Commentary |
Corresponding author: Nicole Frances Angeli ( angelin@si.edu ) Academic editor: Anthony Herrel
© 2018 Nicole Frances Angeli.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Angeli NF (2018) On ‘lost’ indigenous etymological origins with the specific case of the name Ameiva. ZooKeys 748: 151-159. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.748.21436
|
Modern biology builds upon the historic exploration of the natural world. Recognizing the origin of a species’ name is one path to honor the historic exploration and description of the natural world and the indigenous peoples that lived closely with organisms prior to their description. While digitization of historic papers catalogued in databases such as the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) allows for searching of the first use and origin of names, the rapid pace of taxonomic publishing can occlude a thorough search for etymologies. The etymological origin of the genus name Ameiva is one such case; while unattributed in multiple recent works, it is of Tupí language origin. The first description was in the Historiae Rerum Naturalium Brasiliae by George
Etymology, indigenous languages, Neotropics, reptiles, seventeenth century, zoological nomenclature
Our understanding of the relationships of species is evolving rapidly. As a result, scientists are continually revising circumscriptions, proposing new names, and resurrecting old names. Scientific names derived from indigenous, Latin, and Greek words, technical terms, and given in honor of people and places are attributed when known (e.g., Jaeger 1959). The use of indigenous names is frequent, honoring local peoples and places. Best practices associated with indigenous and traditional languages include consultation with native speakers for new attributions or changes to taxa names (e.g., Maori:
Seventeenth century European naturalists described the fauna and flora of the world widely. Their work is echoed across a multitude of names in use today, common and scientific, derived from indigenous languages. The Sydney language word ‘waratah’ is the common name for the national flower of Australian state New South Wales Telopea speciossissima (Sm.) R.Br., while the manatee Trichechus manatus Linnaeus, 1758 is a cognate of the Caribbean Taino language ‘manati’. The South American tegu lizard Tupinambis teguixin Linnaeus, 1758 is a direct cognate from the extinct language Tupí. The language was spoken widely among Tupinambá people and become the língua geral or the most common unifying Tupí language of the 50 or more languages spoken amongst Tupi-Guarani speaking peoples (
One of these suspected cognates is Ameiva (Meyer, 1795), the modern generic name of a group of more than 36 lizard species distributed throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean. The specific etymology of the name Ameiva is marked as ‘unknown’ in some modern taxonomic revisions (
The earliest use of the name Ameiva within the BHL was found in the Latin-language Historiae Rerum Naturalium Brasiliae by George Marcgrave of the Dutch Republic (
Latin to English translation related to the genus Ameiva from
p. 238 | p. 238 |
Ameiva Brafiiienfibus & Tupinambis; alia species Lacertorum & superius descriptae Taraguirae per omnia fimilis, excepto quod caudam furcatam habeat; id eft,definentem in duo cornua rexta. |
Ameiva Brasiiiensibus & Tupinambis; everything is like the other species of lizards described in the group of Taraguirae, except that it has a bifurcated tail. The two tail lengths are straight but vary in measurement. |
The first Western use of Ameiva in Historiae Rerum Naturalium Brasiliae is largely corroborated by taxonomic scholars, both before and after the 1758 publication of Linnaeus’ momentous taxonomic work Systema Naturae. Marcgrave wrote and illustrated Historiae Rerum Naturalium Brasiliae as an eight-volume book describing the plants, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and people of Brazil over a journey beginning in 1638 with Prince John Maurice of Nassau-Siegen (
The information related to Ameiva is accurate based on scientific knowledge of the genus today with the exception ofa description of a bifurcated tail as a diagnostic character. In fact, tail regeneration is quite common across many species and families of lizards and may present as a bi- or trifucation (
Linnaeus described Lacerta (= Ameiva) ameiva in Systema Naturae (1758: 203), and cited
Outside of Amsterdam, naturalists cited the Historiae Rerum Naturalium Brasiliae for many years after its publication (
Post-Linnaean publications (
The species name became generic when Meyer (1795) elevated Ameiva from within Lacerta Linnaeus, 1758 to a genus with fourteen species of lizards. Meyer (1795) diagnosed Ameiva as lizards with five regular parietal scales, prefrontal scales separated from nasal scales, homogeneous lamellae of the toes, without preanal spurs. Meyer (1795) spelled the genus name Ameiua, likely because letters like “u” and “j” do not occur in the classical Latin alphabet. Throughout historic scholarship, Ameiva reverted to its historic spelling. Other spellings were mistakes, therefore ignored and quickly reverted to Amaiva (Kuhl, 1820), Amieva (Gray, 1840), and Amiva (Cope, 1887).
At the same time, the word Ameiva was translated to local languages.
Other authors developed Marcgrave’s work with their own flourishes.
Now establishing that Marcgrave ran into the word Ameiva in South America, of local Amerindian origin, a problem exists in independently verifying the word by Tupí language authorities. The word Ameiva was not found in available Tupí dictionaries and references searched (
An Amerindian origin exists for the word Ameiva, possibly old Tupí, first introduced into the Western science vernacular by
NFA was funded by a Smithsonian Institution Predoctoral Fellowship at the National Museum of Natural History. Roy McDiarmid and Kevin de Queiroz of the Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, reviewed drafts of this manuscript prior to publication. Henrique Caldeira Costa and Samuel Gomides provided important correspondence and links to historic texts. Vicki Funk and Harold Robinson of the Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, verified and edited the Latin translation.