LAU FISH TYPES AND CROSS-REFERENCES GIVEN BY VARIOUS INCLUDED SOURCES 11 LAU FISH NAMES OCCURING IN RIDDLES COLLECTED Bl ELLI MARANDA IN 1966-1968; * FOLLOWING CODE »1' CORRESPONDS TO THE SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED RIDDLI NUMBER #FITAU2 2BOBING MOLLUSC IN MANGROVE SWAMPS3-4FT.LONG 3KUPHUS 4F# • AD A'ADA 2A CENTIPEDE-LIKE CREATURE ON THE REEF 4F •AFU 2 GREEN SEAWEED,5 OR 6 FEET LONG 4F •AIFURU 4F 'AKWA 4F •AKWA 4F •AKWANGO 2YELLCW-FIN BREAM 3MYLIO ADSTRALIS 4M221,F 5L1AA6MATAKWA •ALAUO 4F •IME 2SP MOLLUSC, TRIDACNA SP ARE AEUABULI,DOLO KIKI 4F •MANEBA 2SP JELLY FISH CF KWAIRABU 4 F 1 AA 2BLUE-BANDED SEA PERCH 3L0TJAN0S KASMIRA 4M197 5L7AA4AA AA'O 4F AABEAABE 4F AAFA 4F AALANO 5L4AA AALOKWAGA 5L6MATAKWA AANINGNI 5L6 MATAKW A AARABA 2HEART SHELL 3ISOCARDIA COR 4W994 AARAGWALA 4CS AATU 2TOP SHELL 4W2619 5L10 AAOALITE 5L6MATAKWA ABEKOA 5L6AA 4F ABUNI 2BLUE-BANDED SEA PERCH 3LUTJANUS KASMIRA 4M197 5L4AA7AA ABUNI 5L2H ADOMA 7KSF10/06/68S110 AFALI 4F AFILU1 2BULLRCUT 3NOTESTHES ROBUSTA 4M408 5L1AA4AA7AA AFILU2 2ESTUARY ROCK COD 3EPINEPHELUS TAUVINA 4M171 A F U»U 7KSF10/06/68Y6 A F U * U 7 K S F 1 1 / O 6 / 6 8 Z 2 0 A F U ' U 7 K S F 1 2 / 0 6 / 6 8 Y 6 AFU'U 7KSF12/06/68Z10 AFU'U 7KSF13/06/68Z10 AGOFOLO 5L6AA AI*FATARAA 7KFF06/05/68Y 10AEA*I* FOUEDA AIFATARAO 2SP BLACK FISH WITH REPTILIAN HEAD 4F AIFATOBAO 5L7AA AIGO 5L4AA AILAI DAI 5L4AA AININIU=AINIU 2SP FISH 4F 5I6AA AINIU=AININIU 2SP FISH 4F AKWA NIABA 2TRUMPETER PERCH 3PELATES QUADRILINEATUS 4M184CS 5L4AA7AA6MATAKWA AKWA'AKIA 5L2AH 4F AKWASIMAI 4CS 5L6MATAKWA AKWASIMAI 5L2H ALAGA 2SP SEAWEED 4F ALAGALO 5L8FAF0ILE ' ALAHAA 2SCARLET-FIN SOLDIER-FISH 3H0L0CENTRUM SPINIFERUM 4M142 5L3FAFOILE7AA ALAKWAGA 2SP FISH TABOO TO MAN SUFFERING FROM DIPTHERIA 4F ALAMAMU 5L6AA ALASAA 4F ALASU 5L4AA ALATE BARO 2HEBRING TREVALL Y 3CARANX KALLA 4M234 ALAUO 4F ALI UBERE 2GOLDEN TREVALLY 3CARANX SPECIOSUS 4M236 5L3FAFOILE ALI 5L2AH ALIA I KAFU 5L7AA ALIA 2HUMP-HEADED MAORI-WRASSE 3CHEILINUS UNDULATUS 4M314,F 5L6 MATAKWA ALIA 7KSF10/06/68X4 ALIA 7KSF11/06/68X2 ALIA 7KSF13/06/68X3 ALIFOU 2AUSTRALIAN PILCHARD 3ARENGUS NEOPILCHARDUS 4M77 ALIKAFO 5L1AA ALIKAFU 5L1FAFOILE ALIMANGO 2LARGEST SP CRAB, FOUND CN OUTER REEF, BLACK 4F ALINGA BOKOFU 5I6MATAKWA ALINGA BULU 5L6MATAKWA ALINGA FAALU=ALINGE FAALU 2SP LARGE FISH WITH REDDISH FINS AND TAIL, RHOMBU ALINGA FAAIU= ALINGE FAALU 5L8FAFOIIE ALINGA 2SCALELESS TUNA 3GYMNOSARDA NUDA 4M342CS 5L3FAFOILE6MATAKWA ALINGA 7KSF10/06/68X2 ALINGA 7KSF11/06/68X1 ALINGA 7KSF13/06/68X2 ALINGE FAALU 7KSF10/06/68X3 ALINGE FAALU 7KSF11/06/68X5 ALINGE FAALU 7KSF12/06/68X2 ALINGE FAALU 7KSF13/06/68X2 ALINGE FAALU 7KSF14/06/68X3 ALINGE=ALINGA 4CS ALOA RAE 2SURF PARROT-FISH 3CALLYODON FASCIATUS 4M319 5L6AA6MATAKWA ALOSA 4F ALULU 4F 5L1AA ALULU 5L7AA ALUMUMU 5L6AA ALUSA 2SP FISH 4F 5L1FAFOILE ALUSA 2SP FISH 4F 5L6MATAKWA AMERA 5L6AA 7KSF14/06/68Y12 ANAFA 7KSF11/06/68Z10 ANGAFA IFO 2SCARLET-BREASTED MAORI-WRASSE 3CHEILINUS FASCIATUS 4M313 ANGAFA ITO 2HARLEQUIN TUSK-FISH 3LIENARDELLA FASCIATUS 4M292 5L7AA ANGAFA KEKERO 5L7AA ANGAFA OOLC 2M0CN WRASSE 3THALASSOMA LONARE 4M309 ANGAFA 4CS 7KSF11/06/68Z10 ANGAFA 5L1AA ANGAFA 5L6AA ANGILI 5L1FAFOILE ANGIII 5L6MATAKWA ANOFI*AE 2SP. MOLLUSC 3NERITA BREVISPINA4F10DOKOFI'AE ARABA 2C0CKLE 3CARDIUM EDULE 4W428 ARAGWALA 5L7AA ARAKAO 5L7AA ARERE 7KSF13/06/68Y12Z20 ARERE1 2BLUE TUSK-FISH 3CHOEBODON ALBIGENA 4M295,F ARERE2 2VENUS TUSK-FISH 3CH0EB0DCN VENUSTUS 4M294 iRODO 5L6AA VSAUNGA 5L6MATAKWA 88 \U 2PORCUPINE FISH 3TRAGULICHTHYS JACULIFERUS 4M483,F \U1U 5L2H iULUMAEO 5L2H iUSUSU 2TU1I SHELL 4W2619 5110 iUSUSOU 2UNICOEiN SHELL 3IATIRUS OR 1EUCOZONIA CINGULATUS 4iW2241 &USUU TEKWA 2TULIP SHELL 3FASCIOLARIA TOLIPA 4W2619 3A AA=MENA MENA 2SDRGEON FISH 4H86,F 9C BA'AA BULU 518FAFOILE 3A * AA NI FULA 5L4AA 3A•AA 7KFO13/06/68Y2 3A'AA 7KSF10/O6/68Y21 3A' AA 7KSF11/06/68X5 3A'AA 7KSF12/06/68Y5 3A'AA 7KSF13/06/68Y17 BA'AA 7KSF14/06/68X16Y36 3AABABA 5L6MATAKWA 3ABA AU 5L4AA 3ABALI BILA 4F 5L6AA 3ABALI 2SP DEEP SEA FISH 4F 7KFF27/04/68Y 3ABALU SP. 2EUAMENA SUBSP. 4F,CS 5L8FAFOILE 8T 9SP OF LARGE AND DANGEROUS DEE BABALU 7KSF10/06/68Y2 3ABAO 5L8FAFOILE 3AE HANGO 5L4AA 3AE KEKESI 5L4AA 3AE 5L4AA 3AEKWA I ASI (TOLO) SEA SNAKE 2SP GWOULO,KAFISORO,LELEO,MANGEO,MELEO,RARASIFC BAEKWA IA K i l l 11R659 3AEKWA 2A SHARK 4F 3AEKWAILI 5L7MATAKWA 3AEKWALETO 5L7MATAKWA 3AHAULA1 2SN UB-NOSED GARFISH 31RRHAMPUS SCLEROLEPSIS 4M112 5L7AA 3AHAULA2 2STRIPED BARRACUDA 3SPH3YAENA OBTUSATA 4M382 3ALA I TOLO 2YELLOW SPOTTED ROCK COD 3EPINEPHELUS AREOLATUS 4M168 3ALA 2HAWKSBILL TURTLE 3CHEL-ONIA IMBRICATA 4«990,F BALA 2LOGGERHEAD 3CARETTA CARETTA 4W1270 BAROBARO 2PAPER NAUTILUS 3ARG0NAUTA ARGO 4W1560 BASAULA 2NAME FOR.SWORDFISH (ILI) AT CERTAIN STAGE OF GROWTH 4F 10 I I I BEBE 2BUTTERFLY FISH 3C.H AETODON EPHIPPUM 4F/W363 5L1AA3AA7AA BEBE ABEKOA 5.L7AA BEBE ADEKWE I LAO 2THREADFIN BUTTERFLY-FISH 3CHAETODON AURIGA 4M261 BEBE ADIBWALAO 5L7AA3AA BEBE FAKATEKWA1 2 BEAK ED CORAL-FISH 3CHELJ30N RO STRATUS MARGINALLS 4M256 BEBE FAKATEKWA2 2LONG-BIL1 3FCRCIPIGER LONGIROSTRIS 4M258 BEBE FURAI FONU 5L7AA3AA BEBE KEKERO 2GOLDEN-STRIPED BUTTERFLY-FISH 3CHAETODON AUREOFASCIATUS 4M265 BEBE NASA 2LGNG-BILL 3FORCIPIGER LCNCIROSTRIS 4M258 BEBE NI FUEAI FONU 2LINEB BUTTERFLY FISH 3CHAETODON LINEOLATUS 4M263 BEBE 0 OLO 2CRISS-CROSS BUTTERFLY-FISH 3CHAETODGN VAGABUNDUS 4M262 BEBE TATAFIRIOGU 2SIX-SPINED BUTTERFLY-FISH 3PARACHAETODON OCELLATUS 4M260 BEBE TEKWA 2RIGHT-ANGLED BUTTERFLY-FISH 3CHAETODON TRIFASCIALIS 4M266 BEBERA GWASU 2FIVE-BANDED SURGEON-FISH 3ACANTHDRUS TRIOSTEGUS 4F,M328 BEBERIGWASU 7KSF12/06/68Z10 BELAFA 4F 5L1AA BELEFA 2SP SMALL FISH STRIPED YELLOW AND BLACK 5L4AA BELEFA 2SP SMALL FISH STRIPED YELLOW AND BLACK 5L8FAFOILE BEO 2SP TURTLE 4F BERAGWASU 2SP SMALL FISH 4F 5L8FAFOILE BERAGWASO 2SP SMALL FISH 5L2AH 3 E S A K A I 2 B L A C K - F I N N E D C A R D I N A L F I S H 1 1 R 4 0 8 B E R A K A I 2 B L A C K - F I N N E D C A R D I N A L F I S H 3 A P 0 G 0 N AT R I P E S 4 M 1 4 : 9 , F 5 L 1 A A 4 A A 6 A A 3 E R E R E G S A S U 7 K S F 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 Z 1 0 3 1 B I 7 K S F 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 1 5 3 I B I L A 2 C A R D I N A L F I S H 3 A P 0 G G N F A S C I A T U S F A S C I A T U S 4 M 1 5 0 , F 5 L 1 A A 4 A A 6 A A 3 I B I N U 1 1 R 2 3 , 4 8 6 B I B I N U 2 S E A U R C H