The Grace of the Flood: Classification and Use of Wild Mushrooms among the Highland Maya of Chiapas

The Grace of the Flood: Classification and Use of WildMushrooms among the Highland Maya of Chiapas1

GLENN H. SHEPARD JR.2,*, DAVID ARORA3, AND AARON LAMPMAN

4

2Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK3Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA4Department Anthropology, Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO, USA*Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected]

The Grace of the Flood: Classification and Use of Wild Mushrooms among the HighlandMaya of Chiapas. The highland Maya of Chiapas in southern Mexico gather, consume, andsell a wide variety of mushrooms during the rainy season from June to November. Themushrooms are prized as a valuable source of nutrition and income, and a few species areused medicinally. No evidence exists for current or historical use of hallucinogenic mushrooms,though descriptions of mushroom intoxication suggest nonspecific knowledge about the pres-ence of psychoactive properties in some mushrooms. Free-listing exercises elicited 50 or moremushroom names in each of the two main highland Mayan languages, Tzeltal and Tzotzil.Identification exercises using mushroom photographs permitted a preliminary assignment ofmycological species, genera, or families to many of the local mushroom names collected in free-lists. Field identification during the rainy reason further emphasized the concordance of manylocal names with distinctivemycological groups or taxa. Mushroom sketches made by informantsrevealed the detailed knowledge many of the highland Maya maintain about mushroommorphology, ecology, and diversity. Mayan mushroom classification provides additional evidencefor several of the universally presumed principles of ethnobiological classification. However, incontrast to their classification of plants, the Mayan system of mushroom classification is mostlyconcernedwith edible and other useful species. (One such species, previously unknown to science,is described here.) Most species with no cultural use are presumed by the highland Maya to bepoisonous and are relegated to a wastebasket category known locally as “stupid” or “crazy”mushrooms.

Key Words: Amanita, wild edible fungi, Chiapas, Mexico, ethnomycology, Tzeltal Maya,Tzotzil Maya, folk classification.

Introduction and Research Context

And so it rained for thirteen days and thirteennights. After the flood waters subsided the cropshad been destroyed and there was nothing to eat,so our Lord’s first act was to make the ediblemushrooms grow. Mushrooms are thus yutzilpulimal, the “Grace of the Flood,” God’s first giftto Noah and his crew after suffering through thelong days of rain.

—excerpt from a Tzeltal Mayan story (see fulltext below)

While carrying out ethnomycological researchin different parts of the world, one oftenencounters curious young Western tourists alongthe way. The conversation invariably comesaround to the subject of one’s research, followedby the predictable response: “Mushrooms? Youmean, like, magic mushrooms?!” This is especiallytrue in Mexico; in addition to being one of theworld’s most culturally and biologically diversenations (Mittermeier et al. 1997; Loh andHarmon 2005), Mexico is also home to some ofthe world’s most famous mushrooms. R. G.Wasson’s (1957, 1961) widely-publicized redis-covery of the ritual use of Psilocybe spp. by severalgroups of Mexican Indians not only launched thefield of ethnomycology but also helped spark the

Economic Botany, 62(3), 2008, pp. 437–470© 2008, by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A.

1Published online 29 October 2008.

*,2 ,

psychedelic revolution of the 1960s. The popularand scientific interest in Mexico’s hallucinogenicmushrooms has generated a vast bibliography(e.g., Wasson 1962; Guzmán et al. 2000), but hastended to overshadow the comparatively small,though growing, body of literature addressingother aspects of ethnomycological knowledge inMexico (de Avila and Guzmán 1980; Mapes et al.1981a,b; Martinez-Alfaro et al. 1983; Gonzalez-Elizondo 1991; Laferriere 1991; Shepard andArora 1992; Bandala et al. 1997; Hunn et al.2000; Lampman 2004; Garibay-Orijel et al. 2007;Lampman 2007a, b; Montoya et al. 2008 andPérez-Moreno et al. 2008, this issue).Previous ethnobotanical research in Chiapas

only barely touched on Mayan mushroom namingand classification (Berlin et al. 1974; Laughlin1975). In fact, mycological surveys remain limited,with only 291 mushroom species identified todate, though each subsequent study adds a dozenor more new registers (Pérez-Moreno and Villareal1988; Robles Porras et al. 2006). This study wasinitiated by Glenn Shepard in 1992 as a generalsurvey of mushroom knowledge among thehighland Maya. Work began during the winterdry season and, as wild mushrooms were not inevidence, Shepard developed his Tzeltal andTzotzil language skills while making contacts withinformants in widely-dispersed townships, andused published mushroom photographs to elicitpreliminary information. In June the rains arrived,and so did mycologist David Arora. These twospent the following month gathering mushrooms,accompanying and interviewing Mayan mushroomhunters, and visiting local markets where mush-rooms were on sale, with the intention of returningin subsequent years to intensify and broadenthe research (Shepard and Arora 1992; Shepard1993). However, the Zapatista uprising of 1994interrupted their plans (see Shepard and Anderson1995).Four years later, in 1998, the highland Maya

ethnomycological research project was revived byAaron Lampman (see also Berlin 1998) inaffiliation with the Maya International CooperativeBiodiversity Group (Maya ICBG), but was also cutshort when the bioprospecting activities of MayaICBG came under intense local, national, andinternational scrutiny (Nigh 2002; Berlin andBerlin 2003; Hayden 2003). All affiliated research-ers, including Lampman, voluntarily ceased theirbiodiversity collection efforts.

This paper presents results of Shepard andArora’s (1992) preliminary, wide-ranging studyof mushroom naming, classification, and useamong the highland Maya, interpreted in light ofLampman’s (2004) more intensive, geographically-focused study. One new, culturally salient speciesof Amanita (Appendix 1) is also described.

Study Area and MethodsChiapas is a mountainous state located in

southern Mexico on the border of Guatemala.With nearly one million of its inhabitantsspeaking an indigenous language, Chiapas standsout as one of the most culturally diverse states ina highly diverse country. The roughly 600,000speakers of the various Tzeltal and Tzotzil dialectsare scattered across 14 townships in the centralhighlands (Kohler 1980, 2000; INEGI 2000).Smaller communities within these townships arestaunchly individualistic, asserting their identitiesthrough localized styles of clothing, religiouspractices, crafts, and agricultural production.Despite these differences, traditional Tzeltal andTzotzil communities continue to engage insimilar lifestyles, characterized by small-scale cornand bean swidden agriculture, the herding ofsheep and cattle, and various kinds of low-incomewage labor. Despite recent efforts to “modernize,”Chiapas remains one of the poorest states inMexico due to a long history of outside control ofproductive resources and unequal access to basicgovernment services.The cultural diversity of Chiapas is mirrored by

its ecological diversity. The mountains range upto 2,500 meters (m), providing a wide array ofmicrohabitats that harbor approximately 3,000species of vascular plants and many species ofvertebrates (Breedlove 1981; Rzedowski 1993;Berlin and Berlin 1996). The climate is classifiedas subhumid temperate, with high yearly variationin rainfall and a pronounced rainy season (Hunn1977; Rzedowski 1993). Highland areas wereonce dominated by Quercus-Pinus-Liquidambarforests. Despite widespread disturbance due tohuman activities, these forests are still apparent,transitioning to tropical moist forest at lowerelevations.While highland oak and pine forests support a

wide variety of ectomycorrhizal mushrooms,saprotrophic mushrooms predominate in thelower elevations transitioning to tropical forestbecause there are fewer ectomycorrhizal tree

438 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 62

hosts. Since ectomycorrhizal mushrooms tend tobe large, fleshy, and appealing as food, while mostneotropical saprotrophic mushrooms are toosmall and/or tough to tempt the palate (and areconsequently less apt to form a significant part ofthe indigenous diet), we concentrated our investi-gation in the villages set amid the ectomycorrhizalforests of oak and pine.

