CHAPTER 4
ETHNOECOLOGY, ETHNOTAXONOMY, AND ETHNONOMENCLATURE OF PLANTS OF ANCIENT TAMILS
K. V. KRISHNAMURTHY1 and S. JOHN ADAMS2
1Department of Plant Science, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli–620024, India
2Department of Pharmacognosy, R&D, The Himalaya Drug Company, Makali, Bangalore, India
CONTENTS
4.3Ethnonomenclature and Classification of Plants
4.1INTRODUCTION
It is generally agreed that the first land plants evolved on this earth during the late Silurian and early Devonian periods. Hence, when the modern human species, Homo sapiens, arose around 200,000 to 250,000 years ago, he had to confront all major groups of plants, including angiosperms, which were already there on this earth. By that time, plants had adapted themselves to the diverse habitats/ecosystems of the world through structural and functional modifications. The early human populations also had to adapt themselves to these diverse habitats/ecosystems, made possible largely through the generation and application of knowledge, both ecological and technological, which they gradually gained during their long years of hunter-gatherer experience (Cotton, 1996). This ethnic knowledge system is often called traditional knowledge system (TKS). When one critically analyzes the ethnic cultures and their non-codified and codified TKS of different parts of the world, he would be greatly impressed on knowing that these cultures placed great emphasis on the value and importance of their environment and its resources. Hence, it is not surprising that Merculieff (1994) had shown how traditional concepts on environment and ecology have preempted modern ecological ideas of western science. It is now possible to get a fair idea on the traditional systems of classifications of ecosystems, vegetation types and plants (and animals). This chapter deals with ethnoecology, ethnotaxonomy and nomenclature of the ancient Tamil people belonging to the Dravidian race that occupied the major part of the study region covered in this volume. The Tamils are one of the most ancient ethnic peoples of this world with a history of around 50,000 years. The Tamil TKS is also a well-codified system of knowledge in the form of ancient literary works that belong to the Sangam (200 BCE to 250 CE) and post-Sangam (250 BCE to 600 CE) periods. This article summarizes the knowledge that belonged to these periods, although it should be stated that most of this knowledge continued to be there till the British occupation of India in the 16th century.
4.2ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION
The ecosystem classification proposed by ancient Tamils is one of the most significant and oldest of all traditional ecosystem classifications. There are very strong evidences in Tolkappiam, Sangam and post-Sangam Tamil literature to show that this classificatory system was in existence even by about 250 BCE in the Tamil country (Krishnamurthy, 2007). The Tamils classified their landscape into five ecosystems or Thinais: Kurinji, Mullai, Marutham, Neithal and Paalai. These names were believed by many to be based on the most characteristic plants (type plants) of the respective ecosystems: Strobilanthes kunthianus (Kurinji), Jasminum auriculatum (Mullai), Lagerstroemia speciosa (Marutham) (wrongly denoted earlier as Terminalia arjuna), Nymphaea nouchali (Neithal) and Wrightia tinctoria (Paalai). It was however, believed by Varadarajan (1965) that these names of ecosystems were first applied to the flowers of the type plants belonging to the different ecosystems, subsequently to the landscapes and finally to indicate the differences in the love-related virtuousness and behavior of the peoples of these ecosystems. On the other hand, Nedunchezian (2003) did not agree with this opinion. He argued that these names were based, beyond flowers, on the habits of plants. However Krishnamurthy (2007) believed that the names of ecosystems were based on flowers, landscapes, love-related virtuousness and behavior and habits of plants, in a holistic manner since this viewpoint is in agreement with the traditional concept of biodiversity (see details on a subsequent paragraph of this article).
The five ecosystems, respectively, represent the mountainous ecosystem (Maivarai Ulagam), Scrub savanna ecosystem (Kaaduraiulagam), the predomianatly agricultural ecosystem with abundant lotic and lentic water bodies (Theempunal Ulagam) the marine and coastal ecosystem (Perumanam Ulagam), and the degraded mountain and scrub savanna ecosystem (Vanpulam). Each ecosystem was assigned a system of primary components or MudalPorul, of core components or Karupporul and of the personal love component or Uripporul (See Table 4.1). Each ecosystem has two primary components: Landscape type or Nilam, as mentioned above and time or Pozhudu. The latter is spoken in terms of different periods of a day (Siru-pozhudu) (six periods were recognized in a day) and of different periods or seasons of a year (Perumpozhudu) (six seasons were recognized in a year). Each ecosystem was related to a particular Pozhudu (both Siru- and Perum-Pozhudu), which was considered significant to that ecosystem. Fourteen items were assigned to constitute the core components of each ecosystem. Among these the most important are the principal God, plants, animals, birds, harvested food crops, foods, the main substances used, generic names of people, their profession, the hamlets (Place of living), etc. The third component, Uripporul, is the most important and it added a great deal of intrinsic, moral and personal importance and significance to this ecosystem classification.
