133
Phytocoenologia
34 (1)
133-161
Berlin - Stuttgart, March 18, 2004
Vegetation units of the Argentine Semiarid Chaco: The Toba-Pilagá
perception
by G.F. Scarpa & P. Arenas, Instituto de Botánica Darwinion (IBODA), San Isidro,
Argentina
with 3 Figures and 4 Tables
Abstract. This paper studies the nomenclature and classification assigned to vegetation
units by the Toba-Pilagá Indians of the Gran Chaco. The ethno-botanical research
consisted of 12 campaigns in which we worked with 58 informants. The study describes
a particular aspect of the traditional knowledge of plants: the perception of the plant
environment. The vernacular names of plants, the names of vegetation units, and their
respective classification are provided. Of a total of 235 recorded species, 217 taxa form
part of some type of vegetation unit, whereas 18 are not part of any type of plant unit.
A total of 196 vernacular names referring to 304 vegetation units were recorded. An
ethno-taxonomic system by which the Toba-Pilagá classify 277 vegetation units into 27
categories according to attributes such as physiognomy, succession, relative ease of
access and visibility, and according to their association with elements of the landscape
is revealed. These categories are organised in turn within a hierarchical system with
different degrees of inclusiveness.
Keywords: Ethnobotany, ethnophytogeography, Toba-Pilagá people, Chaco, Argentina.
1. Introduction
The way in which a human group names and classifies different vegetation units
in its environment is closely related to the vernacular names given to plants, and the
particular concept of space by which members of the group relate to the landscape.
The present study is based on an ethnophytogeographic perspective; this
discipline organises and encodes empirical knowledge of vegetation units. It also
belongs to the field of the ethnosciences, which deal with the way in which Man
constructs his world of experience as reflected in the vernacular terminology, and the
way in which he organizes, categorizes and classifies its terms (Grebe Vicuña, 1986).
Peasant communities and indigenous groups name and classify vegetation units
according to their own specific cultural criteria. However, according to a brief review of
the recent literature on the ethnobotany and toponymy of hunter-gatherer groups by
Johnson (2000), relatively few studies provide an exhaustive list of identified and
named ecological types. Among them special mention should be made of studies by
Friedberg (1990) for the Bunaq of Timor (Indonesia); and Aldunate et al. (1981) for
Andean peoples, Johnson (2000) for the Gitksan of northeast British Columbia, Martin
(1974) for the Khmer of Cambodia, and Shepard et al. (2001)
134
for the Matsigenka of the Peruvian Amazon, just to mention a few of the most
representative studies.
With regard to present-day hunter-gatherer groups in the Gran Chaco, there are
no studies providing a complete list of the vernacular names assigned to vegetation
units, or showing how they have been traditionally classified. However, a relevant
precedent is a brief ethno-ecological lexicon, with emphasis on vegetation, compiled by
Filipov (1996). For the same ethnic group Idoyaga Molina (1988-89, 1990-91) also
provides a classification of plants by their life-forms, and according to cosmological
categories. In addition to these studies are those on toponymy in the native languages of
the Chaco. Of these, special mention should be made of the studies by Martínez
Crovetto (1987), Wright (1991), Dell’Arciprete (1991), De la Cruz (1993, 1995), and
Palmer (1995), in which different types of information referred to in place-names,
including the vernacular names of numerous vegetation units, are discussed. Finally, we
also drew upon the basic information on Toba-Pilagá plant names compiled by Arenas
(1993).
In the present study we have compiled a list of denominations given by the
Toba-Pilagá to vegetation units in the semi-arid Chaco. On the basis of interviews with
informants we have also outlined an approach to the criteria used by these people to
classify different areas of their botanical environment. This was done after numerous
research campaigns in which we performed detailed ethno-biological surveys with
particular emphasis on ethno-botanical aspects, designed to reveal and understand the
relationship between the cultural and natural elements of the Toba-Pilagá landscape
(Arenas, 1995). We also wish to point out that we addressed the subject matter dealt
with in this study only after gaining a thorough knowledge of the ethnography of this
human group.
2. Study area
The Gran Chaco is a vast alluvial plain formed by quaternary sediments, on
which allochthonous rivers have markedly shaped the landscape. Our area of study is
located on the wide floodplain of the River Pilcomayo in the semi-arid portion of the
Argentine Chaco (Fig. 1). From its Andean origins it meanders along a course
punctuated by frequent bends due to the extremely flat terrain. This particular fluviomorphological dynamic has produced numerous circular or crescent-shaped lagoons
which originated in changes in the course of the river (Adámoli et al., 1972; Ramella &
Spichiger, 1989; Prado, 1993). As a result of these processes the present topographic
gradient is made up of: upland areas which correspond to the old alluvial plain;
intermediate areas representing the old ridges of abandoned meanders; and low-lying
areas comprising the old and modern-day river beds.
According to the phytogeographic classification established by Cabrera &
Willink (1980) the area is located in the Western District of the Province of Chaco. In
the upland areas of the gradient, zonal communities represented by xerophilous forests
135
Fig. 1. The Toba-Pilagá indians area.
of mesophanerophytes such as Schinopsis lorentzii, Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco,
and Bulnesia sarmientoi are dominant (names of taxa are according to Zuloaga &
Morrone, 1996, 1999; Zuloaga et al. 1994). The intermediate area is inhabited by azonal
communities represented by xerophilous forests of microphanerophytes such as
Prosopis alba, P. nigra, Geoffroea decorticans, and Ruprechtia triflora; woodlands of
Mimozyganthus carinatus; and different species of Acacia. The low-lying areas are
inhabited by grasslands of Cynodon dactylon, Paspalum laxum, arboreal communities
where Tessaria integrifolia and Salix humboldtiana are dominant, Copernicia alba
palms, halophyte steppes dominated by Ambrosia tenuifolia and Phyla reptans, and
hydrophytic communities (Morello, 1970). Riparian environments are superimposed on
a matrix of interfluvial environments all over the region, thus forming a mosaic-like
landscape pattern.
136
In the past, woodlands alternated with extended grasslands forming a typical
savanna landscape. However, during the first part of the twentieth century the region
underwent a process of grassland encroachment by advancing shrub and tree
formations, such that the original landscape underwent a complete alteration.
Among the physiognomic studies on the vegetation of the Gran Chaco emphasis
should be made of those by Castellanos (1958); Morello & Saravia Toledo (1959);
Morello & Adámoli (1974), Ramella & Spichiger (1989) and Prado (1993). From a
phytosociological point of view we can mention studies by Eskuche (1992); Galán de
Mera & Navarro (1992); Navarro (1997); Navarro & Fuentes (1999), Fuentes &
Navarro (2000), and Galán de Mera (2002). Navarro (1997); Navarro & Fuentes (1999),
and Fuentes & Navarro (2000) establish some kind of parallelism between series of
phytosociological units and their native names. These observations highlight the
importance of rescuing and interpreting the native forms of perception of the plant
environment, and the need to compare it with the scientific classification.
2.1. The Toba-Pilagá people
The Toba-Pilagá are an ethnic group belonging to the Guaycurú linguistic family
(Métraux, 1946; Mason 1950; Tovar 1961; Censabella, 1999); they are closely related to
other Toba groups, as well as to other living and extinct ethnic groups (Métraux, 1937;
1946; Tebboth, 1943). They live in the Province of Formosa in the north of the
Argentine Chaco (Fig. 1). The current population is of about 2000 people, in 13 rural
villages, and one neighbourhood in the outskirts of the small town of Ing. G. N. Juárez.
The Toba-Pilagá have an intimate knowledge of nature. Their perception of the
surrounding environment is very concise and is based on explanations of the structure of
the universe, representing their cosmovision. The Toba-Pilagá perceive the universe as a
structure composed of 7 superimposed layers (some informants refer to only 3 or 5) of
which only one corresponds to the terrestrial surface, the stratum on which they live and
on which accidents and events involving man – and the vegetation units- occur. Only
the shaman knows and visits the other spaces. The common mortals experience life on
the terrestrial surface, and this is the layer we will refer to in this study. This is where
the woodlands, rivers, lagoons, the village, and other elements that are part of daily
existence are found. While knowledge of the cosmos is reserved to initiated or erudite
individuals, the knowledge of nature is inherent to any member of the social group.
The Toba-Pilagá were gatherers, hunters and fishermen, and practiced a little
agriculture. Their activities allowed them to acquire an intimate knowledge of the local
geography as well as of the particular characteristics of the flora and fauna. Since the
start of the twentieth century they have been in close contact with national society, to
such an extent that they have undergone an intense process of cultural change.
Nevertheless, they still conserve a great deal of the essential features of their identity,
such as their language, social organization, ethical norms, and some of their subsistence
habits.
137
3. Data base and ethnophytogeographical methodology
Starting in 1993, a total of 12 campaigns were undertaken to investigate the
ethnobotany of the Toba-Pilagá. The first data relating to the lexicon on vegetation
units were obtained from the ethnobotanical material compiled during the
campaigns. In order to carry out in-depth research on the matter, two additional and
specific campaigns were made to the Toba-Pilagá villages in 2000 and 2001, and the
data was used to verify and expand preliminary data obtained during the first
campaigns.
The information and materials were collected with the help of 58 informants
who were given semi-structured interviews in which they were asked about the
vernacular names of plants and vegetation units. The informants were chosen from
among individuals of 40 to 80 years of age. Outings to the field were made with
each one of them in order to verify in situ the types of communities they referred to,
and the vernacular names were recorded. The field notes, the tape recordings of oral
information and other documents are now in the archives of the Instituto de Botánica
Darwinion.