Research was carried out with a total of 24informants (14 male, 10 female, ages 10–60) in 6of the 14 highland Mayan townships, covering awide span of ecological zones and includingrepresentatives of the two major language groups:the Tzeltal-speaking townships of Oxchuc andAguacatenango, the Tzotzil-speaking townships

of Chamula, Zinacantan and Chenalho, and themixed-language township of Pantelho (Fig. 1).Oxchuc, Chamula, and Zinacantan are found inthe central highland region known locally as “coldcountry,” while Aguacatenango, Chenalho, andPantelho are found at transitional altitudestowards the lowland “hot country.”

Free-listing exercises were carried out with 14informants (9 male, 5 female; see Table 1),during which they were asked to name all themushrooms they could remember (Table 1;Appendices 2 and 3). They sketched drawings ofeach kind of mushroom (examples are shown inFigs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), often drawing or describingdetailed morphological features (see Table 2), as

Fig. 1. Map of study region, adapted from Kohler (1980).

439SHEPARD ET AL.: ETHNOMYCOLOGY OF HIGHLAND MAYA IN CHIAPAS2008]

well as place and season of growth, edibility, andwhether any similar kinds of mushrooms wereknown under the same name. Most of theinformants did not know how to read or write,and some of the older ones had never held a penor pencil before. Nonetheless, the drawings(annotated where necessary by Shepard) demon-strate detailed knowledge of mushroom morphol-ogy and ecology (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).An expanded group including 21 informants

(13 male, 8 female; see Table 1) were shown 62high-quality color mushroom photographs selectedfrom Arora’s (1991) portable field guide to westernNorth American mushrooms and asked to namethe mushrooms (see Appendix 4). The field guidewas especially useful because it pictured freshmushrooms in their natural habitats, providinginformants with the kind of broader visual andecological cues (place and habit of growth, stain-ing, etc.) they use when identifying mushrooms inthe wild. Though the mushroom flora of Chiapas

is different from that of western North America,most of the species depicted in Arora (1991) haveclosely-related, visually-similar counterparts inChiapas, permitting informants to assign localnames consistently (most of which had alreadybeen elicited in free-listing) to the photographsthey viewed. Many mushroom names and specieswere subsequently verified in the field (see Table 3and Appendix 4).Mayan language terms found throughout the

text are written using the standard orthographicconventions (see Berlin et al. 1974; Berlin 1992;Breedlove and Laughlin 1993), with the excep-tion noted in Appendix 1.During the early rainy season, daily outings

were made with Mayan mushroom hunters infour of the previously-studied areas (Aguacate-nango, Chamula, Oxchuc, Zinacantan) as well asto local mushroom markets. Informants werefurther interviewed about the names and uses ofmushrooms found in the field. Mushrooms were

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF INFORMANT PARTICIPATION IN FREE-LISTING OF MUSHROOM NAMES AND PHOTOGRAPHIC

IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM ARORA (1991); SEE ALSO APPENDICES 2–4.

Informant Initials Sex Age Language (Township) Free-List Names Photo Exercise

SHR F 28 Tzeltal (Aguacatenango) 20 √FVJ M 40 Tzeltal (Aguacatenango) 17 √PGL M 60 Tzeltal (Aguacatenango) 17 √PAJ M 45 Tzeltal (Aguacatenango) – √JJR F 45 Tzeltal (Aguacatenango) – √VAH F 55 Tzeltal (Aguacatenango) – √LRM M 11 Tzeltal (Aguacatenango) – √PME F 60 Tzeltal (Aguacatenango) – √VGL M 54 Tzeltal (Oxchuc) 24 √MGL F 60 Tzeltal (Oxchuc) 15 √DGM F 60 Tzeltal (Oxchuc) 6 √DSG M 40 Tzeltal (Oxchuc) – √AGE M 44 Tzeltal (Pantelho) 8 √CE M 40 Tzeltal (Pantelho) 7 √XLC M 26 Tzotzil (Chamula) 37 √LLL F 10 Tzotzil (Chamula) 28 –MLC F 35 Tzotzil (Chamula) – √JPM F 32 Tzotzil (Chamula) 10 –DD M 35 Tzotzil (Chamula) 6 √ARH M 45 Tzotzil (Chenalho) – √VGD M (adult) Tzotzil (Pantelho) 15 –VSD M 32 Tzotzil (Pantelho) – √CGL F 60 Tzotzil (Pantelho) – √DSH M 30 Tzotzil (Zinacantan) 20 √

The number in the second-to-last column indicates the number of different mushrooms named by that informant in free-listing. Check (√) in the final column indicates that the informant participated in the photographic identification exercise(Appendix 4); (–) indicates the informant did not participate in one of the two exercises.


TABLE 2. SELECTED MUSHROOM DESCRIPTION VOCABU-

LARY FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH A TZOTZIL-SPEAKER FROM

THE TOWNSHIP OF CHAMULA.

Anatomysjol “head,” capsba topyanal “leaf,” upper surfaceo’lol centersti’il edgeyutil undersideyo’on “heart,” interioryakan “leg,” stalkste’el stemsvex “skirt,” ring/veilstzek “pants,” ring/veilyi’bil base/volvayisim “hair, roots,” mycelia

Size, growth stagemuk’ul largebik’it smallbik’it to immature, still smallch’iom to immature, still growing

(ch’i—to grow)muk’ub xa mature, full-grownk’aal xa old, already rotten (k’a—to rot)

Growth habittzo’bol growing many togethertanijem dispersed, growing individuallypak’al attached (to wood)umul sprouting (from the earth)

Form and shapewolwol round like a small stone

(wol—CL: round stone)umul round, recently sprouting

(um—sprout)balbal cylindrical and thick

(bal—CL: cylinder, tree trunk)lechlech broad and flat, leaf-like

(lech—CL: leaf)lechkan bell-shaped (lech—CL:

leaf + kan—bald)jamal open, spread (jam—to spread [legs])joyol thinpimil thickjomol depressed in the center,

funnel-like (jom—canoe)pulpul having shallow depression,

like frying pan (pul—ceramic bowl)pujul empty, hollowbalajtik separate, like spread fingers,

e.g., coral mushroomswotzol piled up haphazardly, like

unkempt hair, e.g., morels

lislun with hanging pieces (lis—piecesof dried meat hanging)

xulubtik branched (xulub—animalantlers or horns), e.g.,coral mushrooms

Texturetzotz hardyijil thick and hard, shelf-likek’unil soft, fragiletakin drytakik’oxan dry and crisp, as if toastedbilil slippery, wetsimsimtik slimy (sim—mucus)jotzotzet stickykanal smooth, baldk’alajtik scaly, peelingsilultik striatech’ujtik spotted, stained (ch’uj—vegetable dye)chinchintik warty, speckled (chin—measles)tantantik powderyxulajtik having uneven teeth along the edgeluchaltik marked with concentric circles

(luch—to embroider)tubtub having a hump in the middle

(tub—hump)mochilum wrinkled, folded, e.g., morelsch’och’omtik perforated with large holes,

e.g., morelsvuchajtik loosely attachedtzotzoltik hairy, tomentose (tzotz—hair)

Undersurfaceoy scharcharil having “rattles,” i.e., gills

(char—to rattle)t’ast’as swollen and soft, like a fat belly

(t’as—belly)chiriptik perforated with small holes,

pores (chir—to whistle)ch’ixch’ixtik spiny (ch’ix—spine)oy stanil dusted with spores (tan—powder)oy sch’ailal emitting a cloud of spores

(ch’ail—smoke)

Stem featuresnat’il tall and thinkomkom short and thickyijil thick, robustt’omol thick, swollen (t’om—to explode)jich’il thin, fragilejomol hollowed outpujul empty, hollowoy sbek’etal meaty (bek’—bone, body)oy svex “has skirt,” i.e., veil, ring or volva

CL indicates numeral classifiers (see text)

TABLE 2. (CONTINUED).