TABLE 4.1Mudal, Karu and UriPoruls of the Different Ecosystems Recognized by Ancient Tamils
Although the Tamil concept of ecosystem has certain features of certain other ethnic ecosystem classifications, it has certain unique features not known to other systems. The common features concern the distinction of local vegetation types on the basis of factors, such as location, dominant life forms and predominance of particular plant/animal species of cultural or utilitarian value. This, for example, is the virtue of Hanuno’s culture in the Mindora island of Philippines also (Conklin, 1974). The unique feature of the Tamil system is that a social and cultural dimension has been intricately added to the ecosystem concept, for example, the assignment of separate Mudal, Karu and UriPoruls to each ecosystem. Hence, the Tamils may be considered as one of the earliest ethnic societies that included social and cultural diversity aspects in their concept on biodiversity. This inclusion is only recently being suggested and emphasized by UNESCO and UNEP (see Krishnamurthy, 2003). Cultural diversity recognizes the pivotal role of sociological, ethical, religious and ethnic values in human efforts concerning biodiversity classification (UNEP, 1995).
4.3ETHNONOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PLANTS
4.3.1TRADITIONAL ETHNIC APPROACHES
A critical examination of traditional cultures of various parts of the world reveals that plants were recognized, named and classified. Ethnonomenclature refers to the recognition and naming of plants (and animals) around them by the ethnic societies, while ethnotaxonomy is a study of the traditional system of classification of plants (and animals). Ethnotaxonomy requires the identification and naming of plants that need to be classified. For ethnic societies satisfying their basic needs, such as food and medicine is more important in properly recognizing and naming plants, a materialistic view point (Malinowski, 1974). Hargreaves (1976) has, in fact, shown that plants were named according to their uses and that many plants in Chitipa have no local name because they have no use. However, others like Levi-Strauss (1966) argued that the outlook of the ethnic societies towards the natural world in general, and its resources like plants in particular, is primarily intellectual an cognitive and divorced from pragmatic concerns. Some plants in Malawi, as elsewhere, have names but no apparent utility and hence there appears to be no correlation between ethnic nomenclature and plant use. In his early theories of structural anthropology, Levi-Strauss showed the universal human tendency or urge to organize and classify perceived phenomena, experience or things (Seymour-Smith, 1986). These two different viewpoints respectively of Malinowski (1974) and Levi-Strauss (1966) naturally advocate different kinds of intellectual and classificatory modes. For Levi-Strauss (1966), ethnic societies are concerned with a mode of thinking that unifies through symbolic logic the various aspects of their cultures, while for Malinowski (1974), Berlin and his associates (1974) and others ethnic peoples are protobotanists who are concerned with ordering the natural world through criteria based on structural morphology of plants. Although both these perspectives are necessary and are not mutually exclusive, they have limited our understanding of ethnic taxonomies. To consider ethnotaxonomics simply as taxonomics, abstracted from utilitarian, environmental and cultural concerns, greatly limits our understanding of how human societies are intimately related to the natural environment. The approach of Levi-Strauss focuses on symbolic logic and over systematizes the social communities. On the contrary, the approach of ethnotaxonomists tends to underplay the relevance of practical interests in structuring ethnotaxonomies. A critical analysis of ethnotaxonomy of the ancient Tamils shows that it is a mainly based on Levi-Strauss’ intellectual and cognitive approach. It does not appear to have a materialistic basis.
4.3.2PERFECTION OF DESCRIPTIVE TECHNICAL TERMS
The fact that both ethnonomenclature and ethnotaxonomy have developed very well in many, if not all, ethnic societies of the world must have required a deep and critical knowledge on the life of plants on the part of these societies. This, in fact, is true for the ancient Tamil culture. These people have also coined specific technical terms numbering to around 150 to denote the various characters and character states of plants. A list of the more important technical terms used in ancient Tamil literature to denote the various characteristics is given in Table 4.2. These technical terms have been used to not only distinguish one taxon from another, but also to name and classify them. The ancient Tamils have also used several metaphoric similes to compare/describe a number of plant characteristics of ethnotaxonomic importance. Some examples are given Table 4.3.
