Is there a role for ontologies in understanding plant knowledge systems?

This paper offers a critical examination of the use of the concept of ontology in ethnobotany. Competing definitions and problems are first assessed for recent work in anthropology and the history of science. This is followed by a review of seven areas of current ethnobotanical investigation where there are disjunctions of approach that could arguably be said to be ontological: post-Linnean taxonomic orthodoxy versus local plant classification, pre-Linnean natural history versus science, phytopharmaceutical orthodoxy versus medical anthropology, museum practice versus lived practice, ecological versus phylogenetic explanation, plant versus knowledge movement, and shifts in understanding contingent on membership of different intra-cultural domains. In the light of these examples a threefold meta-conceptual distinction is suggested: between cultural domains (distinguishing knowledge and practice on the grounds of content), epistemes (distinguishing knowledge in terms of the methods and approaches used to acquire it), and ontologies in the strict sense (defined in terms of underlying logical relations and cosmological assumptions)

The biocultural history of Manihot esculenta in the Moluccan islands of eastern Indonesia: assessing evidence for the movement and selection of cassava germplasm

This paper examines the circulation of cassava germplasm (Manihot esculenta) as a problem in biocultural history. It reviews how the plant was introduced into the Moluccan islands as part of the 'Columbian exchange' and how it has subsequently moved around through the distribution of stem cuttings. Using a combination of lexical, ethnographic, botanical and genetic data, including material from ecologically-contrasting field sites, it evaluates the evidence for tracking germplasm movement at the local and regional level, considers the extent to which this contributes to local agrobiological diversity, and reflects upon some methodological problems of integrating sociocultural and scientific evidence. © Society of Ethnobiology 2012