The data were cross-checked with at least two informants. When differing points
of view were recorded, only those on which there was general agreement among the
interviewees were accepted.
During field work inquiries were made into the characterization of the vegetation
units referred to according to the procedures used in ethnophytogeography (Martin,
1974) . We asked about their geographical location, land relief, accessibility, structure,
spatial pattern, relative extension, associations with elements of the landscape, the
nature and general features of these elements, ecological dynamics (or life history of the
vegetation unit), and general significances given to them. From the ethnoscientific
perspective, the usual methodology was applied in order to broach these questions; the
field work revealed the points of view of the society being studied (emic perspective),
which were later analysed in the light of the standards of western science (ethic
perspective) (Fowler, 1979; Grebe Vicuña, 1986; Winthrop, 1991; Martin, 1995).
As a first step in revealing the Toba-Pilagá perception of the vegetation units, a
linguistic analysis of the vernacular names assigned was made (Friedberg, 1974; Martin,
1974). This identified the existence in the Toba-Pilagá language of particles which
when added to the name of the plant formed collective nouns, which represented
minimum units of grouping of the vegetation for these Indians. On the basis of this, an
exhaustive questionnaire about the plants that formed these communities was drawn up.
As a result of the analysis of the meanings of the intervening particles, basic grouping
levels of vegetation units were identified.
However, the analysis of the vernacular nomenclature is only a first approach to
the study of ethnotaxonomy. The ethnophytogeographic papers consulted all indicate
that there is no standardised method to follow when attempting to explain those
groupings not derived directly from the nomenclature (Martin, 1974; Friedberg, 1974).
138
Given the multiplicity of reference systems to which Indian taxonomies mention,
the only way to understand the ethnophytogeography of a human group seems to consist
in distinguishing “the words that the Indian uses to describe the forests, spontaneous
reactions and attitudes which acknowledge the extension of the semantic field of certain
terms used” (Martin, 1974).
On the basis of the characterisation of the vegetation units made by our
informants supraordinal grouping levels were specified. The categories within each
level were related to each other, and with the basic grouping levels already mentioned,
through a loosely inclusive hierarchical system established according to the particular
relationships of inclusion expressed by the Indians.
The comparison between the vernacular classification of the vegetation units and
that derived from phyto-sociological studies is totally beyond the scope of this study,
considering the ethnobotanical origin of our data -focused only on the level of plant
species-, and because no phytosociological inventory has been made. Nevertheless, a
description of Toba-Pilagá categories is made by using the physiognomic
perspective,whenever possible, because it was the one that best fits the viewpoint of the
Indians.
In order to record terms in the Toba-Pilagá language we used their equivalent
terms in Spanish, except for those sounds that do not exist in that language. These are
“q”: postvelar occlusive voiceless; “β”: fricative bilabial voiced; “#”: occlusive glottal
voiceless; “h”: fricative glottal voiceless; “G”: fricative postvelar voiced; “w”:
semiconsonant bilabial voiced; and “y”: semiconsonant palatal voiced. For further
precision on the phonetic features used, reference should be made to De la Cruz (1993,
1995), and Mendoza & Browne (1995).
4. Results
In this study we have used the terms “vegetation unit” and “plant unit” to refer to
the collective botanical nouns identified in the Toba-Pilagá discourse. However, these
concepts do not always coincide with the meaning given to them in natural sciences. In
fact, it was observed that both in the field and in the Toba-Pilagá discourse collective
botanical nouns sometimes refer to what is defined in ecology as “populations”,
sometimes to “communities”, and sometimes to actual “landscape units”.
Firstly, we shall describe the nomenclatural system which vegetation units
belong to, and then show how the Toba-Pilagá group them within an ethnoclassificatory
system.
4.1. Identification and nomenclature of the vegetation units
The Toba-Pilagá identify as a basic plant unit any group of plants of at least five
individuals of the same species that share the same space. This benchmark number is
the only one informants refer to with any precision when specifically asked about the
subject. These units may occupy surface areas ranging from one square meter
139
(especially herbaceous plants) to several square kilometers (some vegetation units of
palms); and may refer both to pure stands (monospecific) and to plurispecific stands
with a clearly dominant species. In all cases, these basic plant units were defined in
relation to a single vernacular species, not including associations of two or more species
in any one case.
The language elements making up the names of the vegetation units are:
Basic Term: The Toba-Pilagá plant name that identifies a particular unit.
Suffix: A particle that, when added to a basic term, denotes an indefinite and
numerous group of at least five individuals of the same species. There are different
types of suffixes, each one bearing a particular meaning. They are:
• 'hat/'sat: Indicates that the plant unit is in a higher area of the altitudinal gradient,
which is not subject to flooding, whose spatial shape is undefined. Less frequently it
refers to plant communities in general (see discussion);
• 'hatain'gi: Indicates that the vegetation unit is located in a permanently flooded
and rounded lowland;
• 'hata'ge: Indicates that the plant unit is located along an elongated and
temporarily flooded lowland;
• lo’laGae’hat: Indicates that the vegetation unit is in either a young
developmental phase or as saplings (only used for tree species).
In a few cases the names formed in this way are used together with an attributive
that refers to the area covered by the plant formation: o'lek indicates a small area. Table
1 exemplifies the main structure referred to by the nomenclatural system of vegetation
units.
The vernacular names of the identified vegetation units are enumerated in Table
2 (phonetic variations identified for some of them were excluded from the reckoning),
together with the scientific name, and basic term of each species. The first column of
the table shows the category the plant unit belongs to (this will be dealt with in the next
paragraph).
Because of the high number of vegetation units identified by these indigenous
people, a valid question would be whether all the plant species mentioned by them form
plant units. It was clear that not all species bear a collective botanical name. They
explained that these plants “live alone”, or that “many individual plants rarely grow
together”, or that,
Table 1. Example of the nomenclature system of the vegetation units.
Nombre científico Término de base
Término de base sufijado Significado
Prosopis alba
ma'pihat
ma’pik
mapi'hataingi
mapihata'ge
ma’pik lola'Gae'hat
Comunidad de P. alba de
zonas altas
Idem anterior alrededor de
un bajo circular
Idem anterior al lo largo de
un bajo alargado
Brotal de P. alba
140
Table 2. Vegetation units identified by the Toba-Pilagá people arranged by the
ethnoclassificatory categories they belong to. (*: understorey plant).
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
Basic term
Vegetation unit
BI-1. - ' iaq ("Woodland")
BI-1.1- ' iaq halo'te
BI-1.1.A - ' iaq 'tadaik
Achatocarpus praecox*
' lamaqaik
' lamaGae' hat
Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco
no' dik
no' dihat
Bromelia hieronymi*
ko' taGayak
ko' taGayaGa' hat
Bromelia serra*
ko' taGayak
ko' taGayaGa' tha
Bromelia serra*
kota' ke
kotake' pihat; kota' kehat
Bulnesia sarmientoi
qasa' qaik
qasa' qaik' sat
Capsicum chacoense*
ko' dae
ko' daehat
Ceiba insignis
qope' daGañik
qope' daGañihat
Deinacanthon urbanianum*
kail' te
kail' tehat
Dyckia sp.*
kail' te
kail' tehat
Dyckia sp.*
ne' kota
neko' taGahat
Schinopsis lorentzii
ke' taqaik
ke' taGahat
Sideroxylon obtusifolium ssp.
obtusifolium
BI-1.1.B - ' iaq
we' daGañik
we' daGañihat
BI-1.1.B.1 - Unnamed category
Caesalpinia paraguariensis
wa' laGañik
wa' laGañihat
Geoffroea decorticans
' taqaik
' taqaehat
Parkinsonia aculeata
ñie' chik
ñi:' chiehat
Petiveria alliacea*
hepe' toq
hepe' toGohat
Prosopis aff. alba
noqolo' kik
noqolo' kihat
Prosopis alba
ma' pik
mapi' hat, mapi' hat o' lek
Prosopis elata
dela' kik
dela' kihat, dela' ki#ehat
Prosopis kuntzei
ta' de:k
ta' de:hat
Prosopis nigra
pa:' taik
pa:ta' hat
Prosopis ruscifolia
' laGaya' kaik
' laGaya' hat, ' layaGa' hat
Prosopis sp.