I N 3 T 0 X 0 P N E U S T E S E L E G A N S 4 H 5 0 B I B I N U 7 K F 0 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 1 0 B I B I N U 7 K S F 1 0 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 2 0 B I B I N U 7 K S F 1 0 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 2 0 B I B I N U 7 K S F 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 7 0 B I B I N U 7 K S F 1 2 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 7 0 B I B I N U 7 K S F 1 3 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 3 8 B I B I N U 7 K S F 1 4 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 7 2 B . I B I N U = B I N U 2 S E A U R C H I N 1 1 R 4 8 6 B I I N I M A L A U 2 B Y N O E , S G O B I 3 A M B L Y G O B I U S B Y N O E N S I S 4 M 3 5 8 B I L A D A U 5 L 7 A A B I L A U I M A L A U 2 C O R A L C O D 3 P L E C T R O P O M U S M A C U L A T U S 4 F , M 1 7 4 5 L 4 A A 6 M A T A K W A B I L A U K E K E R O 5 I 6 M A T A K W A B I L A U K I L A U 5 L 6 M A T A K W A 3 I L A U 4 F 5 L 1 A A B I L A U 7 K S F 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 X 2 B I L A U 7 K S F 1 2 / 0 6 / 6 8 X 4 B I L A U 7 K S F 1 4 / 0 6 / 6 8 X 2 3 I L U = B . I L U I M A L A U 4 F 5 L 6 MAT AKWA B I N U 7 K F 0 1 0 / G 6 / 6 8 S 3 4 3 I N U 7 K F G 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 7 BOE N I F O U 2 S T A R S A N D S T R I P E S T O A A D C 11B511 3 0 E N I F O U 2 S T A R S - A N D - S T P I P E S T O A D O 3 T E T R A O D O N H I S P I D U S 4 M 4 7 9 5 1 4 A A BOE 4 F 3 0 K O F U 11B 2 1 9 , 3 7 6 3 0 K O F U 2 G A R F I S H 1 1 R 3 7 6 B O K O F U 2 G A R F I S H 4 C , F B O K O F U • I K A F O 2 B L A C K S P O T L O N G TOM 3 T Y L O S U R U S S T R O N G Y L U R U S 4 I T 1 0 3 B O K O F U = B U K O F U 2 S P G A R F I S H 4 F B O K O R U 2 S P O F F I S H 4 F B O L O I M A T A K W A 2 I N K Y B L A C K S P O F B O L O 4 F B O L O I T O L O 2 Y E L L O W S P O T T E D R O C K C O D 3 E P I N E P H E L U S A R E O L A T U S 4 M 1 6 8 5 L 4 A A 6 A A B O L O 2 S P S M A L L F I S H A P P E A R I N G F O R 3 M O N T H S 4 F 5 L 1 A A B O L O 5 L 6 A A B O L O 7 K S F 1 2 / 0 6 / 6 8 Z 1 0 B O R A B O R A 4 F 5 L 6 M A T A K W A B O R A B O R A 7 K F O 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 X 1 B O R A B O R A 7 K S F 1 3 / 0 6 / 6 8 X 2 B G R B O R A 7 K S F 1 0 / 0 6 / 6 8 X 2 BOU 8 T B O U B A B A 5 L 6 M A T A K W A B O U B O U 5 L 6 M A T A K W A B O U B U 4 C S 9 S P E C I E S O F B O K O F U 5 1 1 A A 3 A A 6 M A T A K W A 3 U A M A R A 5 L 4 A A 7 A A B U A M E N A 5 L 7 A A B U B U B U L U 4 C S , F 9 C B U B U I D A I 2 B I G - S P O T T E D T R I G G E R - F I S H 3 B A L I S T E S C O N S P I L L I C U M 4 M 4 5 8 5 L 8 F A F O I L E B U B U I M A T A K W A 2 S P O T T E D T R I G G E R - F I S H 3 C A N T H I D E R M I S R O T U N D A T U S 4 M 4 6 2 B U B U K O R U 5 L 7 A A B U B U KWAO 4 F B U B U L A M A T A K W A 2 S P O T T E D T R I G G E R - F I S H 3 C A N T H I D E R M I S R O T U N D A T U S 4 M 4 6 2 B U B U 5 1 1 A A B U B U 5 L 2 A H B U B U 7 K F 0 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 8 3 3UBU 7KSF14/06/68Z10 BUKOFU=BOKOFU 2S.P GARFISH g o 3ULA=BUII=.B0IISI 2WHITE COWRIE SHELL 30VULA OVU1UH 4F BULI 2SHELL 30V0.LA 0VU.LUM 4F 301.1 2WHITE COWRIE SHELL 30VULA OVUIUM 4F BULI=BULA=BULISI 3WHITE COWRIE SHELL 4F B0LIS.I=BULA=B01I 2WHITE COWRIE SHELL 30VULA OVUIUM 4F BUL0NGA1 2A TURTLE SPECIES 4C,F 8ULQNGA2 2GBEEM TURTLE 3CHE1GNIA HYDAS 41949 9C BUL0NGA3 2LEATHERBACK 3DERM0CHELYS GOBXACEA 4W1228 BULUBULU 2RED-LINED TRIGGER-FISH 3BALISTAPUS UNDULATUS 4M461 518FAF0ILE BUMA AI 4F 5L6 MATAKWA BUMA AI 5L7HATAKWA BUMA 2SARDINE 4F BUMA 11R183 BUMA 5L1FAFOILE BUMA 7KFF02/05/68Z886 BUMA 7KFF04/05/68Z141270 BUMA 7KFF28/04/68Z BUNA 7KFF29/04/68Z BUNGU KURU 2WHELK 3BUCCINUM TOTENII 4W2324 BUNGU RAU1 2HARP SHELL 3HARPA ARTICULARIS 4W985 BUNGU RAU2 2TUN SHELL 3DCLIUM PERDIX 4W2215 BUNGU TEKWA 2TRIT0N 3TRIT0N VARIE GATUM 4F,W2202 BUNGU 2QUEEN CONCH 11.H333 BUNGU 2BENTLET.BAP 3SCALASIA PRETIOSA 482321 BUNGU1 2QUEEN CONCH 3CASSIS 4F,1753 BUNGU2 2QUEEN CONCH 4F,2619 5L10 BUND 7KSF13/06/68S15 BURA NI BONGI 5L6AA BURASI 512AH BURASI 5L6AA BURASI 7KSF10/06/68Z20 BURASI 7KSF11/06/68Z10 BURASI 7KSF14/06/68Z10 BUUBUU=BUBU 11R658,733 DA.AFI 7KFF03/05/68Z DADA 2GECK0 3GECK0NIDAE 4W897 DA DAL A KEKEROA 20RANGE COWRIE SHELL 3C. AURANTIA 4.F 10BULI„KOLO DADALA KEKERCA 20RANGE COWRY 3CYPRAEA AURANTIUM 4F DADALA 2COWRIE SHELL 3CYPRAEA (WEBSTER) CARABICA (FOX) 4F,W521 10 DODOLO DADALA 7KSF10/06/68S45 DADALA 7KSF13/06/68S40 DADALA 7KSF14/06/68S19 DADALA=BALA DAFE 2PEARL SHELL,GOLDEN LIPPED PEARL 4F DAFI 5L6AA 2GGLDEN L I P PEARL 4F DALUMA NI AR.A 2BANDED TOA DO 3SPHER0IDES PLEUROSTICTUS 4M477 DALUMA1 2MARELED TOADO 3CHELONOD0N PATOCA 4M481,F 5L4AA DALUMA2 2T0AD0 3TETRAODON STELLATUS 4M480 DALUMA3 5L4AA DEDEFO 2SEA URCHIN 3AESTHEN0SOME I J I M A I YOSHIWARA 4H50 DENGE 2PRAWN (WEBSTER) SP OF FRESHWATER PRAWN (FOX) 3PENEUS 4F,,W1690 DENGE=ODG I KAFO DIADIA 2S.P LARGE FISH 4F 5L6MATAKWA DIADIA 511FAF0ILE3FAFOILE DIDIFEO 2FIDDLER CRAB 3GELASINUS MINAX 4W810 DID 2SP OF FISH 4F 514 A A 10 KWALEU DQIAIO 5L7AA DOKOFI'AE 2SP MOLLUSC WITH SPINES 3NERITA BREVISPINA 4F 10ANOFI 1AE D0LG1 2C0NGEB EEL 3C0NGEE 4W472 )0L02 2KILLER CLAM 3TBICANDA GIGAS WITH SMOOTH SURFACE 4H30 DOL02 7KSF11/06/68S1 )ORU LA ONE 2LGNG-FINNED GURNARD 3LEPIDOTRIGLA CALODACTYLA 4M427 30RU NI ONE 2PURPLE FLYING GURNARD 3DACTYLOPTENA ORIENTALIS 4M426 DORU 5.L 1FAFOIIE3FAFOILE DORU 5L6MATAKWA 30RU=DURU DOU LA SUU 2SPOTTED HERRING 3H ARENGULA KONIGSBESGERI 4M74 DOU 4F 514AA6AA DOU 5L6AA DUFI 5L6AA DUMUAKWA 5L4AA DUMULIKOA 5L7AA DUNGE AKWA 2SPECKLED PUG 3TANDYA MACULATA 4M323 5L7AA DUNIAKWA 5L7AA DURU=DORU 2FLYING FISH 4F 9SMALL SP S.IFURU 10DURU, AIFURU E'ENG=ENO 2SP REEF FISH 4F 91 4F 7KFF01/05/68Y 5L6MATAKWA 7KFF03/05/6 8Y 7KFF05/05/68X 7KFF06/05/68X 7KFF27/04/6 8X 7KFO13/06/68X19 7KSF10/06/68X2 7KSF11/06/68X6 7KSF12/06/68X6 7KSF13/06/68X2 7KSF14/06/68X6 3SQUALOMUGIL NASUTUS 4M383/F EDAEDA-MAMULA EDAEDA=MAMULA EDAEDA=MAMULA EDAEDA= MAMULA EDAEDA=MAMULA BDAEDA=M AMUL A EDAEDA=MAMULA EDAEDA=MAMULA EDAEDA=MAMULA BDAEDA=MAMULA EDAEDA=MAMULA EDAEDA= MAMULA EENO 4F 5L1AA SLU 7KFO10/06/68X1 ELU 7KFO11/06/6 8Z40 ELU=ELUE1U 2SHARK MULLET ELUELU 5L6AA ELUELU=ELU 4CS ENO GAUBU 5L4AA,F ENO 5L1AA4AA ENO-E * ENO 2SP REEF