TABLE3.

THE

MOST

SALIENT

FOLK

GENERA

INTZELT

AL

AND

TZOTZIL.ENGLISH

GLO

SSESPR

OVID

ED(N

A:NOT

ANALY

ZABLE;SP:SP

ANISH

LOAN

WORD).

Taxonom

icGroup

TzeltalNam

eTzotzilNam

eNotes

onClassificatio

n

Agaricus

yaxak

“green

grass”

moni’NA

Grass-growingAgaricusspp.:focalspeciescalledneksakil

(Tze:true

white),others(nonedible)calledyan(Tze:

other),lu’te’(Tze:poison),wixil(Tzo:sister),yatka’

(Tzo:horsepenis)

Amanita

(esp.thosespecies

closelyrelatedto

A.caesarea)

k’an

tsu“yellowgourd”

yuyNA

Amanita

spp.:focalspeciesareA.caesarea

(sensu

auct.mex.)

complex

andA.hayalyuy

sp.nov.(Tzo:jayalyuy:thin

yuy);ediblespeciesepith

etsinclud

ek’an

al(yellow),tsajal

(red),ijk’al/ik’al

(black);misc.un

know

n/poisonousspecies

arecalledwixil(sister),yuyan

gel(Tzo:ghostam

anita)

Amanita

muscaria

slu’

chaw

uk“thu

nderbolt

mushroom,”tsajal

lu’

“red

mushroom”

yuychau

k“thu

nderboltmushroom,”

yuyan

gel“ghostmushroom”

Flyagaric:said

toem

erge

where

lightning

strikes;know

nto

bepoisonousandto

“cause

drun

kenn

ess”;Tze:tsajal

lu’

(red

mushroom)also

refersto

misc.inedibleredspecies

(Russula,Hygrocybe)

Amanita

vaginata

complex

cholchol

be’“lined

upalongthepath”

chol-cholbe’“lined

upalongthepath”

Grisettes

(oncegroupedin

asegregategenu

s,Amanitopsis):

considered

asegregategroup(sjoy:its

friend

)with

ink’an

tsu/yuy;also

know

nas

ik’al(black)or

chak

xik’

(gray)

yuy

Arm

illaria,Lyophyllum,etc.

chejchew

/jechew

NA

chechevNA

Broad

genericconceptforsm

all,fleshy,capitate

mushrooms

grow

ingin

largequantitieson

ground

orwood:

folk

species

epith

etsreferto

associated

tree

species,e.g.,chechevalchij

te’(Tze:chechevof

oaktree:prob.Arm

illaria

sp.),k’aa

lte’(ofrotten

tree),toj(ofpine)

Astraeus,Geastrum

but’ba

k’et

“healsflesh”

satpu

kuj“dem

oneye”

Earthstars:powdery

spores

appliedto

wound

s;monotypic

folk

genu

sAuricularia

k’ochikin

lu’/p

ok’o

chikin

“snailear”

lolo

pik’

“loose

vagina”

Woodearor

“jelly

ear”:monotypicfolk

genu

s

Boletus,Leccinum

panlu’“bread

mushroom”(Sp:

pan)

pancito,

simita“bread

rollmushroom”

(Sp:

pancito,semita)

Boletesegregate:boleteswith

firm

,dry,

plum

p,light-brown

caplikeabreadroll;

nohabitually

named

folk

species;

butpoisonous(lu

’te’,vinino

)typesareknow

nBoletus,Suillus

bonk

oslu’,tonk

oslu’NA

seku

bt’u

l“rabbitliver”yo’ontuluk

“turkeyheart”

Mainbolete

group:

spongier,slimierspecieswith

darker,

liver-like

coloratio

n,especially

Suillus;speciesepith

ets

includ

eijk’al/ik’al

(black),tzajal

(red,generally

inedible);

nonedible/poison

specieslabeledbollu’(Tze:crazy

mushroom),wixil(sister),schi’il

(Tzo:companion,friend

)


TABLE3.

(CONTIN

UED).

Taxonom

icGroup

TzeltalNam

eTzotzilNam

eNotes

onClassificatio

n

Bovista,Calvatia

p’un

k’us,w

us-wus

lu’

(onomatpoeia–

puffing

soun

d)

satpu

kuj“dem

oneye”

Puffballs:monotypicfolk

genu

s;edibleonly

before

spores

mature;remedyforflatulence:pu

ffspores

onto

anus

(!)

Cantharellus,Lactarius

k’an

chay

“yellowfish”

man

ayok“cat

foot”

Focally

chanterellesandmilk

caps,bu

talso

otherfunn

el-

shaped,terrestrialmushroomswith

thickstem

s:folk

speciesepith

etsinclud

ek’an

al(yellow),sakil(white),

ijk’al/ik’al

(black),yaxal(blue:L.

indigo),also

see

belowch’ix

k’an

chay

(“spinychanterelle,”i.e.,

Hydnum

repandum

)Coprinus,Stropharia,others

yokwakashlu’

“cow

foot

mushroom”

yatka’“horse

penis”

Small,bell-shaped,du

ng-growingspecies,mostly

considered

inedible,bu

tCoprinuswas

describedby

some

inform

antsas

edible

Cortin

arius

osoria

NA(Spanish

loan?)

–Distin

ctivelypu

rpleCortin

ariusnamed

andconsidered

edibleonly

inAguacatenango;“false”inediblespecies

calledwixil(sister),veneno

(Sp:

poison)

Daldiniacf.concentrica

(Bolton)

Ces.&

DeNot.

t’ot’lu’“snailmushroom”

t’ot’“snail”

Monotypicfolk

genu

s

Hydnum

repandum

ch’ix

k’an

chay

“spiny

k’an

chay”

ch’ix

man

ayok“spiny

manayok”

Hedgehogmushroom:hasdistinctivecovering

ofsoft

“teeth”;considered

akind

ofk’an

chay/m

anayok(above)

Hypom

yceslactifluorum

(Schwein.)Tul.&

C.Tul.

chik

pomillu’“incense-

dusted

ear”

chikin

toro

“bullear”

chakat’ob“red

protub

erance”

Lobstermushroom:monotypicfolk

genu

s;according

toseveralinform

antdescriptions,itisparasitic

onother

mushrooms,form

ingorange-red

covering,likened

bysome

topom

(Protiu

m)incensepowder

Lactariusindigo

(see

also,

Cantharellus)

(yaxal

k’an

chay)

yaxalvina

jel“bluesky”

sbavina

jel

“vaultof

heaven”

Indigo

milk

cap:

also

calledyaxal(blue)

k’an

chay/m

ana

yok(above)

Macrolepiotacf.procera

parawo“umbrella”

(Sp:

paragua)

–Parasolmushroom:distinctivelynamed

only

inAguacatenango,elsewhere

know

nas

najt’il

(long-stemmed)yaxak/m

oni’(Agaricus)

Morchella

jolkotz/tsonkotz

“turkeyhead,turkey

comb”

mochilum

“folded,

wrinkled”

Morels:monotypicfolk

genu

s

Neolentinus

lepideus

(Fr.)Redhead

&Ginns

tajxux

NA(“pine+xux”)

tajchu

ch“pinesquirrel”

Edible,wood-grow

ingmushroom:monotypic?

Pleurotus

sakitaj

“white

cabb

age”

sakitaj

“white

cabb

age”

Oystermushrooms:monotypicfolk

genu

s


collected, photographed, and identified by Arora,and in many cases eaten.