TABLE 4.2Representative Botanical Terms Used by Ancient Tamil Community
TABLE 4.3Some Examples of similes of Ethnotaxonomic Importance Used by Ancient Tamils (Krishnamurthy, 2006)
4.3.3ETHNONOMENCLATURE
It is interesting to know how different ethnic societies of the world named and classified the different plants (and animals) and, thus, conceptualize the natural world. Like any other sub-discipline of anthropology, ethnobotany has heavily borrowed from linguistic analysis, both in the emphasis placed on recording and studying those categories of taxa which are linguistically defined and in the focus on identifying sets of contrasts. Patterns revealed through taxonomic labels often provide clues, not particularly cultural, of local plants (Martin 1995; Cotton 1996) see also Ellen (1994). The transcribed traditional names can then be translated either by the use of a gloss or free translation, in which case the closest equivalent word available in English is used, or, the terms may be translated literally, in which case the world is translated word-for-word.
Between 250 BCE and 600 CE, the Tamil ethnic community had around 350 generic plant names. Subsequent to this period, this number gradually increased (Krishnamurthy, 2007). There are two unique aspects about these generic plant names: (i) These names cannot be translated either by the use of a gloss or free translation, as discussed in the previous paragraph, and hence, the closest equivalent English word cannot be found, or these generic names cannot also be translated literally and, hence, the name cannot be translated word-for-word, as in many other ethnonomenclatural systems of the world. The Tamil generic names for plants can only be transliterated. Since these generic names and the information as to which plants they refer to have been passed on through successive generations of Tamil people, we now know what Tamil generic name indicates which plant. In spite of this, we are not able to find the correct Tamil botanical names for some of the ancient Tamil generic names found in literature since enough descriptions of these plants are not available in the literature, which could facilitate their correct identification. In some cases the descriptions are not enough to help in accurate identification and only tentative identifications have been given. As examples of the former we may cite the following: Anicham, Asakam, Arai, Aravu, Ingulam, Iram, Kaduvu, Kalmitham, Kaavithi, Kusappul, Koovai, Sengurali, Puzhagu, Vayalai, Visai, etc. (ii) The generic names used by ancient Tamils to denote the different plants are very unique in their own rights (Shanmugasundaram, 1970; Krishnamurthy, 2007). Almost all generic names are very short and consist of one (for example, Che-Alangium salvifolium), two (Ari-Bambusa species), three (Aacha-Hardwickia binata), four (Adumbu-Ipomoea pes-caprae), or five Tamil letters (Iranthai, Zizyphus mauritiana). Six and seven letter generic names are extremely rare (e.g., Kannikaram, vellothiram). The names are easy to pronounce and are very attractive. The names often end with soft and rhythmic sound with the following Tamil letters only: Aa, E, U, I, Il, Im or Ir (representative examples are Ukaa, Inge, Kamugu, Panai, Vel, Aaram and Aar). However, from the Bakthi Literature period (late half of 7th century CE) onwards such a type of naming of generic categories of plants declined very rapidly. Many Sanskrit generic names started to be in prevalent use, as is evident from Tamil Nigantus (Dictionaries) (Examples: Athimaduram, Kanaveeram, Aravindam, etc.). There was also an influence of Ayurveda and Siddha medicines on the naming of generic taxa of plants, particularly at the village/rural level. In villages new names for plants were coined (sometimes even for the existing Tamil generic names) so as to enable lay people to easily recognize and identify the plants of medicinal value. As examples, we may mention Kalappai Kizhangu (tuber shaped like a plow) for kaanthal (Gloriosa superba), Santhanam (for Aaram, Santalum album), Kudaivelam (for Udai, Acacia planifrons) and Udumbaram (for Atthi, Ficus glomerata). The method of naming generic taxa by ancient Tamils also allows us to distinguish original plants that were available at the time of such naming from the plants (and their names) that were subsequently introduced into the Tamil country from other parts of India or from other parts of the world. As examples we may cite native Malli (Jasminum sp.) from the introduced PavazhaMalli (Nyctanthes arbor-tristis) (Probably introduced from Odisha) and Panai (Borassus flabellifer) from Koonthal Panai (Caryota urens).