FISH 4F FA'AU 11R285 FA' AU 5L7AA 7KFF03/05/68Y FA * AU 7KFF27/04/68Z FAA MAI 4F FAA 5L6MATAKWA FAERE I L E 21UN AR-TAILED ROCK COD 3YARI01A LOUTI 4M164 FAERE-FAERO 2LUNAR-TAILED ROCK COD 3VARIOLA LOUTI 4M164 FAERO=FAERE 2LUNAR-TAILED ROCK COD 3VARIOLA LOUTI 4M164 PAFALUTA 4F FAFARI 2SCORPION 3SCORPION!DA 4W1898 FAFULU 5L8FAFCILE FAKAE BUA 5L6AA FAKAGQLA 5L8FAF0ILE FALATA 2GOLDEN—LINED SPINEFOOT 3SIGANUS LINEATUS 7KFF05/05/68Y 7KSF10/06/68Y15Z3 7KSF11/06/68Y11 7KSF12/06/68Y24 7KSF13/06/68I9Z10 7KSF14/06/68Y37 2SP FISH, SUCKER FISH 4F 5L1AA 1 OMAASULUA 5L1FAFOILE3FAFOILE 5L6MATAKWA 4M335 5L1AA3AA6AA FALATA FALATA FALATA FALATA FALATA FALATA PALEGO I FALEGO 2SP F I S H , SUCKER F I S H 4F 5.14 A A PALE-GO 2SP F I S H , SUCKER F I S H 4F 517HATAKWA 9 2 PALI ABAKW A 2R0UND STINGRAY 3UR0PHGIUS HALLERI 4H59,60 ?A.LI BORA 516 A A PALI I L 0 L 0 1 2SPOTTED STINGAREE 3DASYATIS K U H L I I 4M43 ?A1I I 10102 2CGACHWHIP RAY 3HIMANTURA UARNAK 4M47 ?A1I LA SUU 2BLUE SPOTTED STIHGAHEE 3DASYATIS K U H L I I 4M43 PALI MANU 2BAT RAY EAGLE RAY 3MYLI0BATIDAE 4H57 58 PALI NI MATAKW A 2BLUE SPOTTED 1AG00H RAY 3TAEMURA IG.MMA 4M4 8 9 FALI NI ONE 2BLUE SPOTTED STINGAREE 3DASYATIS K U H L I I 4M43 PALI 11R186,230,446,924,951,99 3,1008 PALI 2STI.NGHAY 3DASY ATIDAE 4H55,57 5L1AA6AA PALUA 4F PALUAKWA 517AA PANAMEA 5L1FAF0ILE6MA TAKWA PARAKWAOA 5L11 9111 PARANADI 516MATAKWA ?ATA=FATU 4F ?ATU=FATA 2T0P SHELL 3TROCHUS NILOTECDS 4F,W2619 PAU U 4F 517 A A PAUKWAI 2SP F I S H 4F 10URA NI BOUGI, MATASE, SINU PAULA10 5L6MATAKWA PIFERO 2SP MOLLUSC 3C0LUMBE1-IA 4F P I F I L U 2LARGE SP DUGONG SELDOM SEEN ON MAIA BETTER KNOWN ON GEIA 4F 5 I 1 F A F O I I FI1U.FIIU 2 S A I L - F I S H 3ISTI0PH0RUS GLADIUS 4M337 5L3FAFOILE6MATAKSA PIS.I MAM AMU 511A A P I S I TOTOE 5L2H P I S I 4F PISIARAO 511AA PITAU1 2SHIPWORM 3TERED0 N A V I L I S 4W2619 4110 FOE FOE 5L6AA 7.KSF 1 0/06/6 8Z 10 POEFOE 7KSF1 1/06/68Y9 POEFOE 7KSF11/06/68Z10 POEFOE 7KSF13/06/68Y7Z20 POEFOE 7KSF14/06/68Y16Z10 P OFOLAABE MALAU 517AA P01A ABE TOKITOKI 2BATFISH 3PLATAX PINNATUS 4M275 POLA ABE 2 S I C K L E - F I S H 3DREPANE PUNCTATA 4M274 5I1AA4AA POLAOLA 4F POLAOTA 2SP LARGE F I S H 4F FOLATA 4F PONU AKWA 5 L 8 F A F 0 I L E FONU BALA 5 L 8 F A F O I L E PONU FALATA 5 I 8 F A F O I L E FONU I TOLG 2WOOD TORTOISE 3CLEMMYS INSCULPTA 4W2348 FONU I A 5 L 8 F A F O I L E FONU IA1 2GREEN TURTLE 3CHEI0NIA MYDAS 4W949 FONU I A 2 2HAWKSBILL TURTLE 3CHELONIA IMBRICATA 4W990 FONU NI TOL01 2SNAPPING TURTLE 3CHELYDRA SERPENTINA 4W1983 FONU NI TOL02 2TURTLE 3CHEICPUS GUTTATUS 4W2219 FONU 2LOGGERHEAD TURTLE 3CARETTA CARETTA 4W1270 5 L 1 F A F O I L E 10SP ARE BALA, BEC FORAE 517 A A FORE 2HAIRBACK HERRING 3NEMAIAL0SA COME 4M68 5L7AA F O T O BALA 2RED-FINNED EMPEROR 3LETHRINUS FLETUS 4M213 5L3AA6AA FOTG BALA 7KFG10/06/68X1 F O T O BALA 7KSF10/06/68X1 F O T O BALA 7KSF11/06/68X6 F O T O BALA 7KSF12/06/68X2 F O T O BALA 7KSF13/06/68X2 F O T O BALA 7KSF14/06/68X3 ? 0 T 0 5L7AA ?0U 'ASUFE 2SHELL 3PALLIU MP ALLIUM 4 F ?0U • I M E 2SHELL 3TRIDACNA 4 F 93 ?0U KURAI 7 K F F 0 3 / 0 5 / 6 8 Z ?0U L A L O 2GREAT T R E V A L L Y CAF.ANX 3 S E X F A S C I A T U S 4 M 2 3 2 5 L 3FAFOILE6 MAT AKWA ?OU'ASUFE 2SP MOLLUSC 3PECTEN 4 F fOUKWAI 4CS 5L6AA ?OUKWAI 7KSF10/06/68Y8 rOUKWAI 7KSF1V 0 6/68Y9 ?OUTOBI 5L6MATAKWA ?UASA N I ' A F U 2SEAHORSE 4 F ?UASA 2CROCODIIE 4 F 10MOKOTORO#WANE,KAFG ?UFU 2SP FISH SWOLLEN LIKE A FOOTBALL 4 F ?ULA ABU 2JELLYFISH 11R196 'ULA'ABU 4 F ?ULO 2A SPONGE 4 F ?UNAMEA 5L6MATAKWA FUUFUU 2SPIDER 3ARANEIDA 4W2011 aAFAGAPA 5 1 2 A H J A F A L A 5L4AA7AA 3AFAU 2SPOTTED BUTTER-FISH 3SCATOP HAGUS ARGUS 4M254 3 A I A R O B O 5L11 9 1 1 1 3AIFESORO 5L7MATAKWA 3AIFUNU 5L7MATAKWA 5AIROBO 5L6MATAKWA 3ALO 2 E G G S OF CRAYFISH OR PRAWN (LAMA OF C R A B , B I L A OF F I S H ) 4F 3ANALE=GANOLE 4 F J A N A L E = G O N O L E 3ANALE1 2CRGWNED SOLDIER-FISH 3H0L0CENTRUM DIADEMA 4M143 5L1AA4AA7AA 5ANALE2 2RED SOLDIER-FISH 3HOLOCENT8UM RUBRUM 4 M 1 4 5 J A N E G A N E 2SP B I V A L V E MOLLUSC, C O C K L E UF ;ANOLE=GANALE 4F 3AOFU 5L6&A 5EGESUHATO 5L1FAFOILE 3ELA 2 S P LARGE SEAFISH 4 F 5L3FAFOI1E1FAFOILE 3ELE 5L6MATAKWA J E R U 2DIAMOND-SCALED MULLET 3HUGIL VAIGIENSIS 4M392,F 5L1AA 9 S P POISONOUS FI5 JERD 5L7AA SOFALA 4 F 30FALU 5L8FAFOILE 30FOU 5L6AA 30GOUBADA=GOU GORADA 5I7AA 300USU 5L6AA SOU GORADA=GOGGUBADA 5L1AA 30U LA FANE 5L6MATAKWA 30U MATANGA 2COW-FISH 3LACTGRIA CORNUTOS 4 M 4 7 3 30UFU U 5L2H6MATAKWA 30UFU 5L6AA 7KFF05/05/68X 3 0 U F U 7 K F F 2 7 / 0 V 6 8 X I 30UGOU 2MUREX 4W2619 5 1 1 0 30ULO 2HAJ3MERHEAD SHARK 3SPHYRNIDAE 4W976 5L7MATAKWA 30UMAEO 5L8FAFCILE 30UMU RAA 5L6MATAK8A 30UMUDU 5L6MATAKWA 30URU 11B155 SOU 5L1AA 3ULI 5L8FAFOILE 3UMULI 5L6AA 3WAA 5L9 6GRAY WHALE 9 L 9 101AGWARI jiAFOLA 5L1AA JWAHASU 5L6MATAKWA SWAHASU 5 L 9 919 c SWA! SASU 2A WHALE 4F 10GWASASU 5HAI1A 2SP OF LARGE FISH 4F 7KSF11/06/68X2 J W A I L A 7 K S F 1 3 / 0 6 / 6 8 X 1 SMAI1I 4F 3WANGQSI AU 2BLUE-EANDED WHIPTAII 3PENTAPODUS S E T O S D S 4M205 5L3AA7AA JWANGOSI FAFUBCNGO 517AA3AA 3WANG0SI KUKURU 2PEAR1Y SPINE-CHEEK 3SCOLOPSIS MARGARITIFER 4M204,F 3HANGOSI 5L2AH 3WAHGOSI 5L7AA3AA 3WANGWANGO 2NASS.A 3NASSA VIEEX 4W1437 3WANGWANGO 2PURPURA 1APIL10S 4 8 1 7 3 9 JWANOSI 7KSF13/06/68Z10 JWARAFETA 5L1FAFOILE 5WAREO 2BLACK-SPOT SEA PERCH 31UTJANUS FULVIFLAMMA 4M201 5L1AA4AA7AA 3WARIGWARI 2SP OF RIVER FISH 4F 511.AA 5WAR0 SUKA 2CREATURE IN SAND AT 10H WATER 4F 3WASASU 2WHA1E 4F 10KWASAS0 3WAUFUU 4F 3WIGWIA GAGAROA 4F 5I6AA 3WIGWIA GOGOURU 2flARBIED CORAL-COD 3SEBASTAPISTES B.YNOENSIS 4M406 3WIGWIA 2SE RED FISH WITH SPINES 4F 3WIGWIA 5L2AH 3WIGWIA 5L6AA SilOGSIO 2SP SMALL FISH 4F 3W0FALAU=GW0FALU 7KSF10/06/68X2 3WOFALU 7KSF12/06/68X3 JWOUFU 7KSF11/06/68X6 3W0UFU 7KSF12/06/68X6 3 1 0 U F U 7KSF13/06/68X2 3WOUFU 7KSF14/06/68X2 3WOUGWOU 2CRAB WITH NO FLESH, WATERY 4F 3SOUGWOURU 4F 3WOUMUDU1 4F 5L11 6|ROUND HEAD| PORPOISE 9111 3W0UMUDU2 5L9 6RISS0'S D01PHIN=HARBOUR PORPOISE 9L9 10KIRIO JWOURADA 2SP S M A L L F I S H CLOSE TO ISLANDS, SARDINES 4F EiAANGO 5 L 7 A A EiAFA 2HAMILTCN•S ANCHOVY 3THRISSOCLES HAMILTONI 4M63 EiAFA 2WHISKERED ANCHOVY 3THRISSGCIES SETIOSTRIS 4H62 EiAFA 5 L 7 A A EiAH ANGO = H AHANO 4CS EiAHANGO=HAHA NO 5L1AA EiAHANO=HAHANGQ 7KSF11/06/68Z10 El AKW A I MALAU 2BONE FISH 3 AI-BULA VULPES 4M59 5L6MATAKWA EiAKWA MALAU 516MATAKWA Ei AKW A OOLOA 2B0NE-FISH 3 ALB ULA VULPES 4M59 EiAKWA SU1I 2GX-EYE TARPON 3 MEG A LOPS CYPRINOIDES 