ResultsMUSHROOM KNOWLEDGE, COLLECTION,

AND USE

Despite significant variation between individu-als and between villages, knowledge about wildmushrooms among the highland Maya is gener-ally sophisticated and widespread within thepopulation. Men and women alike share roughlyequal knowledge, while children participate inmushroom gathering and preparation activitiesand learn to recognize the major edible species atan early age. During the June to November rainyseason in the Chiapas highlands, wild mushroomsform an esteemed and nutritionally significantpart of the highland Maya diet.The first rains often come in late May and are

usually followed by the prompt appearance inlocal markets and on Mayan supper tables ofNeolentinus lepideus, a wood-rotter, and severalgrassland Agaricus species. These are usuallyfollowed during the peak months of June andJuly by copious quantities of ectomycorrhizalmushrooms. Most prominent among these areamanitas (Amanita, the most highly-esteemedgroup of edible mushrooms), milk caps (Lactarius)and russulas (Russula), lobster mushrooms(Hypomyces, actually a parasite of certain milk capsand russulas), boletes (Boletus, Leccinum, Suillus),chanterelles (Cantharellus), corts (Cortinarius), andcoral mushrooms (Ramaria, Clavulina). Othertypes, including morels (Morchella), appear towardthe end of the rainy season or later (Fig. 6).Although the Maya are likely unaware of the

details of invisible mycelial, mycorrhizal, andreproductive processes, they clearly understandthe ecological relationships between certainmushrooms and their tree hosts. For instance,Tzotzil mushroom hunters recognize that the“true” or “thick” yuy (species in the Amanitacaesarea complex) grows near or under pine, whilethe related “thin” yuy (described as a new species,Amanita hayalyuy Arora & Shepard, in Appendix1) is invariably found under oak. In fact, manyMayan mushroom names indicate an associationwith specific trees, and the names for saprotrophicmushrooms often reflect growth habit (on rottingwood, in pastureland, on stumps in agriculturalfields, etc.).

TABLE3.

(CONTIN

UED).

Taxonom

icGroup

TzeltalNam

eTzotzilNam

eNotes

onClassificatio

n

Ramaria,Sparassis

(Hericium)

yisim

chij“sheep

beard”

ts’ijts’im

lu’“hairy

mushroom”

yisim

chij“sheep

beard”

Coralmushrooms:folk

specificepith

etssakil

(white),k’an

al(yellow),tsajal

(red)

Ustilago

maydis

slu’ilixim

,sjo’ixim

“cornmushroom”

stok’alixim

,sjo’ja

lajan

“storm

cloud

ofcorn,corn

mushroom”

Huitlacocheor

corn

smut:monotypicfolk

genu

s

Fieldidentifi

catio

nsby

David

Arora.Speciesauthorities

areonly

provided

forthosespeciesnotinclud

edin

App

endix4.


Much of the mushroom gathering is done inthe early morning by women and children. Manywomen bring mushrooms to sell in market townssuch as San Cristóbal de las Casas and Comitán,while others vend along the highways. A morningof collecting during the peak of the mushroomseason can yield two or three large baskets ofamanitas or lobster mushrooms, the most valu-able commercial species, and these can be sold inthe afternoon for the equivalent of three or moredays of wage labor. The highland Maya alsoconsume large quantities of mushrooms at home.Informants repeatedly emphasized how muchthey appreciated them for their flavor and as ahealthy source of meat-like nutrition during therainy season, when food crops are not yetharvestable.

Not surprisingly, mushroom names vary morebetween townships than within them. For exam-ple, there are major variations in the mushroomnames applied by Tzotzil and Tzeltal speakers,and indeed, there is significant variation in thenames applied by the regional dialects of each ofthese languages (see Table 3, Appendices 2 and3). But the variation in knowledge goes muchdeeper than names. In some instances, a mush-room that is named and eaten in one township isshunned or considered poisonous in another. Theinhabitants of Oxchuc, for instance, were amazedto find that their counterparts in Aguacatenango,some 50 km away, consumed and valued osoria, abluish Cortinarius which they considered poison-ous. By the same token, the people of Aguacate-nango were astonished that Oxchuqueros ate theubiquitous, bright blue Lactarius indigo and livedto tell about it. Knowledge about the edibility ofmushrooms can vary even within communities,with different families from the same smalltownship making diametrically opposed claimsabout the edibility versus toxicity of some speciesof boletes (see Lampman 2004).

Despite many similarities between the mush-room flora of Chiapas and North America, themushrooms prized by the Maya differ significant-ly from those most valued by Europeans andNorth Americans. Several mushrooms habituallylisted by Western mushroom guidebooks asinedible or of unknown edibility are esteemedby the highland Maya. For instance, the Mayaconsume a stump-growing species of Daldinia cf.concentrica—a so-called inedible ascomyceteknown by Westerners as “crampballs” or “carbon

balls”—as a snack when working in cornfields.Impressed by their nutty flavor, especially whenlightly toasted, Arora proposed renaming them“tree truffles” (Shepard 1993). North Americanmushroom hunters also shun the genus Cortinariusfor fear of difficult-to-distinguish toxic look-alikes,but the people of Aguacatenango appreciate therobust flavor of the species known as osoria,distinguished by its papery cuticle that peels offin layers. Another species valued by the Maya butgenerally ignored by Westerners is the small,leathery saprobe, Schizophyllum commune Fr. Thisspecies is widely eaten in Mexico, especially in thelowlands, where it is esteemed for its chewy, dry,meatlike flesh (Ruán-Soto et al. 2006); it is alsowidely eaten (and cultivated) in southeast Asia, butis dismissed by North American mycologists asbeing “too small and tough” to be edible (Arora1986; Miller and Miller 2006).

Conversely,Western guidebooks extol the virtuesof boletes and chanterelles, while the Maya typicallyshow less enthusiasm for these mushrooms than forlobster mushrooms (Hypomyces) or milk caps(Lactarius). Western guidebooks also containstrong warnings to readers not to collect ediblespecies of Amanita for fear of confusing them withpoisonous or intoxicating amanitas. Yet the high-land Maya, like other peoples of Mexico, prizecertain Amanita species (particularly those in sect.Caesareae) over most other mushrooms. Morethan one Mayan woman was able to give a cogentdiscussion of the distinguishing features betweenthe various species of Amanita collected in thesame woods. They could point out, for instance,the “diseased” (warty or scabby) veil tissue thatdistinguishes the intoxicating A. muscaria from theedible A. caesarea complex (see Fig. 3, notes). EvenMaya children seemed to have no difficulty indistinguishing the edible Amanita species.

Nonetheless, informants told us that a fewhighland Maya are poisoned by mushrooms everyyear. Generally, such poisonings occur when lessknowledgeable people—whether migrants fromother regions, young people, or long-term citydwellers—collect inappropriate mushrooms thatothers would know to avoid. One such victim-in-waiting was a taxi driver in San Cristóbal de lasCasas who, to the detriment of his driving, showedgreat interest in the mushrooms that we hadcollected that day. He proceeded to inform us, withthe authority of an expert, that most of the ediblespecies in our basket were poisonous while the


Fig. 2. Classification of mushrooms by Martin Santís Gomez, a Tzeltal speaker from Oxchuc. Note the use ofthe plural k’an chayetik to represent the mushroom kingdom, including nine folk generic groupings: k’an chay(in the singular, referring to chanterelles and other funnel-shaped mushrooms), bonkos (boletes), yisim chij (coralmushrooms), sul te’ (shelf mushroom), k’an tsu (Amanita), tajxux (Neolentinus), chejche (Armillaria and similarsmall, yellowish species in dense groups on wood), chikin te’ (wood ears), and jol kotz (morels).