4.3.4ETHNOTAXONOMY
Traditional societies have been classifying objects around them, including plants and animals. It is interesting to record that “a culture itself amounts to the sum of a given society’s folk classifications” (Sturtevant, 1964). The earliest critical study of ethnic taxonomy/classificatory system was that of Conklin (1954, 1957, 1974), who investigated the classification system followed by a tribe in the Philippine island of Mindoro. Subsequently, the plant classification systems of several ethnic cultures of the world have been reviewed and a synthesis of their features, in the form of some general principles has been proposed (Berlin et al., 1973). These principles are discussed below in reference to the classificatory system that was followed by the ancient Tamil culture.
The first general principle is that in all languages it is possible to identify groups of taxa which are recognized linguistically and that these taxa are based on varying degrees of inclusiveness (like in English language Casuarina, tree and plant respectively represent taxa of increasing inclusiveness). In ancient Tamil language also this was seen (for example, Mullai, Kodi and Maran or Maram, respectively, represent the increasing hierarchy of generic name, lifeform and plant).
The second general principle is that biological taxa are grouped into a number of ethnobiological categories, similar to the modern plant/animal taxonomic ranks. In 1972, these categories were respectively designated as unique beginner, life form, intermediate, generic specific and varietal, in a decreasing order of inclusiveness. This categorization was also noticed in the Tamil classification system. Folk taxonomic hierarchies are considered to be relatively shallow and that the term hierarchy is almost is misnomer. It is especially true, for instance when about 20% of Tzeltal plant categories are unaffiliated to any life-form taxa, and that 85% of the generics are monotypic. Similarly, plants in Bunaq taxonomy appear to be classified more according to a complex web of resemblances rather than forming, neat hierarchy.
The third principle states that mutually exclusive ethnobiological categories mentioned above are arranged hierarchically, each encompassed by the single unique beginner taxon, which is almost equivalent to the plant kingdom suggested in modern biological classificatory system. This principle is also seen in the Tamil ethnic classification system.
The fourth principle states that the taxa of the same ethnobiological rank commonly occur at the same taxonomic level. This is true of Tamil ethno classificatory system also.
The fifth principle states that the unique beginner taxon (i.e., plant) is not normally named with a single, habitual level, but at the next level, there normally exist between five to ten life forms, which are normally labeled the Tamil classificatory system the unique beginner taxon is not labeled by the term Thaavaram which is used in modern Tamil as equivalent to plant until around the 7th century CE (Krishnamurthy, 2007). On the contrary, the unique beginner taxon was labeled as Maram or maran, which in fact was a term used at the next habitual level also to denote trees. In other words, all plants were called by ancient Tamil culture as Maram or Maram and at the same time to denote a habit category also, for example, tree. The term Marundu was also used by the ancient Tamils to denote plants at the unique beginner taxon level since they believed that plants formed the source of medicines (see discussion in Nedunchezian, 2003; Krishnamurthy, 2007).
The sixth principle states that most ethnotaxonomies appear to contain around 500 taxa at the generic level and that these taxa invariably represent the basic building blocks of these taxonomies. These taxa are also the most salient psychologically. This principle further states that most of these generic taxa are included within a given life-form category. There are also a few morphologically unique or economically very important and often aberrant taxa and also taxa that are not conceptually regarded as affiliated to any life-form categories in those ethnotaxonomies. The Tamil ethnotaxonomy contains around 350 generic taxa; like in other ethnotaxonomies these taxa represent the basic building blocks of the Tamil taxonomic system. These taxa are also the most salient. A critical analysis shows that all these taxa are included within the life-form categories recognized by this system. Eight life-form categories have been identified by the ethnotaxonomy of Tamils: of these seven refer to land life-forms and one to aquatic life form. The ligneous life-form constitutes the trees which are characterized by wood, often with a region of heartwood, and perennial life span. This life-form was indicated by the terms Maram, or Maran in Tamil, as already mentioned. Grasses form the next life form category. They are indicated by the word ‘pul’ in Tamil (although in a broader sense, this Tamil term indicated the ‘monocots’ also, see discussion later). Pudal forms the third life-form category. In modern Tamil this word refers to a bush. According to some Tamil scholars Pudal includes all life forms other than trees, but this is not accepted by most other Tamil scholars. A critical study of literature shows that Pudal refers to a close clump of herbs. It is interesting to note here that the modern Tamil term for herb is chedi but this term was not used for herb until around the 7th century CE. The fourth category of life-form is poodu, which in modern Tamil got corrupted into Poondu. This word indicates plants with underground bulbs as in onion. The fifth category is Kodi, which denotes a climber/twiner. There are herbaceous climbers recognized by the use of terms, such as Menkodi (weak/slender climber), Nunkodi (small climbers) and Punkodi (weak-stemmed climbers), and there are woody climbers or lianes, which from the sixth category. These lianes are indicated by the term Paruookkodi. The seventh category is referred to by the Tamil word pavar. This word describes plants that grow adpressed to another plant, and form literary description and examples cited in literature (like Calamus) it is likely to indicate a straggler. The eighth category refers to aquatic plants. There are also references to fungi and algae in the early Tamil literature. These respectively are indicated by the Tamil words Aambi/Kalambi and Paasi. Whether these should be treated as intermediate categories or as life-form categories is not clear. Some, with whom the authors of this paper had discussion with, even suggest these terms as generic.