4.M58 5L6AA EiAKWA 511AA6AA6MATAKWA EIAKWA 5I6MATAKWA EIAKWA 7KSF14/06/68X2 EIAKWASULA 7 K SF11/06/68Y6 EiALE 11R1073 EiALE 5L6 A A EIALE 7KF010/06/68Y30 EiALE 7KSF14/06/68Z10 EiALILI 2 P E R I W I N K L E 4 W 2 6 1 9 5110 E i A l I I I 7KSF12/06/68S30 EiALILI 7KSF13/06/68S150 EiALILI 7 K S F 1 4 / 0 6/68S118 HALOA R AE 518FAFOILE HALU BAO 5L6AA HANA 7KSF11/06/68Z10 95 HANGA BOEA 514 A A IANGA BUALAFA1 2BLACK-EYED THICK-LIP 3HEMIGYMNUS ME1APTEHUS 4M303 HANGA BUALAFA2 2SWEET-1IP EMPEROR 3IETHBINUS CHRYSOSTQMUS 4M212 SANGA BDAIAFA3 518FAFOILE HANGA GOUKWAG 5L4AA IANGA GWALLA 514AA7AAFAFOILE HANGA GWAILA 514AA8FAFOILE HANGA KEKERO 2SLING—JAW 3EPIEULUS INSIDIATGR 4M279 HANGA NI ONE 5L7AA •iANGA ULIFOIO 2BIACK-EYED THICK-LIP JUVENILE 3HEMIGYMNUS MELAPTERUS 4M303B HANGA 11R22 HANGA 5L2AH IANGA 5L4AA7AA8FAF0I1E HANGA 5L4AA7 AA8FAF0IIE HAO LAI 5L7AA HAOLAI 5L7AA 3ATAMELA 5L 1AA3AA6AA 3ATAMELA 7KSF11/06/68Y16 HATAMELA 7KSF12/06/68Y10 HATAMELA 7KSF13/06/68Y8Z10 riAT AMELA 7KSF1 4/06/68Y30 HATEBABA 5 L1 A A HAU FARAMELA 2PACIFIC YELLOWFIN TUNA 3NE0THUNNUS MACROPTERUS 4M346 HAU GELO 2L0NG-JAW ED MACKEREL 3RASTRELLIGER KANAGURTA 4M339 HAU GWARAFETG1 2 L I T T L E BGNITO 3SARDA AUSTRALIS 4M348 HAU GWARAFET02 2N0RTHERN B1UEFIN TUNA 3KISHINOEL1A TONGGOL 4M347 HAU KARAIE 5L6MATAKW A HAU MALIFU 5I6MATAKWA HAU MELA 4CS HAU 2 L I T T L B TUNA 3EUTHYNNUS ALIETTEBATUS 4M344 5L1FAFOILE3FAFOILE HAU 2WATSON«S EGNITO 3CYEIGSARDA ELEGANS 4M345 HAU 511FAFOILE HAU 516MATAKWA HAU 7KSF14/06/68X2 HAU»U 7KSF10/06/68X2 HULILI 7KSF10/06/68S30 CA 11R298,844,859,956 CA 'A AF A 5L6A1 CA A KWAIO 7KFF05/05/68X CA A KWAIO 7KFF06/05/68X CA ABE EIO 512AH CA AKWALO 7KFF01/05/68Y CA BUA 2SP OF FISH 4F 514 A A CA BUA 5I7AA CA EFOE 5L6AA IA F I F I S I 2SP LARGE WHITE FISH 4F 5L4AA CA FOFOTC 2BLUE PULLER 3CHECMIS CA FRULEOS 4M280 CA F0U1 2BLUE-SPOTTED BOX-FISH 30STRACI0N TUBERCULAIUS 4M472 5I4AA 8T CA FOU2 2L0NG-N0SED BOX-FISH 3RHYNCHOSTRACION NASUS 4M471 8T CA GWARI 2SLENDER SUCKING-FISH 3ECHENEIS NEUCRATES 4F,M455 10GWAA CA GWARI 5L6MATAKWA CA HAHAFA 5L1AA6AA CA I MALAU 2AUSTRALIAN PILCHARD 3ARFNGUS NEOPILCHARDUS 4M77 CA IROA 5L2AH CA KAEBURA 5L6AA CA K E K I K I K I L I 5L2AH CA K I L I K I L I 2IIKE A SHARK 11R909 I A KBAKHAOA 2DE VIS,, ANCHOVY 3AMENTUM D E V I S I 4M66 9 IA KWAOA 2BAR-FACED WEAVER 3PARAPERCIS NEBULOSUS 4M324 , 9 6 I A L A S I 5L6MATAKWA I A MELA 2MANGBOVE JACK 3LUTJANUS ABGENTIMACOLUS 4M196,CS I A NA FD L I 5L2AH I A NA MAILADE 20RANGE ANEMONE-FISH 3AMPHIPRI0N PERCULA 4M278 IA NGATA 5L6 MATAKW A I A NGENGE 5L1AA IA NI MALAU 2STAR-G AZER 3ICHTYSCOPUS LEBEC.K 4M325 5L4AA I A RAA 2SMALI SEA CREATURE 4F I A ROBO 2LARGE SEA CREATURE 4F I A SASAFA 2SP. F I S H 4F IA SOBI 2 COW-FISH 3LACT0RIA CORNUIUS 4M473 5.L4AA 8T IA SURI 4CS I A TEKWA 5L1AA7MATAKWA I A TEKWA 5L7MATAKWA I A UNA BULU 2MEDIUM-SIZED SEA CREATURE 4F IA UTOBI 5L6MATAKWA I A 2A F I S H OR ANY SEA CREATURE 4F 10MANU, WAAWAA, I I ' A N A - ALL SEA CREATURES I F I F I S I 5 L1A A I F I N G X D I 5L6AA I I A RAA 2SMAIL SEA CREATURE 4F I I A ROBO 2LARGE SEA CREATURE 4E I I A UNA BULU 2MEDIUM-SIZED SEA CREATURE 4F I T A L I A 2A F I S H OR ANY SEA CREATURE 4F 10MANU, WAAWAA, I I ' A N A - ALL SEA CREATU I I R O I I R O 2NAUTILUS S H E L L F I S H 3NAUTILUS 4W1441 I L I 2SW0RDFISH CS,F 5 L 8 F A F O I L E 9C 10BASAULA, ONO,MAMALITO-NAMES FOR STAGES OF I I I 7KSF13/06/68X4 I L I 7KSF14/06/68X3 ILO 20YSTER 5F,W2619 IMOLA 2DE VIS * ANCHOVY 3 AMENTUM D E V I S I 4M66 INADI 11R989 INADI 2RED F I R E - F I S H 3PTER0IS VOLITANS 4M410/F INADI 5L6AA I N I 2 0 L I V E SHELL 4A2619 5110 IROIRO 2NAUTILUS 4W2619 5L10 I S I A L E 2FLUTEMOUTH 3 F I S T U L A R I A PETIMEA 4M117 ISIARAO 5L4A A ISIKAWE 2AGAMOID LIZARD 3STELL10 STELLIO 4W41 I S I O F U 2FLDTEM0UTH 3 F I S T U L A R I A PETIMBA 4M117,F 5L7AA ISOFU 4F IWANOSI 7KSF11/06/68Z10 KABOU 4F KAFISORO SP SEA SNAKE 4F KAKABOA 2CRESCENT PERCH 3THERAP0N JARBUA 4M183,F 5L1AA6AA KAKARA BCNGAEE 4F KAKARAI=KAKARI 2SP SMALL FI S H SAID TO BE YOUNG OF SPECIES MUU 4F 5L7MATAKWA KAKARI=KAKARAI 5L4AA KAKARU 2CRAB, USUALLY LAND CRAB 4F 10KARU KAKAURADA 5L7AA KALUA 2 B L U E T A I I MULLET 3MUGIL SEHELI 4M393CS,F' 511AA3AA7AA 9WHITE BODY, UP TO KALUA 7KSF11/06/68Y19 KALUA 7KSF14/06/68X6 KAR AI=KAKARI = KAKARAI 11R512 KARAO DIU 5L1AA KARONGO 7KFO10/06/68S55 KARONGO 7K F 0 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 1 9 KARONGO 7KFO14/06/68S25 KARONGO 1184 1 KARONGO1 2HARP SHELL 3HARPA ARTICULARIS 4W985 [AR0NGG2 2SCCBEI0N SHELL 3PTER0CERAS CHIRAGRA 481898 (AR0NGO3 2GENEBAL NAME FOB ANYTHING COLLECTED ON THE BEEF AT LOW TIDE (ASUKASU 2COCCNUT CRAB 3BIRGUS LATRO 4F (ASUSU 2LOBSTER 3HOMARUS 4W1265 9C (AU ABA 2DOLPHIN F I S H 3C0RYPHAENA HIPPURUS 4M188 5 L 1 F A F O I L E CAUTABA 2SCORPION SHELL 3PTEBOCERAS CHIRAGA 4W1898 (EFO 2AUSTRALIAN PILCHARD 3ASFNGUS NEOPILCHARDUS 4M77,F 5L6MATAKWA [EKEDELEG 5L4AA (ELAKELA "BULU 5L7AA (ELEKELA KEKERCA 5L7AA (ELUKELO 5L4AA7AA (EOKWEO 5L6AA ( E S I K E S I 2BLACKSPOT LONG TOM 3TYLOSURUS STRGNGYLURUS 4M103 (EU 2CLAM 11E540 (EU 2VENERIDAE 3GEMMA GEMMA 4F,4W2272 (EUBEA TEKWA 2LONG CLAM 3MY A ARENABIA 4W408 (EUBE A 2QUAHCG OR ROUND CLAM 3VENDS MERCENARIA 4W408 (EULOLO 2SP BIVALVE MOLLUSC IN MANGROVES 4F (IDA SP SMALL SEA CRAB NEAR MANGROVES =KIKIDA 4F 10 KIKIDA (IKAU 2SP GASTROPOD MOLLUSC 3TROCHUS 4F ( I K I 2CLAM GIANT CLAM SHELL CLAMSHELL 4H31,30 ( I K I 2TRIDACNA OYSTER 3TRIDACNIDAE 4W2197 ( I K I 7 K F 0 1 0 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 6 ( I K I 7KFG11/06/68S218 ( I K I 7KFG14/06/68S14 ( I K I 7 K SF10/06/68S10 ( I K I 7KSF11/06/68S1 ( I K I 7KSF12/06/68S2 ( I K I 7KSF14/06/68S18 ( I K I I = K I K I 11B79,267,5 64,793,8 76 ( I K I F I U L A 4F (IRIO 5L 1 FAFOILE ( I R I O 5L6MATAKWA ( I R I O 5 L 9 6DALL,S PORPOISE COMMERSCN»S DOLPHIN 9L9 10IAGWARI, KIR AO (J R I O 5L9 9L9 10GWOUMUDU,SABAIBINA (IROA 2 K I L L E R WHALE 3GRAMPUS ORCA 4H29 SOKOLA 11R90 8 SOKOLA 2QCTQPUS, SMALL OCTOPUS (FOX) 30CT0PODA 4F,W1489 5L9 KQKOSU 2HERMIT CRAB IN ANY SHELL 3EUPAGURUS BERNHARDUS 4W1009 KOLO 2SHELL 3CYPRAEA TESTUD3NARIA 4F SOLO 2SP GASTROPOD MOLLUSC 3CYPRAEA TESTDDINARIA 4F SOME1 2C0NCH 3GENUS STROMEUS 4F,W462 KOME2 2CONE SHELL 3CONUS MARMOEEUS 4W46S,2619H40 5L10 K0ME3 7KFO11/06/68S1 KOME3 7K S F 1 3 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 5 2 KOME3 7K S F 1 4 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 