dela' kik
delae' hat
Prosopis x elata
pana' naik
pana' naihat
Prosopis x nigra
dela' kik
delae' hat
Ruellia hygrophila*
e' daGaik
e' daGai' hat
Ruellia ciliatiflora*
ke' taGaik
ke' taGahat
Ruellia erythropus*
e' daGaik
e' daGai' hat
Ruellia coerulea*
ke' taGaik
ke' taGahat
Tabebuia nodosa
pa' lidokoik
pa' lidoGahat
Zizyphus mistol
' nalaik
' nalahat
' taqaik
' taqaehatain' gi
BI-1.1.B.2 - Unnamed category
BI-1.1.B.2.a - Unnamed category
Geoffroea decorticans
141
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
Basic term
Vegetation unit
Parkinsonia aculeata
Prosopis nigra
Prosopis ruscifolia
ñie' chik
pa:' taik
' laGaya' kaik
ñi:' chiehatain' gi
pa:ta' hataingi
' laGayaga' hataingi
Tabebuia nodosa
pa' lidoqoik
pa' lidoGahatain' gi
BI-1.1.B.2.b - Unnamed category
Geoffroea decorticans
' taqaik
' taqae' hatage
Prosopis alba
ma' pik
mapi' hatage
Prosopis nigra
pa:' taik
pa:ta' hata' ge
BI-1.1.C - Unnamed category
Albizia inundata
ya' talik
ya' talihataingi
Calycophyllum multiflorum
pa' geaGa ' lo#ok
paGea' ga' lohat; pa' geaGa' lohata
Maclura tinctoria ssp. mora
qoBi' ye
qoBi' hat; qo' Bihatain' gi
Phyllostylon rhamnoides
qoBi' ye la' tedae
qoBi' ye la' tedaetain' gi
Pisonia zapallo
na' se:k
na' se:hat; na' se:hatain' gi
Sapindus saponaria
wedaelqo' lakik
wedaelqo' laehat
Sapium haematospermum
ki' chiaGadik
ki' chiaGadihatain' gi; ki' chiaGadih
BI-1.2.A - Unnamed category
Acacia aroma
pa' Gaik
paGage' hat
Acacia furcatispina
waGea' qaik, waGea' qait' wayaGa' hat
Acacia praecox
petegeanaGa' kaik
petegeanaGa' hat
BI-1.2 - ' iaq haka' lok
✁
waGea'qaik
waGeaqai' hat
Acanthosyris falcata
pa' Gañik
pa' Gañihat
Arundo donax
qoqo' te
qoqode' hat
Cercidium praecox
paGa' chik
paGa' chihat
Grabowskia duplicata
todo' lokik
todo' lokihat; todo' lo(Ga)' hat
Habranthus sp.*
la' chie; la' chi
la' chiehat
Marsdenia castillonii*
howa' qaik
howaGa' hat
Maytenus vitis-idaea
hata' chik
hata' chiehat
Mimozyganthus carinatus
no#legea' kaik
no#legeaGa' hat
Opuntia anacantha*
pichi' ñi
pichi' ñiehat
Ruprechtia triflora
oma' qaik
omaGa' hat
Synandrospadix vermitoxicus*
naqaigea' Ga la'
#ta
naqaigea' Ga la' taGahat
Ximenia americana
todo' lokik
todo' lokihat; todo' lo(Ga)' hat
BI-1.2.B - Unnamed category
Acacia aroma
pa' Gaik
paGage' hataingi
Arundo donax
qoqo' te
qoqode' hataingi
Prosopis alba
ma' pik
mapi' hatain' gi
Ruprechtia triflora
oma'qaik
omaGa' hataingi
142
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
Basic term
Vegetation unit
βiaq poñio' le
BI-1.3 - 'β
BI-1.3.A - yaga' ta#a' ge
BI-1.3.A.1 - Unnamed category
Acacia caven
pa' Gaik la' chielik
paGaela' chieli' hat
Acacia praecox
petegeanaGa' kaik
petegeanaGa' hat
waGea' qaik
waGeaqai' hat
Bromelia hieronymi*
ko' taGayak
ko' taGayaGa' hat
Bromelia serra*
ko' taGayak
ko' taGayaGa' hat
kota' ke
kota' kehat, kotake' pihat
Castela coccinea
' helkaik na' maik
' helkaik na' maik' te:hat
Celtis spp.
chiyaGa' dik
chiyaGa' dihat
Cyclolepis genistoides
wa' BiaGaik
wa' BiaGaihat
Deinacanthon urbanianum*
kail' te
kail' tehat
Dyckia sp.*
kail' te; ne' kota
kail' tehat, neko' taGahat
Mimosa detinens
petigeana' qaik
petigeana' qaihat
Mimosa detinens
waGea' qaik
waGea' qaihat
Prosopis ruscifolia
' laGaya' kaik
' laGaya' hat, ' layaGa' hat
Prosopis sericantha
ta' de:k la' chielik;' tade:k
ta' de:k la' chielihat; tade:' hat
BI-1.3.A.2 - Unnamed category
Acacia curvifructa
pa' Gaik la' chielik
paGaela' chieli' hataingi
Acacia caven
pa' Gaik la' chielik
paGaela' chieli' hataingi
Celtis spp.
chiyaGa' dik
chiyaGa' dihatain' gi
Prosopis ruscifolia
' laGaya' kaik
' laGayaga' hataingi
BI-1.3.B. Unnamed category
BI-1.3.B.1 - Unnamed category
Aloysia virgata
tanaGana' Ga lepe' naqa' tetanagana' Ga lepe' naqa' tehat
Capparis retusa
tegea' qaik
tegeaGa' hat
Capparis salicifolia
el' kik
eli' hat
Capparis speciosa
nelo' mik
nelomi' hat
Capparis tweediana
kili' li#i
kili' li' hat
Lophocarpinia aculeatifolia
wo' lege
wole' gehat
Lycium americanum
qo' BioGonaqa' tae
qo' BioGonaqa' taehat
Lycium cuneatum
' pi#tala' dik
pi#tala' dihat
Lycium nodosum
' pi#tala' dik
pi#tala' dihat
Prosopis alba
ma' pik
ma' pik lol' laGahat
Vallesia glabra
hama' ñik
hamañi:' hat
Zizyphus mistol
' nalaik
' nalaik lol' laGahat
BI-1.3.B.2 - Unnamed category
Capparis retusa
tegea' qaik
tegeaGa' hataingi
143
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
BI-1.4 - ' iaq ni' yege
Cercidium praecox
Basic term
Vegetation unit
✂
paGa' chik
paGa' chihat
NO-2. - ' nonaGa ("Field")
NO-2.1- ' nonaGa ' tadaik
NO-2.1.A - Unnamed category
Aristida mendocina
awaqa' pi; ma' ñie la' de awaka' pihat; ma' ñie la'hatde
Copernicia alba
' chaik
chai' hat
Digitaria insularis
pa' Ga la' wo
pa' Ga' lo#ahat
Echinochloa cf. polystachya
pol' chaq
pol' chaGahat
Echinochloa cf. polystachya
awaka' pi
awaka' pihat
Elyonurus muticus
' chi#maGa
' chi#maGa' hat
Eragrostis lugens
awaka' pi
awaka' pihat
Gouinia latifolia
qoqo' ta
qoqode' hat
Heliotropium procumbens
pa' Ga la' wo
pa' Ga' lo#ahat
Hymenachne amplexicaulis
pol' chaq
pol' chaGahat
Imperata brasiliensis
' na#iky' Got
' na#ikyGode' hat
Opuntia chakensis
qo' chaq
qo' chaGahat
Opuntia discolor
pichi' ñi; ma' ñik lo' qo
pichi' ñiehat; mañieloqo' hat
Opuntia elata
yate' nak
yate' naGahat
Opuntia quimilo
qadaqa' chik
qadaqa' chihat
Opuntia sulphurea var. pampeana
ma' ñik lo' qo; pichi' ñi
mañieloqo' hat; pichi' ñiehat
Panicum sp.
pol' chaq
pol' chaGahat
Paspalum conjugatum
awaka' pi; pol' chaq
awaka' pihat; pol' chaGahat
Pennisetum frutescens
qoqo' ta
qoqode' hat
Ruellia hygrophila
e' daGaik
e' daGai' hat
Ruellia ciliatiflora
ke' taGaik
ke' taGahat
Ruellia erythropus
e' daGaik
e' daGai' hat
Ruellia coerulea
ke' taGaik
ke' taGahat
Sporobolus pyramidatus
awaka' pi
awaka' pihat
Stetsonia coryne
laGa' dik
laGa' dihat
Trichloris crinita
awaka' pi
awaka' pihat
Tripogon spicatus
awaka' pi
awaka' pihat
Trithrinax biflabellata
laqa' ta
laqa' tahat
NO-2.1.B.1- Unnamed category
Aristida mendocina
ma' ñie la' de
ma' ñie la' dehataingi
Copernicia alba
' chaik
' chaihatain' gi
Echinochloa cf. polystachya
awaka' pi
awaka' pihataingi
pol' chaq
pol' chaGahatain' gi
NO-2.1.B - Unnamed category
144
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
Basic term
Vegetation unit
Hymenachne amplexicaulis
Imperata brasiliensis
pol' chaq
' na#iky' Gode
pol' chaGahatain' gi
' na#ikyGo' hatain' gi
Panicum sp.
pol' chaq
pol' chaGahatain' gi
Paspalum conjugatum
Pennisetum frutescens
pol' chaq
qoqo' ta
pol' chaGahatain' gi
qoqode' hataingi
NO-2.1.B.2 - Unnamed category
Copernicia alba
' chaik
' chaihata' ge
NO-2.2 - ' nonaGa pe' geat
Acanthospermum hispidum
' naGadae
' naGada' hat
Alternanthera pungens
ta#a' hot
ta#aho' hat
Bidens subalternans
ma' ñie le' lote' ke
ma' ñielelote' kehat
Boerhavia diffusa var. leiocarpa
qo' doGona
qo' doGona' hat
Cenchrus equinatus
i' naGadae
i' naGadae' hat
Cereus stenogonus
ha' Gachik
ha' Gadihat
Chenopodium ambrosioides
ñiaGa' diaGa' leñi
ñiaGa' diaGa' lehatain' gi
ñiaGa' diaGa' lehat
Euphorbia lasiocarpa
qo' doGona
qo' doGona' hat
Euphorbia serpens
wol' cha#a; qo' doGona
wol' cha#ahat; qo' doGona' hat
Harrisia bonplandii
' neko
' nekoGa' hat
Nicotiana longiflora
maGa' yi leqochia' Ga
maGa' yi leqochiaGa' hat
Opuntia anacantha
pichi' ñi
pichi' ñiehat
Opuntia chakensis
qo' chaq
qo' chaGahat
Opuntia discolor
' dowoq; ma' ñik lo' qo
' dowoGo' hat; mañieloqo' hat
Opuntia elata
yate' nak
yate' naGahat
Opuntia ficus-indica
sae' ñik
saeñi' hat
Opuntia quimilo
qadaqa' chik
qadaqa' chihat
Opuntia salmiana
' dowoq
' dowoGo' hat
Opuntia sulphurea var. pampeana
ma' ñik lo' qo; pichi' ñi
mañieloqo' hat; pichi' ñiehat
Opuntia utkilio
' dowoq
' dowoGo' hat
Pectis odorata
penaGa' di
penaGa' dihat
Physalis neesiana
kochi' maGañik
kochi' maGañi' hat
Physalis viscosa
qoto' ñi
qoto' ñiehat
Portulaca oleracea
' qato; qo' doGona
' qatoGo' hat; qo' doGona' hat
Portulaca sp.