According to the seventh principle, specific and varietal taxa are less numerous than the generic taxa. The members of a given contrast set differ from the other members in a few, often ‘verbalisable,’ characters. In the Tamil ethnotaxonomy there are around 350 generic level taxa. Out of these few alone have specific and varietal level taxa; these constitute about 10% of the total. This number is much higher than the average of less than 2% of such taxa in world ethnotaxonomies (Martin, 1995; Berlin, 1992). The species and varietal level taxa always have prefixes to the original generic labels in Tamil ethnotaxonomy, such as Karu (indicating black), Sen(g) (indicating red), Ven (indicating white), Siru (indicating ‘smaller’), Peru (indicating ‘bigger’), kaattu (indicating ‘forest’), etc. These prefixes are often adjectives or another noun.
Special discussion must be made here about the ‘intermediate’ taxa recognized in only some ethnotaxonomies and hence are rare or difficult to detect. These are also seldom named in such ethnotaxonomies and hence are called covert or unnamed taxa. These generally encompass a number of related generic level taxa. As far as Tamil ethnotaxonomy is concerned two intermediate level taxa were recognized: Akakkazh plants and Purakkazh plants. The former refer to plants that have a true wood while the latter to plants that lack true wood. These two groups are respectively equivalent to modern day taxa dicotyledons and monocotyledons. It is very interesting to note that the supposedly earliest Tamil grammar text Tolkappiam classified plants into trees and grasses, which respectively indicated dicotyledons and monocotyledons. The latter included palmyrah and other palms and bamboo under the life-form category Pul (=grass), although they are arborescent and ‘woody’ (Rajeswari, 2005). Tolkappiar, the author of Tolkappiam, has listed the following structures as belonging to the grasses (i.e., monocots): Thodu (Leaf or inflorescence sheath), Madal (folded leaf blade), Olai (Palm leaf), Eadu (lamina without petiole), Idazh (perianth lobe), Paalai (spathe), Eerku/Eadu (linear) and Kulai (inflorescence like in palms). Similarly, he had listed the following appendicular structures as characteristic of Maran (=the dicotyledons). Ilai (leaf), Muri (twig), Thalir (sprout), Sinai (branch), Kuzhai (twig with leaf bunch), Poo (flower), Arumbu (young flower bud), Nanai (floral primordium, etc.). He has also listed the following as belonging to both these groups: Kaai (unripe fruit), Pazham (fruit), Thol (Skin), Setil (scale), Veezhr (aerial root).
The seven principles discussed above have been accepted by many ethnobiologists, although other cross-language, based on a survey of folk classification in 188 languages for plants, patterns have become apparent in ethnobotany (Brown, 1984, 2000). Some pertinent to Tamil Ethnotaxonomy have been detailed above. Brown has assembled evidence from a large number of globally distributed languages and suggested that plant life-form categories are typically added to languages (i.e., lexically encoded in more or less fixed sequences as shown in Figure 4.1.
FIGURE 4.1Addition of plant life-form categories to ethnic languages fixed sequences (based on Brown, 2000).
In the figure, stage 1 languages lack names for botanical life-form categories and in the successive stages these languages have added further life-form categories. Ancient Tamil language is one language that has all life-form categories except herb (in Tamil, Chedi). This life-form category was added in the language only by about the 5th century CE.
In 1997 Berlin has revised and expanded the seven principles discussed above and proposed a total of seven principles of ethnobiological categorization and, five principles of ethnobiological nomenclature. These principles were summarized by Martin (1995) as a general purpose ethnotaxonomy. This is summarized, with modifications, in order to explain the ancient Tamil ethnotaxonomy of plants (Table 4.4).