4 9 KOSO 4F KUKO»AFUTO 2SP GASTROPOD MOLLUSC 4F KUKULI 2SP POISONOUS F I S H 4F 5L4AA6AA KUKURU BALU 4F KURUBULU=KUKURUBULU 1 1 B199,232,1012,1094 KUKURUBULU 5 L1A A KUKURUBULU 516MATAKWA KUKURUBULU 7KSF11/06/68X2 KUKURUMUSI 4F 5L6AA KURU 2SHELL 3PLACOSTYLUS AN E PAPUINA 4F KURU 2SP LAND SHELL 3PLACOSTYLUS ALSO PAPUINA 4F KUUKUU 2DR I L L 30RGSALPINX CINEREA 4W674 KWADA B i l l 2LIZARD 4W2619 KWAIBIA 5L6AA 98 CIAIGOLA 2SP BED J E L L Y F I S H , EATEN BY TURTLES 4F 10KHAIBABA (W AIH ATE 1 2MACTBA 3HACTBA LATERALIS 4W1293 (WAIHATE2 2RAZOR SHELL 4C (WAIKWAI BAD 2T8UMPETER PERCH 3PELATES QUADRILINEATUS 4M183 5L4AA7AA (WAKWARA NGADI 4F (WALANI BAEKWA 5 L 8 F A F G I L E (WALEU 4F 5L4AA6AA SBA.LE0 7KSF11/06/68Y8 (WALEU 7KSF1 1/06/68Y8A10 (WARANADI 5L7AA SHASASO 2A WHALE 4F 1OGWASASU (WASI 2WEST INDIAN SPOTTED GROUPER 3PBOMICBOPS I T A I B A 4H27CS 5L6MATAKWA 9C (WASI 7KSF11/06/68X2 CMASI 7KSF12/0 6/6 8X1 CWASI 7KSF13/06/68X1 (WE HANGA 2HANGA F I S H 10HANGA 11R709 (WE IA 11R740 (WEO 5L1AA (8ERATANI 2SP NOLLUSC 4F LAE 55L2H6AA LAKENO 8T .ALAKWALO 5L6M ATAKWA -ALASI=LASI 2LARGE-MOUTHED LEATHER-SKINNED 3CHQRINEMUS LYSAN 4M239 LALASI=LASI 5L2AH6MATAKWA .AO 2SHELL 3CGNUS MARMORATUS 4F [.AOLAO 5I2AH L,ASI=LALASI 21ABGE-SCALED TUNNY 3CRAMMATORYCHNU S BICARINATUS 4M354 5 I 3 F A F O I L I LAU 516 A A JADFI 118149,325,891,926 L.AUFI 2SP MOLLUSC 3TURB0 PENTHOLATUS 4F 7KSF10/06/68S5 1 0 S A L I L I LAUFI 2SP MOLLUSC 3TURE0 PENTHOLATUS 4F 7KSF13/06/68S5 •.AUFI 2SP MOLLUSC 3TURB0 PENTHOLATUS 4F 7KSF14/06/68S9 LAUSIGALE 2CGNCH 4W2619 5110 SF F I S H , BARK , TOUGH FLESH 4CS,F 9C 5L1AA6AA SE F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KFF02/05/68Y SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KFF03/05/68Y SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KFF05/05/68X SF F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KFF05/05/68Z SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KFF06/05/68Z 9KFF06/05/68 SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KFF27/04/68Y SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KFO10/O6/68Z20 SE F I S H , DARK , TOUGH FLESH 7KSF10/06/68X4Y17Z1 SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KSF1 1/06/68Y21 SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KSF12/06/68X6Z1 SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KSF13/06/68X5Y6Z10 SP F I S H , DARK, TOUGH FLESH 7KSF14/06/68Y46Z20 LELEG 517MATAKWA LETO 2SP F I S H WITH TOUGH BROWN FLESH, COARSE EATING 4CS,F 516 AA LETO 5L2H LIFOTANE=LIFOTANGE 7KSF11/06/68Y8 LIFQTANE=1IFGTANGE 7KSF11/06/68Z10 LIFOTANE=LIFCTANGE 7KSF12/06/68Y5 LIFGTANE=IIFCTANGE 7KSF14/06/68Z10 LIFOTANGE=IIFOTA NE 4CS,F LIFOTANGE=LIFOTANE 7KF01 1/06/68Z40 LIFOTANGE^LIFGTANE 7KSF10/06/68Y7 L.IIIFU 5L4AA LOBAA 2SP OF RED F I S H 4CS/F 9C LOFO GEREGEREA ANA=IOFOGEREA 5111 9L11 LQFOGEREA=LOFG GEREGEREA ANA 5L11 9L11 LOI 2SNAKE 4C LOIGWOUNA 2A SP. Of FISH 4F 9 9 LOLOSI 4F LONGOSITO 2WATES SERPENT 11R164 LOSI 2SPONGE 4F 10IOOSI AAA AUFI S11 2BLUE- SPOTTED ROCK COD 3CEPHALOPHOLIS CYANOSTIGMA 4J3165 514 AA MAA A U F I S I 2 2CORAL TORUT 3CFPHALOPHOLIS MINIATUS 4M167 8AA A U F I S I 3 2FRECKLED ROCK COD 3CEPHALOPHOLIS CYANOSTIGHA 4H166 HAA KWAI 2FRINGE-FINNED TREVALLY 3CARANX RADIATUS 4M235 HAA LAFU 7KFF03/05/68Y MAA NEBA 2RED BULLS,EYE 3PRIACANTHUS MACRACANTHUS 4M157 MAA SULUA 7KFF03/05/68Z AAA SULUA 7KFF27/04/68Y MADASO 2SP MOLLUSC 4F MADOMU= MODOMU NAEI'A 2A FIS H 4F MAELAFU 4F 5 L 6 A A MAELAFU 7KSF10/06/68Z10 MAELAFU 7KSF 1 1/06/68Z20 MAELAFU 7KSF 1 2 / 0 6 / 6 8 Z 1 0 MAETO 7KSF10/06/68Z30 MAETO FULO 5 L 8 F A F 0 I L E MAETO 5L6AA MAETO 5 L 8 F A F G I L E MAETO 7KSF12/06/68Z20 MAETO 7KSF13/06/68Y10Z10 MAETO 7KSF14/06/68Y8Z20 MAFASI 7KFF0 3/05/68Z MAFU 2SP OF SMALL RED FISH 4F 5L2AH MAFU 2SP OF SMALL RED FISH 4F 5L 8 F A F O I L E MAFU 2SP OF SMALL RED F I S H 4F 7KSF10/06/68Y4 HAGALI AALA 5L1AA MAGALI AALA 5 L 1 F A F O I L E MAGALI AALA 5L6AA SAGALI 4F 5L1AA MAGALI 5L6AA MAGALI 7KFF27/04/68Z MAGALI 7KSF 1 0 / 0 6 / 6 8 Z 2 0 MAGALI 7KSF 1 1 / 0 6 / 6 8 Z 1 0 HAGALI 7KSF12/06/68Y9Z20 PI AG A L I 7 K S F 1 3 / 0 6 / 6 8 Z 3 0 MAGALI 7KSF14/06/68Z20 MAKAKEDEA 5L1AA MAKWAI 5L6MATAKWA MALAGHAILA1 2PURPLE TUSK-FISH 3CHOERDCN CEPHALOTES 4M293 MALAGWAI1A2 2SURF PARROT-FISH FEMALE 3CALLYODON FASCIATUS 4M319B MALAHAU 2COMMON MACKEREL 3SCOMBER JAPONICUS 4M340 5L1FAFOILE3FAFOILE6MATAKWA MALASAU 2KINGFISH 4F MALAUTANI 5L7AA MALEFU-MALIFU 2SP FISH RED I N COLOUR, GOOD EATING 4F 5L4AA6AA MALIFU= MALEFU 5L2H MAL.IFU= MALEFU 7KSF 10/06/68Y40 MALIFU=MALEFU 7KSF12/06/68X8Y17 MALIFD=MALEFU 7KSF13/06/68Y9 MALIFU= MALEFU 7KSF14/06/68Z10 MALITO 4CS MALU GWAILA 5L6AA MAflA 2SP FRESHWATER F I S H 4F 5L1 FAFOILE MAMA 5 L1 A A MANADA I KAFU 5L4AA HAMADA 2R AINBOS-FISH 3HALICHOERES 4M305,304,F 5I4AA7AA . 1AMAELADE2SMAL BLUE J E L L Y F I S H ON DEAD CORAL 4F 1QKWAIRABU,KWAIGOLA MAMALITO 2NAME FOB SWOBDFISH ( I L I ) DURING CERTAIN STAGE OF GROWTH 4F 1 0 I L I # 3AMALITO 2PICK-HANDLE BARRACUDA 3SPHYRAENA J E L L O 4M381,CS,F 5 L 1 F A F O I L E 3 F A F O I I 3AMA1ITO 7RFC 13/06/68 Y5Z5 MAMAMU 4F 512AH MAMU1A=EDAEDA=MAMULA 2TURRUM 3CAEANX EMBURYI 4M233,F 511AA 9SP FISH L I K E MULI MAMUIA=EDAEDA=MAMUIA 7KSF 13/06/68X2 MAMU1A= EDAEDA=MAMULA 7KSF14/06/68X2 MANGEO 2SP SEA SNAKE 4F MAOSI 2SP F I S H , LARGE SARDINE L I K E BUMA 4F 517AA HARA DIKHALI 5L6AA MARA I DAI 2ELUE TUSK-FISH 3CHOERODON ALBIGENA 4M295 5L6AA MARA 4F 5L1AA MARA 5L4AA6AA MARA 7KSF10/06/68Y10 SARA 7KSF12/06/68X9 MARA 7KSF13/06/68X3 MARA 7KSF13/06/68Z10 M A R A l l K W A l l 7KFF06/05/68X MARAUKWALI 7KFF27/04/68X 9KFF27/04/68 MAB EMARE 4F MAREMARE 516 MATAKWA MASANGO 2SP MOLLUSC,TURBO 3TURB0 MARMORATUS AND TURBO SMARAGDUS 4FW2216 MATANGAA 2A STARFISH 4F MATASI 4F 516AA MATASI 7KSF10/06/68Z10 MATASI 7KSF11/06/68Z10 MATASI 7KSF12/06/68Y9Z10 MATASI 7 K S F 1 3 / 0 6 / 6 8 Y 1 5 MATASI 7KSF 1 4 / 0 6 / 6 8 Z 3 0 MEAMEA 2SP OF SMALI FISH I N SAND, F L A T F I S H 4F 5L1AA4AA7AA MELA 2RED-BELLIED F U S I L I E R 3CAESIO ERYTHOGASTER 4M203,F 5L6AA7AA MELA 7KFF03/05/68Z ME1AHAU 2R0NNER 3ELAGATIS BIPINNULATDS 4M241 5L6MATAKWA MEMEA A ALA 2CUEENSLAND HALIBUT 3PSETTODES ERUMEI 4M439 MEMEA LA ONE1 2LARGE TOOTHED FLOONDER 3PSEUDORHOMBUS ARSIUS 4M440 MEMEA LA ONE2 2PEACOCK SOLE 3PARDACHIRUS PAVONINUS 4M449 MEMEA LA ONE3 2SHARP-HEADED SOLE 3PHYLLICHTHYS SCLEROLEPSIS 4M452 MEMEA LA ONE4 2TWO