' qato
' qatoGo' hat
Quiabentia verticillata
' dowoq la' chik
' dowoq la' chihat
Ricinus communis
' wotepe la' chielik
' wotepe la' chielihat
Rivina humilis
wa' qaw lai' te
wa' qaw lai' tehat
Selaginella sellowii
' qol
' qolhat
Senna morongii
' wayaGa na' maik
' waGayaGa' hat
Senna obtusifolia
' wayaGa na' maik
' waGayaGa' hat
145
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
Basic term
Vegetation unit
Senna occidentalis
Senna pendula var. paludicola
' wayaGa na' maik
' wayaGa na' maik
' waGayaGa' hat
' waGayaGa' hat
Sida cordifolia
pa' Ga la' wo
pa' Ga' lo#ahat
Solanum argentinum
pioGola' dik
pioGola' dihat
Solanum conditum
ta' pañi
ta' pañihat
Solanum elaeagnifolium
Solanum hieronymi
ta' pañi
ta' pañi la' te#
ta' pañihat
ta' pañ
i la' tehat
Solanum sisymbriifolium
' niyaq lae' te
' niyaGalae' tehat, ' niyaq lae' tehat
Sonchus asper
na' lachi la' ta#a
nala' chihat
Sphaeralcea bonariensis
pa' Ga la' wo
pa' Ga' lo#ahat
Stetsonia coryne
laGa' dik
laGa' dihat
Tagetes minuta
ma' ñiek le' lote' ke
ma'ñie lelote' kehat
Talinum paniculatum
qo' doGona; ' qato
qo' doGona' hat; ' qatoGo' hat
Talinum polygaloides
kowoqo' lek
kowoqo' le:hat
Talinum triangulare
qo' doGona; ' qato
qo' doGona' hat; ' qatoGo' hat
Tragia hieronymi
na' naik lodai' te
na' naik lodai' tehat
Xanthium spinosum
i' naGadae
i' naGadae' hat
kalgea' Gaik
kalgeaGai' hat
nol' ke
nolke' hat
Cyperus sp.
' piaGeana' Gaik
' piaGeanaGai' hat
Echinodorus sp.
diki' chik
diki' chihatain' gi
Nicotiana glauca
qoin' yila' qaik
qoin' yilaqai' hat
Phyla reptans
kalgea' Gaik
kalgeaGai' hat
NE-3.1 - ne' dep ' tadaik
Nymphaea gardneriana
diki' chik
diki' chihatain' gi
Salix humboldtiana
lo' chik
lo' chi:hat,o'l chiehat o' lek
lo' chik
lo' chiehatain' gi
ha' laq
halaGa' hat; halaGa' hataingi
kalgea' Gaik
kalgeaGai' hat
nol' ke
nolke' hat
Cyperus sp.
' piaGeana' Gaik
' piaGeanaGai' hat
Echinodorus sp.
diki' chik
diki' chihatain' gi
Nicotiana glauca
qoin' yila' qaik
qoin' yilaqai' hat
Phyla reptans
kalgea' Gaik
kalgeaGai' hat
Urera aurantiaca
po' qo
po' qohat
NO-2.3 - ' nonaGa ' dalaGaik
Alternanthera paronichyoides ssp.
chacoënsis
Baccharis salicifolia
NE-3.- ne' dep ("Marsh")
Tessaria integrifolia
NE-3.2. ne' dep qoqo' te
Alternanthera paronichyoides ssp.
chacoënsis
Baccharis salicifolia
146
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
Basic term
Vegetation unit
NE-3.3 - ne' dep ' lolaGae
Geoffroea decorticans
' taqaik
' taqae lola' Gae' hat
OC- 4. - ("Out of classification")
OC- 4.1. - no' Gop wet#' ot
Azolla caroliniana
' qol
' qolhatain' gi; ' qolhat
Eichhornia azurea
' molalke' tela
molalke'telahatain' gi
Lemna sp.
' qol
' qolhatain' gi; ' qolhat
Limnobium spongia ssp. laevigatum
to' pi
to' pihatain' gi
Marsilea sp.
' qol
' qolhatain' gi; ' qolhat
Nymphoides indica
' molalke' tela
molalke' telahatain' gi
Pistia stratiotes
to' pi
to' pihatain' gi
OC-4.2 - no' Gop layo' got
Ceratophyllum demersum
' qol
' qolhatain' gi; ' qolhat
OC-4.3 - Unnamed category
Albizia inundata
ya' talik
ya' talihataingi
Baccharis salicifolia
nol' ke
nol' kehatain' gi
Byttneria filipes
' naliem lodai' te
' naliem lodai' tehat
Calycophyllum multiflorum
pa' geaGa ' lo#ok
paGea' ga' lohat, pa' geaGa' lohata
Cynodon dactylon
awaka' pi ' poleo
awka' pihat; awaka' pihataingi
Cyperus sp.
' piaGeana' Gaik
' piaGeanaGai' hataingi
Eleocharis elegans
' qol
' qolhat; ' qol
hatain' gi
Maclura tinctoria ssp. mora
qoBi' ye
qoBi' hat; qo' Bihatain' gi
Phyllostylon rhamnoides
qoBi' ye la' tedae
qoBi' ye la' tedaetain' gi
Pisonia zapallo
na' se:k
na' se:hat; na' se:hatain' gi
Polygonum hispidum
ta' ha Gal' che
tahaGal' chehatain' gi
Polygonum hydropiperoides var.
hydropiperoides
Polygonum punctatum
ta' ha Gal' che
tahaGal' chehatain' gi
ta' ha Gal' che
tahaGal' chehatain' gi
Sapindus saponaria
wedaelqo' lakik
wedaelqo' laehat
Sapium haematospermum
ki' chiaGadik
ki' chiaGadihatain' gi; ki' chiaGadih
Schoenoplectus californicus
na:' te
na:' tehataingi
Solanum glaucophyllum
no' kyet
no' kyede' hat; no' kyedehatain' gi
Thalia geniculata
pe' laq
pe' laGahatain' gi
Typha domingensis
chi#' na
chi#nahatain' gi
'naliem lodai' tehatain' gi
147
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
OC-5 - lekeo' Gok
OC-5.1 - Unnamed category
Arrabidaea corallina
Basic term
Vegetation unit
noqo' lo
noqo' loGa' hat, noqo' loahat
no' hel
no' helhat
Canavalia brasiliensis
no' hel
no' helhat
Cissus sicyoides var. sicyoides
nal' kyok; no' hel
nal' kyoGahat; no' hel
hat
Clematis montevidensis
nal' kyok, noqo' lo, no' helnal' kyoGahat, noqo' lohat, no' helh
Cuscuta indecora var. indecora
nal' kyok
nal' kyoGahat
Cynanchum sarcostemma
Funastrum clausum
kowoqo' lek
qope' lañi
kowoqo' le:hat
qope' laGañihat
Funastrum gracile
kowa' ka
kowaGa' hat
Ipomoea bonariensis var. chacoensis
nal' kyok; no' hel
nal' kyoGahat; no' helhat
Mascagnia brevifolia
no' hel
no' helhat
Merremia dissecta
na' qaik la' ta#a; no' hel
na' qaik la' taGahat, no' helhat
Mikania cordifolia
noqo' lo, no' hel
noqo' lohat,no' helhat
Mikania periplocifolia
noqo' lo
noqo' lohat
Morrenia grandiflora
' qalagana' Gae
' qalaganaGae' hat
Morrenia odorata
' chiaGadae
' chiaGadae' hat
Morrenia variegata
' talo' wai
talo' waihat
Passiflora foetida
' qop ' qop
' qop' qop(e)' hat
Passiflora mooreana
piogo' lola
piogo' lola' hat
Pithecoctenium cynanchoides
no' hel; noqo' lo
no' helhat; noqo' lohat
Schubertia grandiflora
yaGa' ñi
yaGa' ñi' hat
Schubertia schreiteri
' ta#nagana' Ga lote' te
ta#nagana' Ga lote' tehat
Urvillea chacoensis
no' hel
no' helhat
OC-5.1 - Unnamed category
Arrabidaea corallina
noqo' lo
noqo' loGahatain' gi
Funastrum clausum
qope' lañi
qope' laGahatain' gi
Funastrum gracile
kowa' ka
kowaGa' hataingi
OC-6 - ha' palwo
Phoradendron hieronymi
neta' Gae la' kaik
neta' Gae la' kai' hat
Phoradendron liga
neta' Gae la' kaik
neta' Gae la' kai' hat
Phoradendron pruinosum
neta' Gae la' kaik
neta' Gae la' kai' hat
Struthanthus angustifolius
neta' Gae la' kaik
neta' Gae la' kai' hat
Tillandsia duratii
dapi' chie#e' hat
Tillandsia streptocarpa
dapi' chie#e, dapi' chie
na'
dapi'mochie#e, dapi' chie
na'
dapi'mochie#e, dapi' chie
Tripodanthus acutifolius
na'
neta'mo
Gae la' kaik
neta' Gae la' kai' hat
Usnea dichroa
' qol
' qolhat
Usnea sulcata
' qol
' qolhat
Tillandsia meridionalis
dapi' chie#e' hat
dapi' chie#e' hat
148
Vegetation unit categories/
Taxa included*
Basic term
Vegetation unit
"Not categorized"
Anemia tomentosa var. anthriscifolia
na' maik la' ta#a
na' mai la' ta#hat
Apium leptophyllum
alo' Go
aloGo' hataingi, aloGo' hat
Calvatia aff. cyathiformis (Fungi)
waqachi' ñi la
' tek
waqachi' ñi late:' hat
Calvatia fragilis (Fungi)
waqachi' ñi la' tek
waqachi' ñi late:' hat
Cheilanthes obducta
na' maik la' ta#a
na' mai la' ta#hat
Eryngium elegans
alo' Go
aloGo' hat, aloGo' hataingi
Erythroxylon sp.