Fig. 3. Annotated drawing of k’an tsu lu’, literally “yellow gourd mushroom” (Amanita caesarea complex)by Pedro Gomez Lopez, a Tzeltal speaker from Oxchuc. Note ring (stzek’), large, thick cap (muk’), dark centralbump (umbo) on cap. Translation of Tzeltal language notes: “Edible, grows in mixed-species forests, June–July;[this is the] yellow [i.e., dark yellow to orange] species, similar to ‘thunderbolt mushroom’ (A. muscaria).”


poisonous amanitas that we had collected for studywere excellent eating (see Shepard 1993).

Several mushrooms are used medicinally bythe Maya. The powdery spores of puffballs andearthstars (Lycoperdon, Bovista, Geastrum, andAstraeus) are used to treat warts, wounds,and other skin conditions, as they are in manyother parts of the world (Saar 1991; Benjamin1995; Esquivel 1998). Several wood-rottingpolypores, including Ganoderma and Trametes,were mentioned for treating diverse conditionsranging from stomach aches to mouth sores and

insanity. It is interesting to note that similarpolypores figure prominently in the traditionalpharmacopoeia of China (Mizuno et al. 1995).

There is no indication for any current orhistorical ritual use of Psilocybe or any otherpsychoactive species among the highland Maya.Nonetheless, some of the symptoms commonlyascribed by the Maya to mushroom poisoning,e.g., references to singing, dancing, or going“crazy in the head,” suggest a nonspecificknowledge about the presence of psychoactiveproperties in some mushrooms.

Fig. 4. Representation of checheval tulan, “oak mushroom” (possibly Armillaria mellea) by Xun Lopez Cali-xto, a Totzil speaker of Chamula. Translation of Tzotzil language notes: “White [i.e., cream to light yellow] speciesis edible, yellow [dark yellow to orange] species not. Eaten boiled. Yellow species [possibly Pholiota?] causesstomach ache. Found on rotten wood, oak roots, and tree stumps, in November; cap is slick, has a ring/veil, smallstem, soft.”

Fig. 5. A series of particularly fine drawings by Domingo Diaz, a landless, Protestant Tzotzil speaker fromChamula who had fled local religious persecution to a shanty town on the outskirts of San Cristobal. Although hescarcely knew how to read and write, his drawings show talent. Depicted are yisim chij (coral mushroom), yuy(Amanita caesarea complex), and sek’ub t’ul (bolete).


A mushroom creation myth told to us by oneinformant (as recorded and translated in Shepard1993) makes reference to intoxicating mush-rooms, and is also notable for its syncreticimagery:

God sent a messenger bird to warn Noah, Job,Adam, Eve, Ali Baba, and all the village elders thata flood was about to destroy the Third Creation ofthe World. So they built an ark and filled it withtheir animals and possessions. And so it rained forthirteen days and thirteen nights. After the floodwaters subsided the crops had been destroyed andthere was nothing to eat, so our Lord’s first act wasto make the edible mushrooms grow. Mushroomsare thus yutzil pulimal, the “Grace of the Flood,”God’s first gift to Noah and his crew after sufferingthrough the long days of rain.

Soon after, however, Adam and Eve betrayed theirLord by eating the poisonous, intoxicating mush-room offered to them by the Serpent Demon.They went “crazy in the head” (ya xbolub jolol)and fell from the Grace of their Lord and from theGrace of the Flood. Poisonous, “crazy” mush-rooms (bol lu’) then sprouted in the forests andfields—brothers and sisters to the original gift ofedible mushrooms—and since that time mush-room hunters have had to carefully learn fromtheir parents and grandparents which mushroomsare consecrated with the grace of God and whichare the poisonous progeny of the Serpent Demon.

The account is noteworthy for its blend ofBiblical and indigenous elements. For instance,the Mayan “lucky number” of 13 is substitut-ed for the usual “forty days and forty nights”and the “Third Creation of the World” is anelement of apocalyptic Mayan cosmology;there is also the juxtaposition of Noah, Adam,Eve and other mythical foreigners with thevillage elders; and there is the striking substi-tution of intoxicating mushrooms for theBiblical forbidden fruit. The story furtherclarifies the ineluctable association betweenmushrooms and the rainy season, and depictsmushrooms not only as a valued food resource,but as a divine manna, delivered by God in atime of need: a time which, as noted above,coincides with the “hunger months” before theharvest. The story also makes clear that theMaya have no need for books or field guides,and that mushroom knowledge is transmittedorally from parents and elders to children.

TZELTAL AND TZOTZIL MUSHROOM NAMES

In free-listing exercises (Table 1), 14 informantsnamed, described, and sketched between 6 and 37different kinds of mushrooms per informant(mean: 16.4). This resulted in a total sample of55 Tzeltal and 50 Tzotzil names. The youngestinformant, a 10-year-old girl, listed the secondhighest number of mushroom names (28), attest-ing to the widespread nature of mushroomknowledge and the active participation of childrenin mushroom-related activities.An expanded group of 21 informants (Table 1)

ascribed local names to a selection of mushroomphotographs from Arora’s (1991) guide to themushrooms of the western United States (seeAppendix 4). The use of photographs confirmedthat many of the names elicited during free-listingrefer to well-known mushrooms, and permittedthe elicitation of additional names that did notappear in free-lists. Despite the obvious limita-tions of photographic identification, there is ahigh degree of similarity between the mushroomgenera of North America and the highlands ofChiapas; this permitted a preliminary mycologicalclassification of many locally-named mushroomsto scientific family or genus, and helped identifyoverlapping folk genera and regional cognates orvariants. Combining the results of the twoexercises, but excluding close synonyms and

Fig. 6. Morels drawn by Juana Patixtan Mendez, alandless Tzotzil woman who did not know how to writeher own name. She indicated that they were edible andgrew “near caves and rocks [in February].” (Note thatthis represents one of the southernmost records of morelusage known to date).


names not mentioned independently at leasttwice, resulted in consensus for 38 named mush-rooms in Tzeltal and 32 named mushrooms inTzotzil (Appendices 2 and 3). By comparison,Laughlin’s (1975) dictionary includes 34 Tzotzilgenus-level mushroom names, while Lampman(2004) presents a more exhaustive study thatincludes 51 Tzeltal folk genera.

While interviewing informants, we encoun-tered an extensive descriptive vocabulary relatingto mushroom morphology, growth, and habit(Table 2; Figs. 2–4). We counted more than 100terms that were applied to 20 or more morpho-logical features, such as the presence or absence ofa distinct cap, position of the stalk, presence orabsence of gills, volva and/or grooves or lines(striations) on the edge of the cap, characteristicsof the cap surface (stickiness, scaliness, etc.), odorand texture, and, of course, specific gradations ofcolor. As already noted, the physical and temporalfeatures of mushroom growth, including habitatand tree associates, are also frequent topics ofconversation. This descriptive vocabulary is re-markably close to the macromorphological fea-tures used in scientific descriptions ofmushrooms, and indicate the cultural importanceof wild mushrooms in the Maya highlands andtheir long history of use.

ETHNOMYCOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

According to Berlin (1992), folk classificationof animals and plants follows a predictable patternacross cultures, including the existence of ataxonomic structure composed of five hierarchicallevels, including:

(1) the “unique beginner” or kingdom rank, reservedfor a small number of highly-inclusive terms, typically“animal” and “plant”;

(2) the “life form” rank, a small number of broadclasses combining organisms that share basicbiological features; examples in folk biologicalsystems correspond to English-language concepts suchas bird, fish, insect, tree, herb, vine;

(3) the “folk genus” rank, including the vast majorityof biological taxa recognized by local peoples, oftencorresponding closely with scientific genera orfamilies, e.g., oak, pine, woodpecker, trout;

(4) the “folk species” rank, representing subdivisions offolk genera, often using binomials such as white oak,rainbow trout, etc., and sometimes but not alwayscorresponding with scientific species concepts;

(5) the “variety” rank, a further subdivision of folkspecies that is usually reserved for domesticated

plants or animals of high cultural significance, e.g.,beagle, jalapeño.

