r
egan J. 1995 . Trends in complexity studies:
from complexity to perplexity. Scientific
f
American 272(June): 104-109.
"m S. 1984. Microworlds: writings on science
, fiction and fantasy . F. Rottensteiner, ed.
San Diego (CA): Harcourt Brace Jovanaovitch.
Siobodkin LB. 1994. Simplicity and complexity in games of the intellect. Cambridge
(MA): Harvard University Press.
Snow CPo 1993 . The two cultures. London
(UK): Cambridge University Press.
adoption of Harshberger's neologism
was little more than a semantic substitution. It did not herald a shift in
the academic attitude toward the
discipline, whose original scope was
limited to "primitive" people. A century later, ethnobotany's circumscription has evolved, yet there are
as many definitions of the discipline
as there are ethnobotanists.
This diverse compilation will provide newcomers with an ample overview of ethnobotany, and specialists
with the perspectives of many distinguished ethnobotanical scholars.
The editors-Richard Evans Schultes
and Siri von Reis-have arranged
the 36 contributions in ten broad
sections (each containing one to nine
chapters), including' general ethnobotany, ethnobotanical conservation, and ethnopharmacology. Their
citation of important references in
the introduction to each section is
particularly useful. Although the
chapters cover a broad range of topics, two themes emerge. The first is
that ethnobotany is a subject in
A SUBJECT IN SEARCH OF
A DEFINITION
hnObotany: Evolution of a Disciine. Richard Evans Schultes and
(
'·. . ri von Reis, eds. Dioscorides Press,
rtland, OR, 1995.414 pp., illus.
9.95 (ISBN 0-931146-28-3 cloth).
f?hn Harshberger, who was a tax-
Inomi~t at the Un.ive~sity of ~enn­
. IvaOla and who IS pIctured 10 the
on~ispiece of Ethnobotany: Evolu~on /o f a Discipline, coined the term
hnobotany in 1895. His neologism
. placed aboriginal botany, a term
ephen Powers created in 1874. The
search of a definition. Contributors
cite at least eight, sometimes contradictory definitions (e.g., pp. 11,23,
52, 153, 175, 200, 216, and 2t4).
Much more than a semantic problem, this ambiguity shows ethnobotany's desire and need to establish
its identity among better-defined
disciplines. N . Turner provides a
perfectly acceptable denotation"the science of people's interactions
with plants." The contributors likewise disagree on the relationship
between ethnobotany and economic
botany. M . Plotkin and others consider ethnobotany to be a subdiscipline of the latter. C. Smith, in contrast, maintains that economic
botany is nothing more than ethnobotany with a monetary component.
W. Emboden considers the fields to
be distinct. I would agree with Smith.
Both the traditional/modern and economic/subsistence dichotomies are
artificial.
The second universal theme is that
the discipline is integrative, combining the expertise of two principal
FEATURING:
• Precise temperature control.
• Models ava il able without lights or with various
lightin g configurations.
• Comprehensive 2-year guaranteed warranty program.
PERCIVAL
I
NC
O
e
RP
O
SCIENTIFIC
RATED
S I NCE 1886
TO L L FREE 800.695 . 2743 • FAX 515 . 432.6503
Dctober 1996
713
fields, botany and anthropology, and
many subordinate ones. Chapters by
Schultes and von Reis, W. Davis,
G. Prance, and Emboden list the
following ancillary studies: archaeology, conservation, ecology, geography, history, medicine, pharmacology, phytochemistry, religion, and
sociology. Although extolling
ethnobotany's breadth, E. Anderson
implores ethnobotanists not to create jargon that would inhibit communication with other disciplines.
(Anderson would abhor the terms
phytoanthropology and socioethnobotany proposed by his fellow authors.)
In the section on general ethnobotany, J. Alcorn notes that a fundamental question of ethnobotany is:
"What good is this plant?" However, this is not the discipline's only
objective, nor is it necessarily its most
interesting one. Nonetheless, forgiqg the link between a plant and its
pi1'oducts is certainly the foundation
on which ethnobotany lies. Noting
that the compilation of data forms
the basis of any natural science, W.
Davis assails critics who condemn
ethnobotany's lack of a theoretical
context.
The longest and strongest section
is the one on ethnopharmacology. P.
de Smet gently reproves the misuse
by botanists and ethnologists of pharmacological terms, recalling the need
for truly interdisciplinary research.