coca' BiaGahe, coca' BiaGacoca' BiaGahatain
' gi, coca' BiaGaha
Flaveria bidentis
qa' do:l nehe' pe:l
qa' do:l nehe' pe:lhat
Ganoderma aff. lucidum (Fungi)
Ganoderma aff. resinaceum (Fungi)
e' pak leke' tela
e' pak leke' tela
e' pakleke' telahat
e' pakleke' telahat
Heteranthera peduncularis
' molalke' tela
molalke' telahatain' gi
Hexagona hydnoides (Fungi)
e' pak leke' tela
e' pakleke' telahat
Hexagona papyracea (Fungi)
e' pak leke' tela
e' pakleke' telahat
Holmbergia tweedii
wa' BiaGaik
wa' BiaGaihat
Hymenoxys anthemoides
penaGa' di
penaGa' dihat
Hyptis lappacea
i' diaG
ata' Gaik ' lawenek i' diaGataGaik ' lawehatain' gi
Iresine diffusa
ka' tek leko' lak
ka' tek leko' laehat
Jacaratia corumbensis
egea' Ga
egeaGa' hat
Mycenastrum corium (Fungi)
waqachi' ñi la' tek
waqachi' ñi late:' hat
Pleurotus aff. ostreatus (Fungi)
e' pak leke' atel
e' pakleke' telahat
Pycnoporus sanguineus (Fungi)
e' pak leke' tela
e' pakleke' telahat
Stemodia ericifolia
' qol
' qolhatain' gi, ' qolhat
Tulostoma sp. (Fungi)
waqachi' ñi la' tek
waqachi' ñi late:' hat
Vascellum pampeanum (Fungi)
waqachi' ñi la' tek
waqachi' ñi la
te:' hat
References: * understorey plant.
when they do grow together, the assigned term is halko’te -meaning “numerous” followed by the vernacular name of the plant without an added suffix. A list of these
plants is given in Table 3.
4.2. Ethnotaxonomy of the vegetation units
The ethnotaxonomic analysis confirmed that the Toba-Pilagá classify the
vegetation units enumerated in Table 2 in different vernacular categories. Most of these
are related to each other in a kind of loosely inclusive hierarchical system. The main
features of those hierarchical levels are described below:
149
Table 3. Plant species not bearing a botanic collective name.
Scientific name
Vernacular name
Battarrea stevenni (Fungi)
Bougainvillea praecox
' to#olea' Gaik
naco' lik
Bulnesia foliosa
naco' lik
Capparis atamisquea
el' kik la' chik
Cleistocactus baumannii
' kochia#
Cleome sp.
paGadele' wo
Cyrtopodium punctatum
he' dik
Echinopsis sp.
po' Gok
Gymnocalycium mihanovichii
po:' Gok
Heimia salicifolia
pe' naqa' te
Jatropha hieronymi
poko:dik
Monvillea cavendishii
' kochia#
Monvillea spegazzinii
na' pet, ne' pet
Odontocarya salicifolia
noqolo kalgueaGaik, na' yok
Opuntia colubrina
pichiñi
Phellorinia sp. (Fungi)
' to#olea' Gaik
Pluchea sagittalis
o' waGaik
Podaxon sp. (Fungi)
' to#olea' Gaik
4.2.1.: The vegetation units are firstly assigned to one of the three large groups
of environments which the Toba-Pilagá use to indicate outstanding discontinuities of
their surrounding landscape; viz.: 'βiaq (woodland), 'nonaGa (field) and ne' dep(marsh).
It should be noted that these categories represent elements of the landscape rather than
vegetation units. Their defining criteria are:
'βiaq ("woodland", "monte"): It approximately corresponds to the “dry semideciduous forest” of the well -known phytogeographic classifications (Cabrera, 1971;
Hueck, 1978), and also to communities dominated by shrub-species. It comprises a wide
spectrum of floristic compositions, and of horizontal and vertical structures, among
other characteristics. The Toba-Pilagá, however, emphasize its relative visibility and
accessibility as distinctive features. (It is defined as a “closed” land environment
opposed to the “open” characteristic of the “field” landscape);
' nonaGa("field"): A place with high visibility and limitless accessibility (land
environment defined as “open”). It includes the savanna environments, halophytic
steppes, palm forests, seriously degraded areas (called "peladares"), and domestic and
peridomestic areas.
ne' dep("marsh"): A place with high visibility but limited accessibility (aquatic
environment). It includes the great swamp (some 20 kilometers wide) which crosses the
region in a NW-SE direction.
150
4.2.2.: The categories identified within the second level have a binominal
structure. The first element refers to the first level categories (i.e. woodland, field or
marsh), and is followed by an attributive (second element) indicating specificity (i.e.
: new, modified field). Many of the expressions used to characterize
' nonaGa ' dalaGaik
the first level categories refer to their spatial extension (' tadaik
: large; pe' geat, ' qoGot
:
). In addition, the
small), and to their condition as “new” or “modified” ( ' dalaGaik
woodlands were classified according to their relative height and degree of accessibility.
These types of categories are frequently found in ethnoecological studies (Martin, 1974;
Johnson, 2000).
4.2.3: For some categories of the second classificatory level informants named
only one subcategory. However, as the latter did not encompass all the vegetation units
included in the category, a complementary subcategory was assigned under the label
“unnamed category”. This subcategory was however tacitly evident by opposition to
that explicitly named by the native. It is recognised by the people but is described by
means of a periphrasis. Berlin et al. (1974) state that in vernacular taxonomies the
absence of a name for a given category does not necessarily imply the absence of the
category itself. On the contrary, the existence of a defined but unnamed classificatory
category (also called "covert intermediate categories") by the human group in question
was frequently observed (Berlin et al., 1968; 1974; Friedberg, 1974; Martin, 1974;
Shepard et al., 2001).
4.2.4.: In “woodland” as well as in “field” categories, subcategories were
identified according to the location of vegetation units in high areas not liable to
flooding, or in low areas which are liable to flooding. As in the previous level, generic
names were not given for the subcategories, although there is clear evidence of their
existence in the type of suffix used in the name given to the units each of them refer to
(' hatfor those related to high areas, ' hatain' gi
and ' hata' ge
for those associated to low
areas).
4.2.5.: In the “woodland” as well as in the “field” categories, subcategories
referring to the shape of the lowlands (rounded or long), and the duration of flooding
(permanent or temporary) were identified for the formations associated with low areas
which are liable to flooding. As in the preceding classificatory level, subcategories bear
no name, although there is evidence of them in the type of suffix used (' hatain' for
gi the
rounded formations; ' hata' ge
for the elongated ones).
4.2.6. Classification of the vegetation by the Toba-Pilagá
Based on the previous levels, there follows the elucidated classification together
with a schematic illustration of the most representative categories in each environment
(Fig. 2-3).
1. 'β
βiaq ("Woodland", "Monte") ("BI")
Land environment with poor accessibility and visibility. It comprises trees,
shrubs, and their undergrowth.
βiaq halo' te("extended, dense, high forest"): Tree formations of more than
1.1. 'β
5 m in height (mesophanerophytes and microphanerophytes).
151
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of "woodland" categories identified by Toba-Pilagá people (For
abbreviation of category names see text and Table 2).
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of "field", "marsh" and "woodland" categories identified by Toba-Pilagá
people. "A": Plant formation along a kama:ain' gi(suffix employed: ' hatain' );gi"B": Plant formation
along a kama:a' ge(suffix employed: ' hata' ).ge(For abbreviation of category names see text and Table 2).
152
1.1.A. 'β
βiaq ' tadaik("large forest"; "great forest"): Tree communities with individuals
more than 15 m in height (mesophanerophytes). It is defined as harco#' ge(wide, i.e. it
extends over a large area). Accessibility is restricted for fear of individuals not being
able to leave the forest. These forests are always located on high lands (komade' lege
). It
corresponds to the "quebracho colorado and palo santo forests" sensu Cabrera (1971),
Adámoli et al. (1972), and Hueck (1978).