A sixth, “intermediate category” is sometimesidentified at a level between the life form and folkgenus in which are lumped folk genera that aremorphologically or behaviorally similar, an exam-ple of which, in folk English, might be “waterbirds.” For the most part, folk biological classifi-cation in Berlin’s analysis proceeds according toperceived biological affinities among organisms,and the Linnaean system of scientific nomenclaturecan be seen as a natural but formal and morerigorous refinement of folk classification. Utilitarianor cultural value (edibility, material use, mytholog-ical origin), though important aspects of peoples’interactions with the biological world, are consid-ered less important in Berlin’s view than biologicalaffinities in the recognition and naming of organ-isms in a natural setting.

Many theorists, however, disagree with Berlin(1992) and assert that utility is extremelyimportant to ethnobiological systems of classifi-cation and nomenclature. These theorists assertthat folk classification systems reflect a uniquehistory of interaction with local environments andculturally-defined beliefs, behaviors, and prefer-ences (Ellen 1979a, 1979b, 1993; Hunn 1982;see also Ellen 2008, this issue). They also note theunstable and shifting nature of folk classificationsystems, the idiosyncratic differences found be-tween informants, and the numerous “specialcases” found within systems of classification.What is interesting about these two theoreticalapproaches to understanding folk classification isthat both seem to apply to Mayan ethnomycol-ogy. In other words, the Maya appear tocategorize mushrooms into a shallow hierarchybased on perceived “natural” affiliations, bututility significantly affects the size and shape ofthe recognized mushroom domain. The followingdiscussion will elaborate.

Kingdom.There is considerable evidence thatthe Maya treat mushrooms as a separate ethno-biological kingdom from animals and plants(Lampman 2007a). Perhaps the most importantevidence that the Maya cognitively recognizemushrooms as a folk kingdom is linguistic.Highland Mayan languages are characterized bynumeral-incorporated classifiers (Berlin 1968;Allan 1977; Shepard 1997) requiring objects tobe assigned to specific perceptual categories when


counting. For example, to say “two dogs” inproper Tzeltal, the expression is cha-kojt tz’i’,literally “two animals of dog,” where cha is thenumber two, kojt is the classifier for animals, andtz’i’ is the noun for dog. This contrasts with cha-tul winik, “two people of men,” (i.e., two men),where tul is the classifier for people.Mushrooms do not seem to fit into the usual

counting categories, and the classifiers used formushrooms were found to vary from informantto informant. Some of the most commonlymentioned were:

kojt in Tzeltal, kot in Tzotzil (“animal”)wojt’ in Tzeltal, wot’ in Tzotzil (“flower”)lejch’ in Tzeltal, lech in Tzotzil (“leaf”)

To further highlight the uniqueness of mush-rooms as a category, Laughlin (1975) notes theTzotzil term chanul te’tik, “creatures of theforest,” for mushrooms, where chan is a termreferring to snakes, insects, and other generallynoxious, disgusting, or useless creatures, some-what like the colloquial English word “critter.”Berlin et al. (1974) note ti’balil balamilal, “meatof the earth,” for mushrooms in Tzeltal. Theexclusive use of the verb ti’, referring specificallyto the act of eating meat, confirms that as a foodsource, mushrooms are classified by the Maya as akind of meat. (The verb ti’ contrasts with threeother verbs referring to the specific consumptionof fruits versus tortillas and other bread-like foodsversus beans and other crunchy foods). Consid-ering these diverse lines of linguistic evidencesimultaneously, mushrooms appear to occupy arather ambiguous status, neither plant nor animalyet sharing characteristics of both: meaty andfleshy like animals, but fixed and rooted likeplants. Western taxonomists have shared a similarambivalence—it wasn’t until the second half ofthe 20th century that mushrooms were formallyseparated from plants and placed in a separatekingdom, the Fungi.The general, “kingdom level” term for mush-

rooms appears to vary considerably betweentownships and even between informants withintownships. In Oxchuc, the general term formushrooms appears to be lu’, literally “vagina.”Curiously, both Westerners and the Maya ascribesexual connotations to mushrooms: mushroom“volvas” and “veils” reflect feminine associations,while scientific names such as Phallus impudicus(L.) Fr. as well as Mayan names such as yat ka’

(“horse penis”) and yat pukuj (“demon penis”)are blatantly phallic. The association betweenmushrooms and sexual organs is due, in part, toconcrete perceptual features: suggestive shape,fleshy consistency, and often moist or slimytexture. However these sexually-laden terms alsoimply a certain emotional response: depending onthe conditions, context, and the passions of themoment, mushrooms can be slightly disgusting,highly desirable, or both.In neighboring Tenejapa, lu’ is apparently used

in a more restricted manner to refer to poisonousmushrooms or those of unknown edibility(Lampman 2004). But in Oxchuc, lu’ is clearlyused to refer to mushrooms at the kingdom level,and includes edible species. For example, whennaming the edible Amanita caesarea complex,known commonly as k’an tsu (“yellow gourd”),some Oxchuc informants noted the more com-plete name k’an tsu lu’ (see Fig. 3), which is tosay, “yellow gourd mushroom,” emphasizingmembership in the wider kingdom category oflu’, or “mushrooms.” Likewise, coral mushrooms,commonly called yisim chij (“sheep beard”), werereferred to by some informants during free-listingas yisim chij lu’, “sheep beard mushroom,” againreinforcing the inclusive, kingdom-level nature ofthe term lu’.In Aguacatenango, lu’ te’ (literally “tree vagi-

na”) is the most common kingdom-level term formushrooms. In Pantelho and Chenalho, Tzotziland Tzeltal speakers use chikin te’ (“tree-ear”) asa kingdom-level denominator for mushrooms. Asall three of these townships are located in warmer,tropical transitional areas, it is interesting tospeculate that a possibly higher proportion ofsaprotophic, wood-growing (as opposed to terres-trial) mushrooms in the environment leads speak-ers to treat “tree-ears” as the most inclusivecategory of mushrooms.However, some informants generalize lower-

order genus-rank terms to the kingdom rank. Forexample, one Oxchuc informant referred to themushroom kingdom as k’an chayetik (in theplural), and then proceeded to draw the very samek’an chay in the singular to represent a particularfolk genus (chanterelles), followed by tiny repre-sentations of eight other distinctive folk generaranging from boletes to amanitas to coral mush-rooms to “tree ears” to morels (see Fig. 2). Heclearly considered the singular form of k’an chay(which means literally “yellow fish”) to be a folk


genus referring to a specific group of mushrooms,namely, funnel-shaped, yellowish mushroomssuch as Cantharellus and Lactarius. But whenexpressed in the plural, the same term waselevated to the kingdom-level taxonomic status,intending to encompass all named mushrooms.In a similar vein, Lampman (2004) noteschejchew—a Tzeltal folk genus referring to small,yellowish gilled mushrooms growing in denseclusters on wood or under trees—as the kingdom-level name for mushrooms in Tenejapa.

The Tzotzil of Zinacantan commonly use theterms chanul banamil (“creatures of the earth”)or chanul te’etik (“creatures of the forest”) for themushroom kingdom. Some Tzotzil speakers ofChamula referred to mushrooms as chuch (“squir-rel”): chuchal te’etik, literally “squirrels of theforest”; the same usage is found in the mushroomnames tzajal chuch (“red squirrel/mushroom”)and taj chuch (“pine squirrel/mushroom”). How-ever, others in Chamula used the term chechev asthe kingdom-level name for mushrooms, cognateto chejchew as noted for Tenejapa.