LINED TONGUE SOLE 3CYNOGLOSSUS BILINEATUS 4M454 MEMEA 5L7AA MENA A L I T E 5L7AA MENAMENA 7KSF 1 2/06/68Y5 MENAMENA 7KSF13/06/68X2 MENAMENA^BA AA 2SUBGEON F I S H 4H86,F 9C 511AA3FAFOI1E8FAFOI1E MISIFANIGORE 4F MODOMU 7KSF11/06/68X2 MODOMU 7KSF13/06/68X1 MODOMU 7KSF14/06/68X1 MODOMU=MADOMU 2SP F I S H FOUND I N P A I R S ( I v E N S ) 4F 516MATAKWA MQKGTORO 2CROCODI1E ALLIGATOR IN CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE SEAHORSE 4W535,59 5L1AA MOBEMORE 5L6MATAKWA MORO I HARA 4F 511AA MORO I MATAKWA 5L1F A F O I 1 E MOBO 2SP FRESHWATER F I S H 4F 5I7AA MOUA BAITA 7KFF06/05/68X MOUA HAIO 2SPANGIED EMPEROR 3IETHRINUS NEBUIOSUS 4M211 513AA6MATAKWA MOUA 2SP LARGE F I A T T I S H WHITE F I S H , GOOD EATING 4F 511 AA MOUA 514AA6AA MOUA 7KFF05/05/68Y 1QUA 7KFQ10/06/68Y20Z40 10UA 7KFG13/06/68Y8' SOUA 7KSF10/06/68Y25 50UA 7KSF10/06/68Z10 10UA 7KSF11/06/68Y36 1O0A 7KSF12/06/68Y23 MOUA 7KSF13/06/68Y28Z10 MOUA 7KSF14/06/68Y45 1UETG FULO 5 L 8 F A F O I L E MUMU=MUU 5L2H MUMU=MUU 7KSF10/06/68X4 MUMU=MUU 7KSF14/06/68X2 MUU 118225,319,947,1130 MUU NI FURAI 2VARIETY OF MUU 4F 5L6AA MUU 2SP SHITE F I S H ON REEF, GOOD EATING 4F 5L6AA 7KF013/06/68Z2 MUU 7 K F F 2 7 / 0 4 / 6 8 Z MUU 7KFF28/0 4/68Z MUU 7KFO10/06/68Z220 MUU 7KSF11/06/68Z40 _ ( MUU 7KSF12/06/68Z30 MUU 7KSF13/06/68Z30 MUU 7KSF14/06/68Y7Z20 MUU=MUMU 4CS 5L1AA3AA6AA MUUMUU GALAU 2YE1.LOW EMPEROR 3DIPLCERIGN BIFASCIATUM 4M163 5.L6AA MUUMUU LA KAFO 2YELLOW EMPEROR 3DIPLOPRION BIFASCIATUM 4M163 MUUMUU1 2HAMLET F I S H 3EPINEPHELUS STRIATUS 4W975 5L6AA MDDMUU2 2PAINTED SWEET-LIPS 3P1ECTORHYNCUS PICTUS 4M209 NAARA 4CS 5L3AA H.ADI 2SP F I S H WITH POISONOUS SPINES 4F NANANGALI 4F NANARA AEEKOA 5L6AA NANARA ABISALO 5L4AA NANARA AD 2RED VARIETY NANARA 4F 514AA NANARA BULU 2SMALL BLACK SP OF NANARA 4F 5L2AH6AA NANARA FOUBOSO 2BLACK VARIETY NANARA 4F 5L4AA6AA NANARA KWAG 2WHITE VARIETY NANARA 4F 5L4AA6AA NANARA 4F 5L6AA 7KSF10/06/68Z20 NANARA 7KSF11/06/68Y12Z10 NANARA 7K S F 1 2 / 0 6 / 6 8 Z 1 0 NANARA 7KSF13/06/68Y12Z10 NANARA 7KSF14/06/68Y7 NGARANGARA 2HAMMERHEAD SHARK 4CS NGIDUGOLA 5L6MATAKWA NGISUFIKORE 2 R I F L E - F I S H 3TOXOTES CHATAREUS 4M158 5L1AA4AA7AA NG0NGORO= NGORG 5L4AA NGORO-NGONGORO 5L7AA NGU=NGUU 516 A A NGUU=NGU 5L1AA NGWANAASI 2SEA SERPENT 11R684 NGW ANGWAESO 4CS. 5L7AA NGWANGWAKI 11R 1087,1090 NGWANGWAKI 2CUTTLE F I S H 3 S E P I A O F F I C I N A L I S 4W556,2619 5L7MATAKWA NGWWANGWAKI= NUTG 11R308 NGWELA INO MAE 2ABALONE 4W2619 10UBE2 NGWENGWERE=NWENWERE 7KSF11/06/68S100 N I G I N I G I 5L7AA NOFU 5L2AH NOFU 5L6AA 2SQUID 11R86,235,308 NUTO 2SQUID 30MMASTREPHES IILECEBRCSUS 4H2026 81 UUTO=NGANGWAKI 20CT0PUS SPECIES 4F,CS 5L7MATAKW A JUENWE'HE=NGWENGWERE 7KSF10/06/68S50 102 3SENWERE=NGWENGWERE 7KSF13/06/68S170 !IWENWERE=NGWENGWERE 7KSF1 4 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 8 5 DA NI BORU 2CHINAMAN F I S H 3LUTJANUS NEMATOPHORUS 4M194B 5L6MAIAKWA 3A 512AH DA 5L7AA DA 7KSF11/06/6 8X6 DDO I KAFO=DE NGE DDO 2A PRAWN 4F 100DO I KAFG=DENGE DDORAO 2LARGE SP PRAWN 4F DGU 2SEAWORM 3PALOLO 100DU,NALD'OGU DIGO 4F 5 L 8 F A F G I L E DNO 2NAME FOR SWORDFISH ( I L I ) DURING CERTAIN STAGE OF GROWTH 4F 10IL.I# DNO 4CS 5L7 A A DNOLIU 5 L 8 F A F C I L E DOA 2TOP SHELL 3TR0CHUS ZIZYPHINUS 4W2172 DOA 7 K S F 1 0 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 4 0 DOA 7 K S F 1 3 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 5 5 DOA 7KSF14/06/68S30 DOTO 5L7AA DRU 2SCRIBBL E D ANGEL-FISH 3CHAETODONTOPIUS DUBOULAYI 4M269 5L1AA3AA DU 5L6MATAKWA DUGU 2SEA BLUBBER 3CYANEA CAPILLATA 4H33 34 SAA 5L116MATAKWA 6MANGROVE DOLPHIN 9L11 RADA AU 5L4AA7AA RADA I MATAKWA 5.L1 FAFOILE RADA 2RED SOLDIER F I S H 3HOLOCENTSDM RUBRUM 4M145,F 5L1AA4AA7AA RADA 7KSF1 1/06/68Z10 RADA 7KSF12/06/68Z20 RADA 7KSF13/06/68Z10 RADA 7KSF14/06/68Z10 RADAFOUBOSO 2CRGWNED SOLDIER-FISH 3HOLOCENTRUM DIADEMA 4M143 5.L4AA7AA RAEMAE I MALAU 5L6 MATAKW A RAEMAE SULA 5L4AA RAEMAE 4CS,F 4CS 5L7AA RAGARAGA 511AA RAGARAG A 5 L6 AA RAGARAGA 7KSF14/06/68Z20 SAGOTAI 2SCORPION SHELL 3PTEROCERAS CHISAGRA 4W2619 5L10 BAGOTAI 7KSF10/06/68S200 RAGOTAI 7KSF1 1/06/68S436 RAGOTAI 7K S F 1 2 / 0 6 / 6 8 S 5 8 5 RAGOTAI 7KSF13/06/68S144 BAGOTAI 7KSF14/06/68S125 RAGOTAI2 2SHELL 3LAMBIS LAMELS 4F RA.LUA SIRU 5L6AA RAMELA 2SEA SLUG 482619 RARA I MALAU 5L6MATAKWA RARAGO 4F RASIFOU 5L4AA RAUALITE 4F BAUALITE 5L6AA BEOREO 2SP MOLLUSC 3NAUTILUS 4F 5L6MATAKWA REREO 5 L1A A BIDO BALA 2SPOTTED J A V E L I N - F I S H 3PCMADASYS HASTA 4M207 RIDO I MATAKWA 5L6MATAKWA RIDO 2MANGROVE JACK 3LUTJANUS ARGENTIMACULUS 4M196,CS,F 5L1AA4AA RIDO 7KFF01/05/68X RIDO 7KFF05/05/68X JXDO 7KF010/06/68X1 JIDO 7KSF10/06/68X5 1 0 3 JIDO 7KSF11/06/68X6 JIDO 7KSF12/06/68X4 JIDO 7KSF13/06/68X4 JIDO 7KSF14/06/68X4 JIE 5L6MATAKWA JOBO BA* AA-BOBO 5111 9L11 JOBO OOLO 5L11 9L11 JOBO WALADE 5111 9111 JOBO 5L11 6B0UND HEAD=PORPOISE ,RIGHT WHALE DOIPHIN=HARBOR PORPOISE 9111 tJQBO=R0B0 BAVAA 51119111 30NGO I ABA 5L7AA JOOMAA 2SP LARGE FISH 4F,CS 5I6MAIAKWA SORA I MALAU 5L6MATAKWA JORA1 2MOONFISH 3MENE MACUIATA 4M244 JORA2 2PIG-NOSED PONY FISH, SP FISH SARDINE 3SECUTOR RUCONIUS 4F,M250 JORO FOUBOSO 5I7AA JOBO SARABUMA 5L7AA RORO 2MOQNFISH 3MENE MACULATA 4M244,F JORO 5L6AA 3UTA 2SP MOLLUSC 3NAUTILUS 4F 8UTE 2BARNAC LES 4W2619 SAEBULISI'AI 2SP MOLLUSC 3VERMETUS 4F 5AFU ONI 4CS 5I7AA 3AGAFU 5L6MATAKWA 5AIBINA 5L6MATAKWA 3AKWABI 4F 9 HILL WORD FOR A FISH 5AIIII 2 SP MOLLUSC 3TUREO FETHGLAIUS 4F 3ANGA 4F SANGATA 2DOLPHIN FISH 3CORYPHAENA HIPPURUS 4M188 511FAFOILE 5AOGORA 2FIGURFD LEATHER-JACKET 30SBECKIA SCRIPTA 4M46 9 5AOGORO 2BLACK—FINNED TRIPLE-SPINE 3TRIACANTHUS BIACULEATUS 4M457 5I3AA SARAIBINA 5L9 9L11 3ASAGORE 5L2AH 3ASAOGQRA1 2EEAKED LEATHER-JACKET 3OXYMONACANTHUS LCNGIROSTRIS 4M467 3ASAOGORA2 2 FAN-BELLIED LEATHER-JACKET 3MONACANTHUS CHINENSIS 4M465 5ASAOGORA3 2LEATHER-JACKET 4M465,467,469 3ATAMELA 2SP OF REEF FISH 4F 3AU 4F SAUKEDO 5L4AA 3EG0=SEGOSEGO 5L2AH SEGOSEGO=SEGO 2WOLF HERRING,SP OF LONG THIN FISH 3CHIROCENTRUS DORAB 4F,M61 5IFALA 7KSF11/06/68S100 SIFAIA'A 7KSF12/06/68S60 SIFALA'A 7KSF13/06/68S53 5IFALA * A 7KSF14/06/68S32 SIFILAVA 7KSF10/06/68S40 3IGILI 2 BOAT SHELL 4W2619 3.IKIFAIFU 5L7AA 31NOLO 4F SINU 4F 7KSF13/06/68Y18 5ISI DAI 2FL AT-TAILED TRIGGER-FISH 3ABALISTES STELLARIS 4M460 5L3FAFOILE8FAFC 3ISIAFUFU 2SP MOLLUSC 4F 5ISIFO 2DIAMCND FISH 3MONODACTYLUS ARGENTEUS 4M191 5.L3AA6AA 5ISILE 2SP VERY SMA l l MOLLUSC 4F 