βiaq ("woodland"): Tree formation on the intermediate level of
1.1.B. 'β
the altitudinal gradient, mostly composed of microphanerophytes (less
than 12 m in height). It corresponds to "algarrobo forest" sensu Hueck
(1978), thorn woodlands sensu Prado (1993), and "raleras" sensu
(Morello & Adámoli, 1974). It differs from 1.1.A in that it is easily
accessible.
1.1.B. 1. Unnamed category. It is associated with high
(komade' lege
) areas not liable to flooding, and corresponds to
"algarrobal-chañaral-duraznillar" sensu Adámoli et al. (1972).
1.1.B.2. Unnamed category. It is asssociated with low areas
prone to flooding, and corresponds to "algarrobal-chañaral" sensu
Adámoli et al. (1972).
1.1.B.2.a. Unnamed category. It is associated with
permanently flooded
rounded
lowlands
(called
ka’ma:in' gi).
1.1.B.2.b. Unnamed category. It is associated with
temporarily flooded elongated lowlands (called kama:' ge
).
1.1.C. Unnamed category: Trees associated exclusively with bodies of
water. They correspond to gallery forests or "selvas de ribera" and
"bosquecillos de madrejones" sensu Adámoli et al. (1972), on permanent
water courses, and on rounded lowlands with trees taller than 12 m.
1.2. 'β
βiaq ha' lokor 'β
βiaq haka' lok:Low forests between 2 and 5 m high,
including small trees such as Ruprechtia triflora, Acanthosyris falcata, and
Ximenia americana. They have a characteristic very dense undergrowth or
na' wigemeaning that people are forced to crouch (koyo' qochiñi)to enter the
forest; sometimes passage is impossible (ne' hoeñi)
, depending on the intensity of
degradation caused by domestic animals. These forests are not necessarily
associated with a body of water, and correspond to a closed low forest sensu
Morello & Adámoli (1974).
1.2.A. Unnamed category. It is associated with high areas not
prone to flooding, generally on sandy hills (' we#em)
.
1.2.B. Unnamed category. It is associated with low areas prone
to flooding.
βiaq poñio' le("Woodland like a person"): Shrubs or saplings less than 2 m
1.3. 'β
high. This category may vary as to their accessibility. It corresponds to
shrublands.
(“thorns prevent passage"): Mainly thorny shrubs.
1.3.A. yaga' ta#a' ge
1.3.A.1. Unnamed category. It is associated with high areas not
liable to flooding.
1.3.A.2. Unnamed category. It is associated with low areas that
are liable to flooding.
1.3.B. Unnamed category: Thornless shrubs or saplings that form dense
153
(na' wige
) stands, i.e. one must crouch (koyo' qochiñi)to enter.
1.3.B.1. Unnamed category. It is associated with high areas not
liable to flooding.
1.3.B.2. Unnamed category. It is associated with low areas that
are liable to flooding.
1.4. 'β
βiaq ' kogotor 'β
βiaq ni' yege("small woodland"): Woodland patches in
open fields. This subcategory mainly refers to a spatial pattern and the site at
which the forest develops. It clearly refers to the woodland-field transition. It
corresponds to tree patches in ancient savannas sensu Cabrera (1971) and
Morello & Adámoli (1974).
βiaq ' dalaGaik. ("New woodland"): Mixed woodland or bush,
1.5. 'β
plurispecific, where none of the aforementioned categories are dominant. It
might correspond to a secondary forest without well defined vegetation units.
Because of this it is also named wo' yema e' paq
("intermingled trees") or yale' Gat
'βiaq ("mixed woodland"). Informants refer to it as deriving from an intensely
. Also called "bosques de rehache", in Spanish (Morello &
exploited 'βiaq ' tadaik
Saravia Toledo, 1959).
2. ' nonaGa("Field", "Open field") ("NO")
Land environments with high visibility and accessibility. They include arboreal,
shrubby, and herbaceous life-forms.
("Large field"). It is the proper field. It corresponds to the
2.1. ' nonaGa ' tadaik:
grassland matrix of ancient savannas, palm groves, and "cardonales", among
others, sensu Cabrera (1971) and Adámoli et al. (1972).
2.1.A. Unnamed category. It is associated with high areas not liable to
flooding.
2.1.B. Unnamed category. It is associated with low areas that are liable
to flooding.
2.1.B.1. Unnamed category. It is associated with permanently
flooded rounded lowlands (kama:in' gi
).
2.1.B.2. Unnamed category. It is associated with temporarily
flooded elongated lowlands (kama:' ge
).
2.2. ' nonaGa pe' geator ' nonaGa ' kogot("small field"): Peridomestic area.
Small field with woodland patches or disperse trees. Located in disturbed areas
with modified soils (ditches and road edges, marsh borders, stubble fields, etc.);
some of its plant communities “sprout after storms” ( wa' tep qoqo' te)
reported the
informants. This subcategory refers mainly to a spatial pattern determined in the
field-woodland transition.
("New field"): It includes vegetation units developing
2.3. ' nonaGa ' dalaGaik
after a marsh has shrunk; this is the reason why it is also named ne' dep qoqo' te
("sons of the marsh"). It includes shrubs and herbaceous plants, and corresponds,
in part, to halophytic steppes (sensu Cabrera, 1971).
3. ne' dep("Marsh") ("NE")
Aquatic and terrestrial environments with high visibility and constrained
accessibility. They are represented by large areas subjected to either permanent or
temporary floods. These areas do not have clearly defined boundaries.
154
3.1. ne' dep ' tadaik("Large marsh"): Expanding large marsh. Aquatic
environments.
("Small marsh"): Shrinking small marsh. Communities of
3.2. ne' dep qoqo' te
herbaceous species and small shrubs colonizing areas left in the wake of a
retreating marsh. Related to ' nonaGa ' dalaGaik
(field-marsh transition). It refers,
in part, to halophytic steppes.
βiaq ' lolaGae ("Marsh or woodland saplings"):
3.3. ne' dep ' lolaGaeor 'β
Communities formed by saplings of tree species growing after a shrinking
marsh. It refers to the woodland-marsh transition).
Three vernacular categories and their corresponding subcategories could not be
included in the abovementioned system. They are:
Plants associated exclusively with water.
4) no' Gop wet#' ot:
Acropleustophytic plants.
4.1.) no' Gop ' weta:we:
Mesopleustophytic plants.
4.2) no' Gop layo' got:
4.3) Unnamed category: Partially submerged herbaceous plants, shrubs, and
trees
5) lekeo' Gok:Vines
5.1.) Unnamed category: On high and dry areas.
5.2.) Unnamed category: Associated with permanently flooded rounded
lowlands.
6) ha' palwo:Epiphytic plants.
The first column of Table 2 shows the inclusion of 276 vegetation units into one
or more of the abovementioned categories. Categories not included within the main
classificatory system are referred to as “out of classification” ("OC") (levels 4 to 6,
including 70 plant units). Finally, 27 vegetation units have not been ascribed to any
category; i.e. nawo' Go ' hat#aingi
(tree community with conspicuous flowers, around a
rounded body of water); waqachi' ñi late:' hat
(group of puffball and stalked puffball
fungus species); and e' paq leke' telahat
(group of bracket fungus species), among others;
they are referred to as "not categorized" in Table 2.
5. Discussion
The results of this study were exclusively based on ethnobotanic interviews that
dealt with the nomenclature and characterization of vegetation units. The actual
information gathered was much wider than that presented in this article. For example,
we also obtained data on types of soil, other kinds of water bodies, and faunal and
supernatural beings associated with the habitats. At no time did such attributes define
specific vegetation units alone, nor did they modify the proposed classificatory system.
However, consideration of those features would be relevant for a classification of the
overall habitat, of which the present study is just a part.
155
On the other hand, it should be noted that we have deliberately omitted a set of
techniques habitually applied in ethnosciences and used in enquiries relating to
classificatory systems -such as data cards, images, keys, dichotomic trees, etc. We did
not use them because they have been widely criticised for introducing bias into results
beforehand (Friedberg, 1968, 1974; Fowler, 1979).
5.1. The nomenclatural system of the formations and their meaning
A varied number of the studies on Toba-Pilagá and Pilagá lexicons agree on the
use of the suffix ' hatto exclusively denote botanical collective terms (Buckwalter,
1980; Dell' Arciprete
, 1991). In these studies the suffixes ' hatain' gi
and ' hata' ge
are
considered mere extensions of the semantic field of collective terms formed with ' hat
.
As recorded by De la Cruz (1993), it was noticed in the course of the present study that
the latter suffix also has a more specific meaning than that given above. In fact it can be
observed in Table 2 that the Toba-Pilagá make a clear distinction between the types of
collectives formed by each plant species. Thus, there are species that form their
collective term by adding only the suffix ' hatto the basic term (i.e. laGa' dihat
, of
and/or
Stetsonia coryne); other species do so by adding the suffixes ' hatand ' hatain' gi
(see Table 1); and still others by adding only the suffixes ' hatain' gi
(i.e.
' hata' ge
diki' chik ' hatain', of
gi Nymphaea gardneriana). These observations led us to inquire
about the possible existence of collective terms complementary to those named by only
one type of suffix; e.g. a collective term formed with ' hatain' gi
for S. coryne, or one
formed with ' hatfor N. gardneriana.
In cases such as S. coryne, the response was negative. According to the
informants there are no plant units of S. coryne in low-lying flood-prone areas (“it
doesn´t belong to the water”); that is th e reason why the term laGadi' hataingidoes not
exist. In fact, it is related to the distinction made between high areas (komade' lege
) and
low areas (kama:in' giand kama:a' ge
) in the Toba-Pilagá discourse; the suffixes which
refer to low areas (ain’gi and a' ge
) are the same as those used to form collective terms
for vegetation units related to low-lying flood-prone areas.