Life Form. At the level of life form, thehighland Maya appear to divide mushrooms intotwo broad categories according to their form andhabit: (1) fleshy, terrestrial mushrooms; and (2)mushrooms that grow on trees or rotting woodand often have a woody texture and/or earlikeshape. The term for the latter life-form group isalmost universally chikin te’, meaning “tree-ear.”The term sul te’ (“tree bark-layer”), usuallyreserved for woody species like Trametes, was alsoused more inclusively by some informants ofOxchuc as a life-form name for all “tree-ears.”The life-form term chikin te’ appears to representa combination of both growth on wood andearlike shape, that is to say, with the stem of themushroom attached laterally to the cap ratherthan attached umbrella-like from below. Mush-rooms that are intermediate in form may betreated ambiguously. In studying the way Tzeltaland Tzotzil informants identified mushroomsfrom photographs, we found that not onlygrowth on wood but also earlike shape and theabsence of a clear, elongated, central stalkcontributed towards the categorization of mush-rooms as “tree-ears.” Sometimes when looking atphotographs of terrestrial mushrooms with off-center stalks (e.g. some Cantharellus), informantsmight ask, “That’s growing on wood, right?” and

then incorrectly identify them as “tree ears.”Likewise, when looking at close-ups of wood-growing mushrooms that have a clear, centralstalk and a convex or bell-shaped cap (e.g.,Pholiota), informants often did not initially labelthem as “tree ears,” but would sometimes changetheir minds after noticing the wood or stump inthe photograph. Thus, central stalk and convexcap are as much the focal features of terrestrialmushrooms as their growth on the earth, whilethe lateral to absent stalk and earlike cap areimportant focal features for “tree ears” besidestheir growth on wood.

The term for terrestrial mushrooms at the life-form rank is highly variable from region to regionand even from person to person. Sometimes thekingdom-level term for mushroom is repeated atthe level of life form to refer to terrestrial fleshymushrooms (or to exclude “tree ears”). Forexample, in the Tzeltal of Oxchuc, lu’ refers tothe mushrooms generally, but when contrastedwith the term chikin te’ (“tree ear”), lu’ appearsto refer more specifically to terrestrial mush-rooms. In other cases, genus-level terrestrialmushroom terms can be used in the plural,elevating them to the life-form level of terrestrialmushrooms, and in contrast to “tree ears.” Tzotzilspeakers of Chamula use yuy unambiguously forAmanita, but by placing it in the plural, yuyetik,the same term can be used to refer to terrestrialmushrooms more generally (i.e., not “tree-ears”).By the same token, chejchew and chechev (small,yellowish, tightly-clustered mushrooms undertrees; see Fig. 4) and other genus names (k’anchay—yellowish, funnel-shaped Cantharellus andLactarius; yax ak—pasture-growing Agaricus) aresometimes used in the plural (chejchewetik /chechevetik, k’an chayetik, yax aketik) to referto fleshy terrestrial mushrooms more generally.

Folk Genus. Table 3 lists some 20 of the mostsalient folk-genus names for mushrooms inTzeltal and Tzotzil. Many of the names refer toclearly-defined biological groups, for exampleAgaricus, Amanita, boletes, morels, and puffballs.Fully 17 of 21 (86%) of the most salient Tzeltalfolk genera and 17 of 19 (89%) of Tzotzil generaare composed of species belonging to a singlescientific genus or family, reinforcing Berlin’s(1992) claim for a universal cognitive basis for thegenus level of classification in folk and scientificsystems of taxonomy. Some Mayan folk genus


concepts, however, do not correspond so neatlywith scientific mycological taxonomy. For exam-ple, k’an chay (Tzeltal, literally “yellow fish”) andmana yok (Tzotzil, literally “cat’s paw”) areidentical folk genus concepts in the two languagesreferring focally to yellowish to white, funnel-shaped mushrooms that include both Canthar-ellus and Lactarius, members of two distinctivemycotaxonomic orders (Cantharellales, Russulales).The hedgehog mushroom (Hydnum repandum) isalso included at the margins of this same genusgrouping as ch’ix k’an chay in Tzeltal and chi’xmana yok in Tzotzil, literally “spiny yellow fish”and “spiny cat’s paw,” respectively; both termsmight be loosely translated as “spiny chanterelle.”While some of the Maya’s taxonomic categories

include unrelated mushrooms (e.g., Lactarius,Hydnum, and Cantharellus), in some cases theseapparently incongruous groupings actually presagerecent molecular findings. For example, Pine et al.(1999) found that Cantharellus and Hydnum (butnot Lactarius) are closely related, though kept, forthe present, in separate families. Likewise, theMaya refer to parasol mushrooms (Macrolepiota cf.procera) as “tall white Agaricus.” Western taxono-mists, on the other hand, used to segregate them indifferent families based on spore color, but nowtend to agree that their phylogeny places them in asingle family, the Agaricaceae.As noted for k’an chay and mana yok

(chanterelles and milk caps plus hedgehog mush-rooms), many names for folk genera are cognateacross the two languages: k’an tsu in Tzeltal andyuy in Tzotzil are essentially identical concepts(Amanita), as are Tzeltal bonkos/tonkos andTzotzil sek’ub tul (boletes). However, somenames and genus concepts are restricted to onelanguage or the other (see Table 3). For example,osoria is a term registered only in Tzeltal-speaking Aguacatenango, referring to an edible,bluish Cortinarius. By the same token, thestrikingly blue Lactarius indigo is recognized andlabeled with a unique name in each of two majorTzotzil dialects as sba vinajel and yaxal vinajel(literally “vault of the sky” or “blue sky”), whereasTzeltal speakers either do not recognize it, orclassify it (somewhat correctly, from a taxonomicstandpoint) as a blue variety of k’an chay(Cantharellus-Lactarius-Hydnum).Drawing from the full results of the free-listing

exercise (not presented here), 28 of 55 (46%) ofTzeltal genus names and 33 of 51 (65%) of

Tzotzil genus names refer to the overall shape ortexture of the mushrooms being named (see alsoAppendices 2 and 3). Many names create ananalogy between some salient feature of themushroom or mushroom group and some aspectof human, animal, or plant anatomy. Tzeltalexamples include k’an chay (literally “yellowfish”) for chanterelles/milk caps/hedgehog mush-rooms (perhaps they resemble fish tails?), t’ot’ lu’(“snail mushroom”) for Daldinia, tson kotz (“tur-key comb”) for morels, pom chikin (“incense-dusted ear”) for lobster mushroom, k’an tsu(“yellow gourd”) for Amanita, and sak itaj (“whitecabbage”) for oyster mushroom. Tzotzil examplesinclude sek’ub tul (“rabbit’s liver”) and sot’ot’wakash (“cow lung”) for boletes (due to theirspongy, organ-like texture), sat pukuj (“demon’seye”) for puffballs and earthstars, and mana yok(“cat’s paw”) for chanterelles/milk caps/hedgehogs.Several simple, unanalyzable expressions are also

found among the folk-genus names for mushroomsuch as chejchew, yuy, osoria, and usum (Table 3;Appendices 2 and 3). A smaller number of namesrefer to the place of growth, for example, chol-cholbe’ (“lined up along the path”) for grisettes, andk’ab taj (“pine branch”) for Trametes and similarbracket mushrooms. Ustilago maydis is a parasite ofcorn that is considered a delicacy in Mexicancuisine (huitlacoche), but bears the decidedlyignoble English name of corn smut. Its Tzotzilname is not only poetic, but encodes ecologicalinformation about its habit: stok’al ixim, “stormclouds of the corn,” due to its gray, billowy formand appearance during the humid rainy season incorn fields. However, the predominant trendtoward emphasizing shape, texture, and generalform in the naming of folk genera lends support toHunn’s (1977) observation that the recognition offolk genera is based on the “gestalt” of theorganism rather than on specific sets of features.