He is also gentle in asserting the
need for herbarium vouchers (p.
370): "Any field report that does not
indicate voucher specimen numbers
does not live up to modern scientific
standards and therefore may be open
to question." Holmstedt's chapter
on the history of ethnopharmacology includes an intriguing perspective on ma huang (Ephedra sp.),
currently the focus of much controversy in the United States. It is a
component of "Herbal Ecstasy" and
other products that have been linked
with coronary failure. Ethnobotany's
diversity is illustrated further in P.
Furst's discussion of the Badianus
manuscript (a tenth-century Aztec
herbal, that is, a description of Aztec
medicinal plants), C. Ruck's description of sacred plants in the classical
world, and M. Balick's discussion of
ethnobotany and germplasm. One
section considers human plant use
714
from a geographical perspective, describing research in Colombia, Africa, India, Malaysia, and northwestern North America.
Although not intended as a
festschrift, Ethnobotany: Evolution
of a Discipline testifies to Schultes'
monumental contributions to this
still emerging science. M. Plotkin
accurately asserts that most South
American ethnobotanists follow the
Schultes tradition, in which he "demonstrated the importance of focusing on ethnobotany itself rather than
on the mere collecting of data about
useful plants as an adjunct to other
studies." Ethnobotany is alive and
well today, thanks in part to Schultes.
Nearly half of the papers that contain references cire at least one paper
(and as many as seven) with Schultes
as senior author. Moreover, he is
cited in six of the ten diverse sections, indicating his influence
throughout the discipline. The editors note the need to train more
young people for ethnobotanical research and field work. The fact that
nearly 10% of Ethnobotany's contributors are deceased testifies to this
need. Schultes' prolific publication
record is matched by his productivity as a teacher. The current generation of ethnobotanists trained by
Schultes or Schultes's students, including many contributors to the
present volume, would read like a
"Who's Who" of the discipline.
Ethnobotany ranks with texts by
Berlin et al. (1974), Alcorn (1984),
Schultes and Raffauf (1990), Berlin
(1992), and BaIee (1994) as a classic
contribution to the discipline. It
should be in the library of anyone
claiming the title of ethnobotanist.
There are, however, a few minor
omissions. Archaeoethnobotany,
conservation, economics, and intellectual property rights are treated
insufficiently. Schultes and von Reis
do not state the criteria they employed in selecting contributors, and
several significant ethnobotanists
(e.g., Paul Cox, Robert Bye, Nina
Etkins, Timothy Johns, and Darrell
Possey) are notably missing.
Readers are likely to note that this
text is more descriptive than diagnostic. Ethnobotany needs a 50,000mile check-up. Despite its multidisciplinary nature, at least two authors
(G. Prance and O. Chooi) note the
abyss between anthropological and
botanical ethnobotany. Why does
this abyss exist and what can be done
about it? Many have sounded the
alarm about the loss of indigenous'
knowledge. What should be the relationship between data collection (salvage ethnobotany) and theory? Ethnobotanists indicate what plants a,
culture uses, but they seldom exam-'
ine why those plants are used. A~
exception is the chapter by M. ElvinLewis and W. Lewis on dental plants,
in which they relate chewing stick
preference in Ghana to efficacy: '
Other nonexclusive reasons for plant
choice include availability, taxonomic affinity, form, animal use, and'
tradition. These and many other
questions await answers_ However,
these minor complaints apply af,
much to the discipline as they do to
this text. The editors and Dioscorides
Press should be commended for another outstanding contribution in
ethnobotany.
BRADLEY C BENNETT!
Department of Biological Sciences
Florida International University
Miami, FL 33199 ,
References cited
AlcornJB. 1984. Huastec Mayan ethnobotany .
Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.
Balee W. 1994. Footprints of the forest:
Ka'apor ethnobotany-the historical ecology of plant utilization by an Amazonian
people. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Berlin B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: principles of categorization of plants
and animals in traditional societies. Prince:
ton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
Berlin B, Breedlove DE, Raven PH. 1974,
Principles of Tzeltal plant classification:
an introduction to the botanical ethnography of a Mayan-speaking people of highland Chiapas. New York: Academic Press.
Schultes RE and Raffauf RF. 1990. The healing forest: medicinal and toxic plants of
the northwestern Amazon. Portland (OR):
Dioscorides Press.
BioScience Vol. 46 No.9