3ISILE1 2BARNACLES CFRDTA 4F 5TOMIKAFC 5L1AA 3UKA I OIA1 2MITRA 3MITRA EPISCOPALIS 4W1385 9TO BORE HOLES IN CANOE PLANKS 5UKA I OLA2 2TEREBRA 3TEREBRA TIGRINA 4W2129 9TC BORE HOLES IN CANOE PLANKS 5DKUB0 5L4AA l f J, 5UKURU 5L8FA FOILE 3UL A KWAKIO 2FEATHER-FIN BULL-FISH 3HENIOCHUS ACUMINATUS 4M268 5L4AA7AA6AA 3ULA KWAKIO 5I2AH 3ULA MELA 5L4AA7MATAKWA 3ULAMELA 5L6MATAKW A 5ULIBU 5L6AA 5UNGATA 5L6MATAKWA 3UR.I I MATAKWA 2CHINAMAN FISH 3LUTJANUS NEMATOPHORUS 4M194A 5L3FAFOILE6MAT AK5»i SURU AFIG 516 A A 3URU AKALO 5L6AA SURU AKWARO 516 A A SURU GOU 2COLLABED SEA BREAM 3GYMNOCRANIUS AUDIEYI 4M215 5L3AA6AA SURU HALO 512H SURU KEDEA=SURUKEKEDEA 514AA SURU KEKEDEA= SU RU KEDEA SURU KEKERO 2YELLOW TAILED EMPEROS 3LETHRINUS MAHSENA 4M210 SURU 2 S M A l l SP OF REEF FISH 4CS,F 5 L1 A A 6 A A SURU 7KFF02/05/68Y SURU 7KFF03/05/68Y SURU 7KFF27/04/68Z SURU 7KFF28/04/68Z SURU 7KFF29/04/68Z SURU 7KFG10/06/68X1 SURU 7KF011/06/68Z10 SURU 7KFG13/06/68Z3 SURU 7KSF10/06/68Y3Z1 SURU 7KSF12/06/68Y31 SURU 7KSF13/06/68Y6Z20 SUSU'AU 2SP MOLLUSC,LIMPET 4F SUSUBORA 5L11 6MANGBOVE DOLPHIN 91-11 SUSUBORA 5L6MATAKWA 5USUBU 2COCKRGACH 3BLATIDAE 4H 5USUKA I OLA1 2MITRA SHELL 3MITRIDAE 4W1385 SUSUKA I OLA2 2TEREBRA SHELL 3TEREBRA TIGRINA 4W2129 SUSUKA I OLA3 2TEREBRA 4W26 19 5110 3USUR.I=SURI 11.8151 rABANGARU 2MUREX 3MUREX ERINACEUS 4W1423 IAEKEA 20.LIVE SHELL 3011VA POBPHYBIA 4W1500 EAFIBIOGU 5L7AA rAFUIRADA KWAKWAOA 2YELLOW BANDED HUSSAR 3LUTJAN0S A M A B I I I S 4M199 TAFUIRADA 2RED EMPEROR 3LUTJANUS SEBAE 4M198 516MATAKWA TAFULU 2SP MOLLUSC 4F TAGAFU 5.L 1 FAFCI1E6MATAKWA 8T TAIFANU 5L7MATAKWA TAIFE SOBO 5L7MATAKWA TAIFE 5L11 6DOLPHIN 9L11 TAKALADE 2TRIBACNA CLAM 3TBICADNA GIGAS 4H31,W2619 9C TAKWALAO 113967,1013 TAKWALAO 2SP OF REEF F I S H 4F 5.L8FAFOILE TAKWALAO 7KSF11/06/68Y11 TAKWALAO 7KSF12/Q6/68Z10 TAKWANI BEBOBERO 2STARFISH 4F TA1A=TATA1A 11R189,1009 I ALA 2SEA URCHIN 3DIADEMA SETOSUM 4H50 TALE SAIA 5L2H TAR A BUMA 2MOONFISH 3MENE MACULAIA 4M244 IAEA KWAGA 5 L 1 1 9111 TABA 4F 5L2AH TASO=TATASO 4CS IATAKALADE 2SP MOLLUSC WITH COLOURED FLESH 3TB.IDACNA 4W2619 5L10 TATASO=TASO 2HAIBBACK HERBI KG 3NEMATA10SA COME 4M68 1 0 5 TATASO-=TASO 5L2AH6AA TAUTI 4CS 9C TAUTU 11B191,312,995 TAUTU 2POBCUPINE FISH 3TRAGULICHTHYS JACUIIFERUS 4M483 8T TE KESI DO 2SP COCKLE CF GOGOBI (USED FOB SHAVING) 3PITAR 4F TELE 5L6AA TEREUO 5L7AA TIKI 7KSF10/06/68S20 TOBAU 5L2H 8T TOBAU 516MATAKWA TOKI 11B1108 TOKI 517AA TOLOUBU 5L6MATAKWA TOU MAANA AFE 4CS 9BIBD SPECIES TUTU 7KSF10/06/68S100 0 BORA 2A SP OF U CF IOKE 4F U 2SP SEA EEL 4F UA FOU 2SP OF LARGE SEA CRAB 4F UA 2GENERAL TEEM FOR A CRAB CF ALMANGC,KARU,NGUDA 4F UALA 4C 9C UASUU=TATAFELA 2VEBY LARGE REEF CRAB, GOOD EATING 4C,F 9C UBE1 2SNAIL 4W2619 5L10 UBE2 2SP MOLLUSC ABALONE CF NGSELA INOMAE 3HALI0TIS 4F 10NGWELA INOMAE UGU 4CS UGWANE 7KSF10/06/68X1 UGWANGO=UGWANO 5L1AA UGWANGO=UGWANO 5L6MATAKWA JGWANGO=UGWANO 7KFO13/06/68Y3 UGWANO=UGWANGC 7KSF12/06/68X3 JKA 4F JKAUKA 5L6AA 3LA 5L6MATAKWA JLAFO 7KFO13/06/68Y2 3LAFU A ALA 2HUMP-BACKED ROCK COD 3CROMILEPTES ALTIVELIS 4M176 ULAFU AFILU 2ESTUARY ROCK COD 3EPINEPHELUS TAUVINA 4M171 ULAFU BEBERO1 5L4AA7AA [JLAFU BEBERO2 2GROPER 3EPINEPHELUS LANCEOLATUS 4M172 ULAFU BEEERO3 2HONEY COMB ROCK COD 3 EPINEPHELUS HEBBA 4M173 ULAFU BERA=ULAFU BOE A 5L7AA ULAFU BORA=UIAFU BERA 2PIKEY BREAM 3MYLI0 BERDA 4M222 ULAFU BULU 2PIKEY BREAM 3MYLIC BERDA 4M222 ULAFU GOUBU 518FAFOILE I1AFU HAAGA 5L4AA7AA U1AFU HAOIAI 2WHITE-LINED ROCK COD 3ANYPERODON lEUCOGRAMMICDS 4M175 JLAFU KEKERO 2ELACK-TIPPED BOCK COD 3EPINEPHELUS FASCIATUS 4M170 ULAFU NGUNGU 517AA JLAFU RAFU 5L4AA7AA JLAFU1 2SPECKIED PUG 3TANDYA MACULATA 4M323,CS 5L1AA4AA 8T JLAFU2 2SP LARGE FISH UP TO 6 FT. LONG, BROWN OR B1UE SPOTS, GROPER 3EPINRPHE JLAMU 2EOCK FLAG-TAII 3KUHIIA RUPESTRIS 4M148 J1IMU 517AA JLUMAEO 2KE1P SEA PERCH 31U1JANUS COATESI 4M202 516MATAKWA 3.1UMUU 2SPOTTED JAVELIN-FISH 3POMADASYS HASTA 4M207 I1USIAI 5I6MATAKWA JMARI 2SP MOLLUSC, BIACK-IIPPED PEARI 4F 7KF011/06/68S9 JME AKWEO 5L6FAFOI1E JME BURO 5L8FA I C U E JME 11B1004 I ME 2BR0HN UNICORN EISH 118420,383 JME 2BROWN UNICORN PISH 3NAS0 UNICORNIS 4M331,F 5L3FAFOILE8FAFOILE JM.E 7KSF10/06/68X11Y3 JME 7KSF11/0 6/68X9 JME 7KSF12/06/68/X4 JME 7KSF13/06/68X15 JME 7KSF14/06/68X11 JMEA1 2GIANT TH8EADFIN 3ELEUTHERONEMA TETRADACTYLUM 4H400 5L1AA JMEA2 2HAMILTCN«S ANCHOVY 3THRISS0CIES HAMILTON! 4M63 JMEA3 2THREADFIN 3POLYNEMUS 4F,M460,402,403 5L1AA JMEA4 5L2AH JMEUME 5L8FAFGILE JNANASI=UNASI 5L6AA JNASI=UNANASI 7KFG10/06/68X1Y4 9KFC10/06/68 JNASIBALE 5L4AA JNGADA 5L6MATAKWA JNU UNU DOU'I ALO 2FLAT-SIDFD GARFISH 3HEMIRAMPHUS WELSBYI 4M109 5L3AA JNU UNU 0 OTO 2SP00N-FIN GARFISH 3ZENARCHOPTERUS DISPAR 4M110 UNU UNU TAMARA 2BLACK-EAREFB GARFISH 3HEMIRAPHUS FAR 4M108 JNU UNU 2GARFISH 4M,F 5L1AA UNU UNU 5L7AA UNU UNU 7KSF10/06/68Z10 JNU 2IGWANA 4W2619 UNUBULU 11R906 JNUBULU 5L116MATAKHA 6CO MMON DOLPHIN 9L11 3 NUDGLA 5L7AA BNUDOLA 7KFO13/06/68Y4Z20 LTNUDOLA 7KSF 1 1/06/68X7 UNUDOLO 5L2H JRA GWAUBOU 2SV CRAYFISH IN ROCKS 4F USA NI ONE 2SP SMALL CRAYFISH IN SAND 4F 5L7AA JRA 2CRAYFISH 4F 10DENGE URAFOU1 2LANG0USTE 4L591 5L SFAFOILE DRAF0U2 2SPINY LOBSTER 3PALINURUS VULGARIS 4W1265 URUBULU 5L6MATAKW A URUGWOU 2SP VERY LARGE GREEN AND ELACK CRAYFISH ON OUTER REEF, RED ANTENNAE L USU ONE1 2HASSEIT ,S SPRAT 3CUSSUMIERIA HASSELTII 4M70 5L4AA7AA USUFATA=USUUSUFATA 5L7AA USUUSUFATA=UAUFATA 5L4AA7AA USUUSUFATA=USUFATA 5L4AA7AA UUFIAU 5L6MATAK8A WANE ASI 2 SE A SNAKE 4F WASAKI 2SP OCTCPUS 4F IAWARI 4F 8ERESERE 2SP MOLLUSC 3CONUS 4F $C0PY *SKIP APPENDIX I I PLATE PLATE FISH LAU NAME TYPE NO, NO. CO 55 400 • AGAFOLA BW 39 246 AIFATARAO BW 59 436 AIFATARAO BW 64 491A AIFATARAO CO 61 431 AKWA'AKWA BW 51 355 AKWANGO BW 36 208 AKWANIABA CO 19 196 AKWANIA3A CO 20 198A ALAHA OR ALASA CO 07 142 AL ASA OR ALAHA CO 07 142 ALATE BARO CO 30 235 ALI UBERE CO 31 236 ALIA'I KAFO CO 08 148 ALINGA BW 49 350A ALINGA BW 50 352A ALINGA BW 50 352B ALUKWAGA BW 38 240 ALULU BW 30 146 ALUSA CO 06 112 ANGAFA CO' 45 297 ANGAFA HANGA CO 45 303A ANGAFA HANGA CO 45 303 8 ANGILI BW 50 353 ARAOO BW 19 079 AREARE GOFALA CO 44 295 AREARE KEDEA CO 44 294 BA•AA HAULA CO 54 382 BABALI CO 48 319A BABALU BUAMENA CO 65 460 BAEKWA BW 02 001 BAEKWA BW 02 002 BAEKWA BW 04 005 BAEKWA BW 04 006 BAEKWA BW . 