People are more likely to protect something that has a name, right? This is the reason why a team of scientists at the North-West University (NWU) undertook a study to establish a comprehensive list of indigenous names for frogs, lizards, snakes and other reptiles to promote inclusive conservation.
By Joanie Bergh
The study, “Naming South African frogs and reptiles in nine indigenous languages,” led by Dr Fortunate Phaka, was conducted with collaborators all over South Africa, as well as in Belgium.
Accordingly, the gap within South African science has been eliminated, namely, the lack of names for frogs and reptiles in the country’s nine official indigenous languages.
According to Phaka, the inclusion of indigenous names in the biodiversity literature is not only good science but also democratic.
“The study provides insight into how indigenous knowledge and scientific classification can work together to make conservation truly inclusive and effective,” he says.
“The problem is more than linguistic. Scientific names, often in Latin or Greek, are supposed to be uniform throughout the world, but they are often incomprehensible to local communities who live among the species and are often central to their conservation.”
He believes this lack of knowledge could lead, among other things, to poor policy enforcement and a general lack of public involvement in biodiversity efforts.
Through online surveys, social media and field interviews, the researchers compiled a list of more than 4,800 indigenous names for the 543 frog and reptile species officially recognised in South Africa. These names cover the country’s linguistic diversity by including, among others, isiZulu Xitsonga, Ndebele, and Tshivenda.
Where no specific name existed for a species, the researchers created new names based on known descriptive traits, something scientists do when discovering new organisms.
Why Is This Important?
Studies of this nature make conservation efforts much more accessible, says Phaka.
“People are more likely to protect something if they can connect a name to it, especially if those names are rooted in their own language and cultural understanding. For example, a Xitsonga speaker cannot identify with the scientific name Ptychadena anchietae for a frog, but the name ‘mabhruku’, inspired by the frog’s long legs and resilient leap, may inspire a different kind of curiosity and caring.”
In addition, the research reveals that indigenous naming systems often reflect an intuitive ecological logic. For example, the isiXhosa and isiZulu words “ixoxo” and “isele” group frogs according to the texture of their skins. Although not strictly scientific, this classification still has a significant distinction.
The mismatch or “under differentiation”, as the authors describe it, does not stem from a lack of insight, but rather reflects the observational priorities of communities whose involvement in these animals has been shaped by cultural, utilitarian or ecological renown.
“South Africa’s indigenous languages have long been marginalised in science, a space that continues to be dominated by English, and to a lesser extent Afrikaans. According to Phaka, the inclusion of indigenous names in the biodiversity literature is not only good science but also democratic.
“It empowers speakers of these languages to become involved in conservation as informed contributors, rather than passive recipients.”
The NWU says in a statement that the fact that this project stems from the collaboration between this university and international institutions, such as Hasselt University in Belgium, indicates the global relevance of local knowledge.
Although the frogs and reptiles are primarily endemic to South Africa, the model of integrating folk and formal taxonomies, and their addition to local languages, in the scientific discourse, is feasible.
Other countries, from Brazil to Pakistan, are reportedly grappling with similar issues and Phaka’s work could be used as a valuable example.