TABLE 4.4Major Features of General Purpose Classification of Plants of Ancient Tamils*
| Sl. No | Plant Category | Nature of label | Label proposed in Tamil culture | Numbers |
| 1. | Kingdom (Plant) | Not covert | Labeled as Maram/Maran or as Marundu | 1 |
| 2. | Life-forms Ligneous and with wood Grass Clump of herbs Bulbous plants Herbaceous Climbers Liana Straggler Aquatic plants |
Primary | Maram Pul Pudal Poodu Kodi Paruookodi Pavar Neerpoo |
8 |
| 3. | Intermediate ‘Dictos’ ‘Monocots’ | Not covert | Akakkazh Purakkazh or Pul |
2** |
| 4. | Generic | Primary | Basic plant name | 350 |
| 5. | Specific and Subspecific | Secondary | Basic plant name plus attribute(s) | 35(10%) |
*This table has been made on the basis suggested by Berlin (1992).
**Whether to include fungi and algae here is a matter of debate and still undecided.
4.4CONCLUSIONS
The above account clearly demonstrates the deep knowledge that ancient Tamils had on plants, their naming and classification. The Tamil classificatory system is of great convenience to the originator and user of this system. This system is not utilitarian but basically based on symbolic logic and culture, but at the same time allows for a communication between members of the Tamil society. This chapter also falsifies statements, such as the following: “Great in accuracy and a general absence of scientific system obtains in the Tamil botanical nomenclature.”
KEYWORDS
•Ancient Tamil People
•Mudal Porul
•Sangam Literature
•Similes
•Thinais
REFERENCES
Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Berlin, R., Breedlove, D.E. & Raven, P.H. (1974). Principles of Tzeltol Plant Classification. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, C. (1984). Language and Living Things. Uniformities in Folk Classification and Naming. New Jersey, USA: Rutgers University Press.
Brown, C.H. (2000). Folk Classification. pp. 243–246. In: P.E. Minnis (Ed.). Ethnobotany, A. Reader. Univ. Norman, USA: Oklahoma Press.
Conklin, H.C. (1954). The Relation of Hanunóo Culture to the Plant World. PhD Thesis Yale University, USA.
Conklin, H.C. (1957). Hanunóo Agriculture, a Report on an Integral System of Shifting Cultivation in the Philippine. FAO, Rome.
Conklin, H.C. (1974). The Relation of Hanunóo Culture to the Plant World (Yale University PhD 1954). High Wycombe, USA: Univ. Microfilms Ltd.
Cotton, C.M. (1996). Ethnobotany. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Ellen, R.F. (1994). Putting plants in their place: Anthropological approaches to understanding the ethnobotanical knowledge of rainforest populations. Presentation, UBD-RGS Conference.
Hargreaves, B.J. (1976). Killing and Curing: Succulent use in Chitipa. Catus and Succulent J. 48, 190–196.
Krishnamurthy, K.V. (2007). Tamils and Plants (in Tamil). Bharathidasan Univ., Tiruchirappalli, India.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Malinowski, B. (1974). Magic, Science and religion. Souvenir Press, London. (reprinted 1925 edition).
Martin, G.J. (1995). (2nd Edition) Ethnobotany: A Conservation Manual. Chapman & Hall, London.
Merculieff, I. (1994). Western Society’s linear systems and aboriginal cultures: the need of two-way exchanges for the sake of survival pp. 405–415. In: E.S. Burch & L.J. Ellanna (Eds.). Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Nedunchezian, V. (2003). Botany as seen by the Tamils (in Tamil). World Tamil Research Institute, Chennai.
Rajeswari, R. (2005). Scientific thoughts in Tolkappian. pp. 1–11. In: The Wealth of Tamils-Science, Technology. Vol. 1. World Tamil Research Institute, Chennai.
Seymour-Smith, C. (1986). MacMillan Dictionary of Anthropology. MacMillan Press Ltd. London.
Shanmugasundaram, L. (1970). Tamil and Plants (in Tamil). Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu.
Sturtevant, W.C. (1964). Studies in Ethnoscience. Amer. Anthro. pp. 174–222. In: J.W. Berry & P.R. Dasen (Eds.). Culture and Cognition. London: Metheun.
UNEP (1995). Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varadarajan, M. (1965). The Treatment of Nature in Sangam Literature. Second Edition. Madras: Tirunelveli Saiva Siddhantha Noolpathippukazhagam.