04 007 BAEKWA BW 05 008 BAEKWA BW 05 009 BAEKWA BW 05 010 BAEKWA BW 05- O i l BAEKWA BW 05 012 BAEKWA BW 05 013 BAEKWA BW 06 014 BAEKWA BW • 06 015 BAEKWA BW 06 016 BAEKWA BW 06 017 BAEKWA BW 06 018 BAEKWA BW 08 025 BAEKWA BW 08 026 BAEKWA BW 10 031 BAEKWA BW 10 032 8AEKWA BW 10 033 BAEKWA BW 11 034 BAEKWA GQULO BW 07 019 BAEKWA I LI BW 03 003 BAEKWA I L I BW 0 3 004 BAEKWA LETO BW 07 021 COMMENT 108 A RIVER FISH 491B TOP VIEW JUVENILE JUV.NO NAME GIV FOR ADULT JUVENILE ADULT JUVENILE ADULT MALE BAEKWA LETO BW 07 022 BAEKWA LETO BW 07 023 BAEKWA LETO BW 09 030B BEBE ' CO 38 266 BEBE CO 39 269 BEBE AOEKWALAO CO 36 261 BEBE FAKASUSU CO 36 262 BEBE GOGOA CO 37 265 BEBE SULUKWAKIO CO 35 258 BEBE*I FURAI FONU CO 37 263 BELAFA BW 46 326 BERAGWASU CO 49 328 BERAKAI CO 09 149 BIBILA BW 32 154 BIBILA BW 55 398 BIBILA CO 9 150 BIBILA DOU BW 33 161 BILAU'I MALAU CO 14 174 BIN! MALAU CO 49 32 5 BO' E BW 62 476 BO«E NI ALO BW 62 782 BOKOFU BW 25 110 BOKOFU BW 25 111 BOKOFU NIDUBOLA BW 24 102 BOKOFU REREO BW 24 105 BOKOFU REREO*I KAFO CO 05 103 BORABORA CO 29 232 BUBU BABALU BW 62 459 BUBU KEKEDEA CO 66 462 BUBU'I DAI CO 65 458 BUBUKORU BW 51 357 3UBULU CO 66 461 BURASI OR AMERA CO 48 319A DALUMA BW 62 468 DALUMA BW 62 474 DALUMA CO 70 477 DALUMA CO 70 479 DALUMA CO 71 480 DALUMA CO 71 481 DALUMA'I SURU BW 62 475 DALUMA'I SURU BW 62 478 DAMULI KOA BW 33 178 DIADIA BW 47 338 DORU CO 59 A DORU CO 59 426 DORU NI ONE CO 60 42 7 DOU BW 30 141 DOU CO 04 66 EDAEDA BW 38 237 EOAEOA ALI 1IN.BW 38 237 EDAEDA UGU'UGU 8IN.BW 38 237 ELUELV BW 39 245 FAERO CO 11 164 FAERO CO' 18 195B FAKAGOLA BW 62 459 FALATA CO 50 335 FALI BW 14 044 FALI CO 01 43 A FALI CO 01 43 B FALI CO 02 47 109 CQNFLICTiFAKAGOLA CONFLlCTiSISIDAI? CONFLICT:BABALI CONFLICT:8ILU? ADULT CQNFLICT:BUBU BABALU ? 110 ADULT JUVENIE CQNFLICT:GWARI TALINE? G0UG3URADA=G0G0URADA? CH ??? CONFLICT:GAFAU? GWIAGWIA AND/OR GOUGORU? ADULT NO NAME GVN FOR JUV HANGA? NOT CERTAIN COLOUR DIFF MARKED 471 472 BUT SIMILAR MORPHQLOG. JUV.NO NAME GVN FOR ADULT 393 3 8 6 111 388 389 394 39 5 188 70 069 287 330 197 NOT ARAGWALA BEC OF SPOT 087 182 289 358 169 231 61 239 194 SIM SEEMS MORPHOL:221 222 221 222 166 167 317 329 278 319B FEMALE 304 324 298 301 302 157 441 444 445 446 447 448 450 451 449 452 203 242 NO MORPHQLOG SIM TO 203 280 283 241 233 318 175 227 MUMU=MUUMUU? 209 333 334 158 101 489 363 DORU NI ONE ? 112 106 110 195A JUVENILE 143 198B ADULT 251 244 NO. 1 GIVEN BY ALUTA 250 NO.2 GIVEN BY ALUTA 249 SAFU ONI=SAFU ONE? 465 COLOUR DIFF MARKED 465,7,9 467 BUT SIMILAR MORPHOLOG* 469 457 466 458- CONFLI CT:BUBU*I DAI? 191 238A JUVENILE NO ADULT SHOWN 268 CONFLICT:TATAFIRIOGOU? 332 215 FISH LIST ID AS MOUA HALO 213 210 211 212 217 219 035 CONFL I GT : KAIFESQRO? 037 038 039 108 268 CONFLICT:SULAKWAKIO? 68 484 483 118 168 323 INFO FROM FISH LIST 176 171 173 160 408 170 202 331 62 63 402 220 238 107 109 116 094 097 098 099 100 APPENDIX I I I 114 Key to some a d d i t i o n a l f i s h named by Lau informants belonging to upper l e v e l taxon ' i a . l a . Clsss Name: mamula Fish Name: edaeda B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Ulua mandibularis (Family: Sub-Family: Caranginae) Common Name: Cale-Cale T r e v a l l y Size: 13.1 inches Carangidae; l b . Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: mamula uugu Ulua mandibularis (Family: Carangidae; Sub-Family: Caranginae) Cale-Cale T r e v a l l y 10.5 inches suru suru akwaro Family: Lut.janidae; Sub-Family: Lethrininae; genus unknown unknown 9.6 inches Class Name: Fish Name: bubu bubukwao B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Family: B a l i s t i d a e  Common Name: unknown Size: 6.0 inches Class Name: unknown Fi s h Name: mela B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : unknown Common Name: unknown Size: 6.0 inches Class Name: muu Fish Name: muu s i o B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : unknown Common Name: unknown Size: 8.4 inches 115 Class Name: ooa Fish Name: hahango B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Family: Lutjanidae; Sub-Family: genus unknown Common Name: unknown Size: 7.4 inches Lut.janinae; Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: unknown a 1alano unknown unknown 7.2 inches unknown f a l a t a Siganus li n e a t u s Golden-lined spinefoot (Family: 13.4 inches unknown le t o unknown unknown 10.4 inches Acanthuridae) Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: kuhurubulu kuhurubulu r a r a s i f o u unknown unknown 12.9 inches Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: u l a f u h a o l a i Family: unknown 13.2 inches Sewanidae: genus unknown Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: unknown hale Lutjanus malabricus; Family: unknown 10.0 inches Lut.janidae 116 13. Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: kalua kalua Family: Muglidae; genus unknown unknown 15.5 inches 14. Class Name : Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: bubu daluma Family: B a l i s t i d a e : genus unknown unknown 20 inches 15. Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: 16. Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: muumuu muumuu galau Family: Lutjanidae: Sub-Family: Nemipterinae; genus unknown unknown 20 inches mara mara ngwangwao Family: Callyontidae; genus unknown unknown 10 inches 17a. Class Name: Fi s h Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: suru surukekero Family: Lutjanidae; Sub-Family: genus unknown unknown 7.6 inches Lethrininae; 17b. Class Name: Fish Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: raemae raemae bara unknown unknown 8.3 inches 18. Class Name: Fi s h Name: B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Common Name: Size: unknown leleko Family: Sparidae; genus unknown unknown 17.2 inches 117 Other marine organisms — taxonomic status undetermined — see text. 1. Lau Name: na l i t i u Common Name: horseshoe crab B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : unknown Class: karu; taxonomic status undetermined 2. Lau Name: ura fou Common Name: c r a y f i s h B i o l o g i c a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : unknown Class: ura; taxonomic status undetermined 118 PLATE 2 119 PLATE 4 120 PLATE 6 121 PLATE 8 122 PLATE 10 PLATE 12 124 PLATE 14 125 PLATE 16 PLATE 18 OTHER MARINE ORGANISMS TAXONOMIC STATUS UNDETERMINED 128 P L A T E 1 PLATE 2 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093845/manifest

Comment

Related Items