However, in those cases such as N. gardneriana, informants stated that the units
commonly named with the suffix ' hatain' gi
(that “belong t o water”; i.e. they are not
found in dry places), can be indistinctly named with the suffix ' hat
. In fact, almost all
the vernacular names with the suffix ' hatain' gi
can also bear the suffix ' hat(except
). In this case, the suffix ' hathas
diki' chik; ya' talik; to' pi; molalke' and
telata' haGa
l' che
the general meaning of "plant collective".
All in all, we can conclude from an analysis of the nomenclature and location of
those units that: (a) when a species only forms collectives with ' hat
, it means that the
vegetation unit is located in high and dry areas; and (b) when a collective is formed with
it means that the plant units are located only in low-lying areas (as is
' hatand ' hatain' , gi
the case of the formations grouped in categories BI-1.1.C, NE-3.1; OC-4.1 and OC-4.3),
or in high as well as in low areas (as is the case with BI-1.1.B; BI-1.2; BI-1.3.A; BI1.3.B; NO-2.1 and OC-5).
156
5.2. Vegetation units and the classification of the plant environment
Although there is no information on how other Gran Chaco peoples classify their
plant environment, the Toba-Pilagá’s first classificatory level of the environments
(woodland - field - marsh) recalls that used by the Bororo of Southern Brazil. These
people also describe their plant universe as a trichotomy: plants of the earth, plants of
the water, and plants of the air (Lévi-Strauss, 1994). A similar classification of habitats
is made by the Mbya-Guaraní of Paraguay. In a study of the methods employed by this
latter group to classify birds, Cebolla Badie (2000) states that the first relevant division
is made between birds living in fields and marshes, and those living in forests. The
author also applies this kind of division to other cultural matters of the same ethnic
group.
On the other hand, the classificatory criteria of accessibility, visibility and height
for woodlands were also found to fulfil the same functions in the ethnophytogeography
of the Khmer of Cambodia and the Bunaq of Timor (the degree of visibility is
sometimes expressed as a kind of gradient in vegetation density) (Martin, 1974;
Friedberg, 1990).
Vegetation units belonging to more than one category, together with grouping
categories outside the classification, highlight the variable inclusiveness shown by the
classificatory system devised for the plant environment. Other authors have also
commented on this feature; e.g. Hallpike (1986) states that although indigenous
classifications build hierarchical grouping systems with wide general categories divided
into more specific ones, they are based on variable criteria in such a way that mutually
overlapping classes coexist with classes that do not converge in any other higher
category. Similar observations were made by Berlin et al. (1974), Martin (1974), and
Friedberg (1990).
Categories of plants based on life-form designated by Filipov (1996) and
Idoyaga Molina (1988-89, 1990-91) for the Pilagás were not found to be key grouping
criteria for our classification. Only vines and epyphites appeared as categories of that
type, but outside the classification. The difference between those studies and ours lies in
the fact that the former deal with “classes of plants” whereas we have worked with
“types of vegetation units”.
The third level woodland category named 'βiaq deserves a detailed analysis.
This woodland may be defined as the prototype woodland or “proper” woodland,
because the addition of any other descriptive adjective to it in the native language would
be unnecessary. The idea of a model or prototype taxon has been described in several
studies on ethnosystematics (Friedberg, 1974); it highlights the conceptual importance
these types of woodlands have for this human group (in fact, this subcategory contains
the tree communities of greatest economic value for them).
157
It is evident that the classification for "woodlands" was more refined than that
for either "fields" or "marshes". Whereas five classificatory levels were identified in the
former category, only four and two levels were found for “fields” and “marshes”
respectively. Furthermore, the classification for woodlands involves the highest number
of classificatory categories. However, it would be misleading to conclude that the TobaPilagá consider the "woodland" environments to be more important than the others.
Actually, “field” environments have played a most remarkable role in their culture; they
were very important as hunting-gathering grounds, and also as a location for the
placement of their temporary settlements on the field-woodland boundaries .
An explanation of the more comprehensive classification of “woodland”
environments compared to “fields” might be sought in the profound ecological
alterations that the region underwent in the past, particularly during the process of
grassland colonization by woody species referred to earlier. Evidently the present TobaPilagá groups have no accounts of the various “field” environments of the past.
The scarcity of information on the “marsh" environments (this category only
comprises three subcategories) is also remarkable. Plausibly it is as a consequence of
the erratic hydrological regime of the Pilcomayo river. In the past this river had a
relatively steady course, and its seasonal floods extended over well delimited but
restricted areas. Three decades ago, however, the river left its course, thus producing the
great marsh the Toba-Pilagá know today. It is the relative novelty of this marsh
environment in the regional landscape that might explain the lack of data on it.
Briefly, the occurrence of large physiognomic and hydrological changes in the
region during recent decades might explain why woodland, field, and marsh
environments are not known to the same extent.
Therefore, the characterization of transitional categories between major
environments made by the informants is illustrative and interesting in itself. As in other
ethnotaxonomies of the plant environment, the Toba-Pilagá referred to a series of taxa
which in fact are truly “ecotones” between woodland, field and marsh. These types of
Table 4. Transitional taxons.
'βiaq
'βiaq
X
'nonaGa
ne'dep
' nonaGa pe' geat
(Peridomestic area)
ne' dep ' lolaGae
(tree saplings
growing after a
shrinking marsh)
'nonaGa
ne'dep
epaGa' lahoe' hat
'βiaq ni' yege
(Woodland patches in (Submerged dead standing
trees in marshes)
open fields)
X
' nonaGa ' dalaGaik
(Field in an area left by a
shrinking marsh)
ne' dep qoqo' te
(Shrinking marsh in
adjacent field)
X
158
categories have been identified as “node taxons” in ethnosystematic studies ( Friedberg,
1974). These taxons are enumerated in the Table 4; they are semantically closer to the
elements in the rows than to those in the columns.
6. Conclusion
From the results of the interviews it was established that 217 species -92 % of
the species investigated- formed some type of vegetation unit, whereas the remaining 18
did not make groups of any type. Later, we were able to confirm that the Toba-Pilagá
recognize a total of 304 types of vegetation units, and employ 196 vernacular terms to
name them. Although the use of different suffixes generally assigns one species to more
than one type of plant unit, the lower number of total collective terms in relation to the
number of species they refer to is due to the fact that a particular vernacular name can
commonly refer to more than one botanical species.
The results of the classification of vegetation show the variety of plant-grouping
levels perceived by the Toba-Pilagá. The smallest unit of any group is in all cases a
small set of individuals of the same species. Species that do not form any vegetation
unit are exceptional: they are perceived as strange plants that “live alone” or are
“solitary”.
Visibility and accessibility are two core concepts for the Toba-Pilagá
classification. Tree height is also one of the basic features used for the discrimination of
woodland types. The life-form of species, on the other hand, is not a criterion for
grouping plants as it has often been in other ethnotaxonomies, in which plants are
grouped as trees, bushes, herbs, vines, etc. (Berlin et al. 1968, 1974; Friedberg; 1990).
It is important to note the clear distinction made between vegetation units living
in uplands liable to flooding and those in lowlands not prone to flooding, as well as the
distinction made in the latter as to their shape, and the duration of floodwater in the
lowlands adjacent to the vegetation units. These nomenclatural features show that the
Toba-Pilagá perceive the vegetation unit and its associated abiotic characteristics
(topography, bodies of water and their shape) as a whole. These attributes are so closely
interrelated for these people, that they are inseparable parts of the units' name. As an
example of additional dissimilarities with scientific phytosociology, both palm and
columnar cactus communities taller than 10 and 6 meters, respectively, are considered
as a “field ”( ' nonaGa
).
Both the categories and the classificatory system seem to be dynamic and
comprehensive enough to account for both temporary transitional environments and
important ecological and hydrological changes which historically have affected the
physiognomy of the regional landscape. This dynamism is reflected in the nomenclature
as well as in the inclusion of relatively new environments in their classificatory system
(see Table 4).
The results of this study are relevant for a number of reasons. Firstly, the
ethnophytogeographic perspective is original as a subject of study because it has not
been described for any other ethnic group in the South American Gran Chaco.
159
Secondly, it significantly contributes to elucidating how the Toba Pilagá relate to their
plant environment; a very important ethnological issue indeed. Finally, the
ethnophytogeographic approach lays down the bases for undertaking an exhaustive
comparison with the scientific phytosociology of the region, particularly with regard to
the relationship between phytocoenosis, fluviogeomorphology, and plant succession.
This information would undoubtedly be of great value for understanding the ecological
dynamics of a region which has been subjected to intense environmental fluctuations
during the past century.
Acknowledgements. We thank Daniel Ginzo, Haydée González and Lawrence Wheeler for
their help in preparing the manuscript. To Francisco Rojas for drawing the illustrations; to Luis
de la Cruz for his help during field work, and to Ana Dell' Arciprete for her comments and
suggestions. Our special gratitude and admiration to the Toba-Pilagá people of the study area.
References
Adámoli, J.; Neumann, R.; Ratier de Colina, A.D. & Morello, J. (1972): El Chaco aluvional
salteño. (Convenio INTA-Provincia de Salta). - Revista Invest. Agropecu. Serie 3, 9: 165238.
Aldunate, C.; Armesto, J.; Castro, V. & Villagrán, C. (1981): Estudio etnobotánico en una
comunidad precordillerana de Antofagasta: Toconce. - Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. 38:
183-223.
Arenas, P. (1993): Fitonimia toba-pilagá. - Hacia una nueva carta étnica del Gran Chaco 5:
85-100. Las Lomitas, Argentina.
_ (1995): Encuesta etnobotánica aplicada a indígenas del Gran Chaco. - Hacia una nueva carta
étnica del Gran Chaco 6: 161-178.
Berlin, B. (1992): Ethnobiological classification. Principles of Categorization of plants and
animals in Traditional Societies. - Princeton University Press, Princeton. 335 pp.
_ Breedlove; D.E. & Raven, P.H. (1968): Covert Categories and Folk Taxonomies. American Anthropologist 70: 290-299.
_ _ _ (1974): Principles of Tzeltal plant classification. An Introduction to the Botanical
Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking people of Highland Chiapas. - Academic Press, New
York. 660 pp.
Buckwalter, A.S. (1980): Vocabulario toba. - Presidencia Roque Sáenz Peña, Chaco. 533 pp.
Cabrera, A.L. (1971): Fitogeografía de la República Argentina. - Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 14: 142.
_ & Willink, A. (1980): Biogeografía de América Latina. - Organización de Estados
Americanos, Washington. 122 pp.+ 1 map.
Castellanos, A. (1958): Observaciones sobre la vegetación del occidente de Formosa. - Bol.
Acad. Nac. Ci. 40: 229-263. Córdoba.
Cebolla Badie, M. (2000): El conocimiento mbya-guaraní de las aves. Nomenclatura y
clasificación. - Suplemento Antropológico 35: 9-188. Asunción.
Censabella, M. (2000): Las lenguas indígenas de la Argentina. Una mirada actual. - Eudeba,
Buenos Aires. 147 pp.
De la Cruz, L.M. (1993): Apuntes para una topología del espacio Toba. - Suplemento
Antropológico 28: 427-482.
_ (1995): Qomlajépi naleua, nuestra tierra. Los sitios que contienen la tierra que da vida a
los tobas de Sombrero Negro de la provincia de Formosa. - Hacia una nueva carta
160
étnica del Gran Chaco 6: 69-114.
Dell' Arciprete, A.C. (1991): Lugares de los pilagá.- Hacia una carta étnica del Gran Chaco 2:
58-84.
Eskuche, U. (1992): Sinopsis cenosistemática preliminar de los pajonales mesófilos seminaturales del nordeste de la Argentina, incluyendo pajonales pampeanos y puntanos. Phytocoenologia 21: 237-312.
Filipov, A. (1996): Estudio etnobotánico de la recolección entre los Pilagá. - Tesis Doctoral,
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 191 pp.
Fowler, C.S. (1979): Etnoecología. - In: D. L. Hardesty (ed.): Antropología ecológica, pp. 215238 - Bellaterra, Barcelona.
Friedberg, C. (1968): Les méthodes d’enquête en etnobotanique. Comment mettre en évidence
les taxonomies indigènes? - J. Agric. Trop. Bot. Appl. 15: 297-324.
_ (1974): Les processus classificatoires appliquées aux objects naturels et leur mise en évidence.
Quelques principes méthodologiques. - J. Agric. Trop. Bot. Appl. 21: 313-334.
_ (1990): Le savoir botanique des Bunaq. Percevoir et classer dans le Haut Lamaknen (Timor,
Indonésie). - Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., Sér. B, Bot. 32: 1-303.
Fuentes, A. & Navarro, G. (2000): Estudio fitosociológico de la vegetación de una zona de
contacto Chaco-Cerrado en Santa Cruz (Bolivia). - Lazaroa 21: 73-109.
Galán de Mera, A. (2002): Nota sintaxonómica sobre la vegetación del Chaco Boreal. -Arnaldoa
8(2): 81-83.
_ & Navarro, G. (1992): Comunidades vegetales acuáticas del Paraguay occidental. - Caldasia
17(1): 35-46.
Grebe Vicuña, M. E. (1986): Etnozoología andina: concepciones e interacciones del hombre
andino con la fauna altiplánica. - Scripta Ethnologica 10: 7-18. Buenos Aires.
Hallpike, C.R. (1986): Fundamentos del pensamiento primitivo. - Fondo de Cultura Económica,
México.
Hueck, K. (1978): Los bosques de Sudamérica. Ecología, composición e importancia
económica. - GTZ, Eschborn.476 pp. + 1 map.
Idoyaga Molina, A. (1988-89): Categorías clasificatorias entre los pilagá. - Scripta Ethnologica
12: 91-103.
_ (1990-91): Taxonomía y cosmología en la etnobotánica pilagá. - Scripta Ethnologica 13: 1122.
Johnson, L.M. (2000): "A Place That´s Good", Gitksan Landscape Perception and
Ethnoecology. - Human Ecology 28: 301-325.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1994): El pensamiento salvaje. - Fondo de Cultura Económica, México. 413
pp.
Martin, M.A. (1974): Essai d' ethnophytogéographie Khmère.- J. Agric. Trop. Bot. Appl. 21:
219-238.
Martin, G.J. (1995): Ethnobotany. A methods manual. – Chapman & Hall, London. 268 pp.
Martínez Crovetto, R. (1987): Materiales para el estudio de la toponimia guaycurú en la
región chaqueña oriental.- Buenos Aires. 24 pp.
Mason, J.A. (1950): The languages of South American Indians. - In: J. Steward (ed.):
Handbook of South American Indians 6, pp. 157-317. - Smithsonian Institution,
Washington.
Mendoza, M. & Browne, M. (1995): Términos de parentesco y términos de duelo de los
tobas del oeste de Formosa. - Hacia una Nueva Carta Etnica del Gran Chaco 6: 117122.
Métraux, A. (1937): Études d' Ethnographie Toba
-Pilaga (Gran Chaco). - Anthropos 32: 171194; 378-401.
_ (1946): Ethnography of the Chaco. - In: J. Steward (ed.): Handbook of South American
Indians 1, pp. 197-370 - Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Morello, J. (1970): Modelo de relaciones entre pastizales y leñosas colonizadoras en el Chaco
Argentino. - IDIA 276: 30-52. Buenos Aires.
161
_ & Saravia Toledo, C. (1959): El bosque chaqueño I. Paisaje primitivo, paisaje natural y
paisaje cultural en el Oriente de Salta. - Revista Agron. Noroeste Argent. 3: 5-81.
_ & Adámoli, J. (1974): Las Grandes Unidades de Vegetación y Ambiente del Chaco Argentino
II. Vegetación y Ambiente de la Provincia del Chaco. - Coni, Buenos Aires. 130 pp.
Navarro, G. (1997): Contribución a la clasificación ecológica y florística de los bosques de
Bolivia. - Revista Boliviana de Ecología 2: 3-37.
_ & Fuentes; A. (1999): Geobotánica y sistemas ecológicos de paisaje en el Gran Chaco de
Bolivia. - Revista Boliviana de Ecología 5: 25-50.
Palmer, J. (1995): Wichi toponymy. - Hacia una nueva carta étnica del Gran Chaco 6: 3-63.
Prado, D.E. (1993): What is the Gran Chaco vegetation in South America? I. A review.
Contribution to the study of flora and vegetation of the Chaco V. - Candollea 48: 145172.
Ramella, L. & Spichiger, R. (1989): Interpretación preliminar del medio físico y de la
vegetación del Chaco Boreal. Contribución al estudio de la flora y de la vegetación del
Chaco. - Candollea 44: 639-680.
Shepard, G.H. Jr.; Yu, D.W.; Lizarralde, M.; Italiano, M. (2001): Rain forest habitat
classification among the Matsigenka of the Peruvian Amazon. - J. Ethnobiology 21: 1-38.
Tebboth, T. (1943): Diccionario Toba. - Revista del Instituto de Antropología de Tucumán
3(2): 33-221.
Tovar, A. (1961): Catálogo de las lenguas de América del Sur. - Sudamericana, Buenos
Aires. 412 pp.
Winthrop, R.H. (1991): Dictionary of concepts in cultural anthropology. - Greenwood Press,
New York. 347 pp.
Wright, P. (1991): Topónimos de la zona de Misión Tacaaglé. - Hacia una nueva carta étnica del
Gran Chaco 2: 41-57.
Zuloaga, F.O.; Nicora, E.G.; Rúgolo de Agrasar, Z.E.; Morrone, O.; Pensiero, J. & Cialdella,
A.M. (1994): Catálogo de la familia Poaceae en la República Argentina. - Missouri
Botanical Garden Press, U.S.A. 178 pp.
Zuloaga, F.O. & Morrone, O. (1996): Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de la República
Argentina I. Pteridophyta, Gymnospermae y Angiospermae (Monocotyledoneae). Missouri Botanical Garden Press, U.S.A. 323 pp.
_ _ (1999): Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de la República Argentina II. Tomo 1:
Acanthaceae-Euphorbiaceae (Dycotyledoneae). 621 pp. Tomo 2: FabaceaeZygophyllaceae (Dycotyledoneae). - Missouri Botanical Garden Press, U.S.A. 1269 pp.
Address of the authors:
Dr. Gustavo Fabián Scarpa & Lic. Pastor Arenas, Instituto de Botánica Darwinion, Labardén
200, B1642HYD, San Isidro, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fax: 54 (11) 4747-4748, e-mail:
gscarpa@darwin.edu.ar & parenas@darwin.edu.ar
Pastor Arenas