Folk Species. Seven (about 35%) of the mostsalient Tzeltal and Tzotzil folk genus concepts listedin Table 3 are polytypic, i.e., they includehabitually-named subgenus categories or “folkspecies,” though the latter do not necessarilycorrespond exactly with scientific species concepts.This value is significantly higher than the 20% ofpolytypic folk genera noted for Tzeltal classifica-tion of plants (Berlin et al. 1974). The over-whelming majority (80%) of Tzeltal folk generafor plants are monotypic, that is, they contain only


one habitually named folk species (although thesemay encompass several biological species, whichthey do not differentiate by name). It appears thatthe overwhelming concern for utility (i.e., edibil-ity) in Mayan mushroom classification (see below)may result in closer attention being paid toclassification of mushrooms at the subgenus levelwhen compared to plants.

As has been noted in folk biological systemsthroughout the world (Berlin 1992), Mayan folkspecies for mushrooms are named by addingdescriptive epithets to the folk-genus name. Theimportance of color for naming folk species isnotable: color terms are found in 22 of 49 (45%)habitually-named Tzeltal folk species, and 23 of53 (43%) of habitually-named Tzotzil folk species(see Table 3). By contrast, color is incorporatedinto only 4 out of 38 Tzeltal folk-genus namesand 3 out of 32 Tzotzil folk-genus names (about10% each) for mushrooms (e.g., “yellow fish,”“white cabbage,” “blue sky,” “red mushroom”;see Appendices 2 and 3).

In all Mayan folk-mushroom genera containingedible species, the prototype for the genus is ahighly salient edible species. For example, theprototypical or “type” species for the Tzeltal folkgenus k’an tsu (“yellow gourd”) is the Amanitacaesarea complex (see Guzmán and Ramírez-Guillén 2001), probably the most widely-eatenmushrooms in Mexico and certainly among themost available and prominent (Garibay-Orijel etal. 2007). The term k’an tsu may be used with orwithout a descriptive epithet to refer to thisparticular species group. In other circumstances,batz’il (“true”) or mero (Sp: “true”) may beadded to emphasize its prototypical status. Folkspecies names are created by adding descriptiveepithets, for example k’anal k’an tsu (“yellowamanita”), sakil k’an tsu (“white amanita”),tsajal k’an tsu (“red amanita”), and ijk’al k’antsu (“black/dark amanita”) (Table 3), thoughthese terms may not be applied consistently tolocally-occurring Amanita species by all inform-ants. Closely affiliated to the k’an tsu genus is agroup known as chol-chol be’ (“lined up alongthe path”), which refers focally to the Amanitavaginata group, known in European folk taxon-omy as grisettes (from French grise [“gray”] fortheir characteristic color). Some informants referto this group alternatively as ijk’al k’an tsu(“black amanita”), reflecting a close associationwith the core group of amanitas. Finally, “false”

species of amanitas are also distinguished, that isto say, species resembling their named, ediblecounterparts, but that are not (for the most part)given distinctive names and are thus consideredinedible, indeed lethally poisonous. These are notusually given descriptive epithets, but rather arelabeled with terms indicating marginal (as op-posed to focal) status in the genus, for examplewixil (“older sister”), bankilal (“older brother”),sjoy (“its friend, companion”), yan (“another”),amen (“bad”), or (as discussed below) merely bollu’ (“stupid/crazy mushroom”, i.e. poisonous).

The fly agaric, Amanita muscaria, is a specialcase, however—a highly-salient species of spec-tacular appearance that many informants men-tioned and depicted with detailed drawings in thefree-listing exercise. It is universally consideredamong the highland Maya to be poisonous; manyinformants noted that it causes a drunken-likestate of intoxication (yax yakub pajal sok pox,“It makes you drunk, like alcohol”) as well ascausing potential death (yaxlaj kotik, “It killsus”). Curiously, there appears to be no single,habitual Tzeltal name for A. muscaria. Someinformants referred to it as tsajal k’an tsu (“redamanita”), others as slu’ chawuk (“thunderboltmushroom”; see Fig. 3 notes), and still othersused descriptive terms such as chintik sjol (“withwarts/measles on the cap”) or tsajal lu’ (“redmushroom”). Tzotzil speakers are more consistentin using the term yuy chauk (“thunderboltamanita”) or yuy angel (“ghost/angel amanita”)for A. muscaria. In both languages, however,mushroom hunters may ignore altogether thecorrect genus-level classification of A. muscariaand call it simply bol lu’ (“stupid/crazy mush-room”) or vinino (Sp: “venom, poison”).

STUPID VAGINAS, CRAZY SQUIRRELS, AND MAD

TREE EARS

So far, the picture that we have painted ofhighland Maya mushroom classification is similarto that of Mayan ethnobotany (Berlin et al. 1974)and other systems of ethnobiological classificationaround the world (Berlin 1992), and also bearssome similarities to the Linnaean system ofscientific nomenclature. However, Mayan mush-room classification differs in one striking respect.At any point down the hierarchical process ofclassifying a given example of a mushroom, aMayan speaker can “give up,” as it were, on the


cognitive effort of identifying that mushroom tothe folk-genus level, and proclaim, bol lu’:“stupid/crazy vagina.” This is roughly equivalentto an English speaker saying “toadstool,” thoughEnglish speakers are likely to name and recognizefar fewer edible mushrooms.Inedible, poisonous, and unknown mushrooms

may sometimes be labeled as marginal “older sister/brother” (wixil/bankilal) members of someknown genus grouping. In the case of theamanitas, poisonous and unknown species maybe referred to with the same terms used for A.muscaria: yuy chawuk or yuy angel (“thunderbolt/ghost amanita”). But in many cases, these andother poisonous or unknown mushrooms may belumped together in a single broad category called“stupid,” “crazy,” or “useless” mushrooms.In different townships, this all-encompassing

term for poisonous or inconsequential mush-rooms is generally formed by adding the epithet“crazy,” “poison,” or “useless” to the kingdom-level term for mushroom:

Oxchuc and Tenejapa: lu’—mushroom (literally “va-gina”) ≫bol lu’ (literally “stupid/crazy vagina”)—any unknown mushroom, assumed poisonous

Chamula: chuch—mushroom (literally “squirrel”) ≫bolchuch (“stupid/crazy squirrel”) —any unknownmushroom, assumed poisonous

Zinacantan: chanul te’etik—mushroom (“creature ofthe forest”) ≫tojol chon (“ordinary mushroom,useless creature”)—any unknown mushroom, as-sumed poisonous

Pantelho: chikin te’—mushroom (“tree ear”) ≫ vovilchikin te’ (“mad/rabid tree ear”)—any unknownmushroom, assumed poisonous

Aguacatenango: lu’ te’—mushroom (literally “treevagina”) ≫also used to refer to any unknownmushroom, assumed poisonous

In some cases, the simple term vinino (Spanishloan term veneno, “venom, poison”) is used byitself to refer to poisonous mushrooms, or added asan epithet to the name of a mushroom folk genus.When describing mushroom intoxication, inform-ants sometimes acted out vivid pantomimes ofvomiting, getting “drunk” and going crazy or rabid(singing, dancing, running naked), sticking out thetongue (the tongue is said to swell and bleed), andfinally, closing the eyes to signal death. Althoughdifferent kinds of poisonous mushrooms producevery different symptoms, the Maya informantsinterviewed tended to group and mix all thesesymptoms together. Thus, a mushroom that is not

immediately recognized as an edible species isautomatically presumed to be poisonous in all thepossible ways a mushroom can be poisonous(gastrointestinal upset, psychoactive intoxication,tissue/organ damage, and death).When walking in the forest with Mayan

mushroom hunters, questions raised about mis-cellaneous, unknown species are mostly rejectedoffhand: bol lu’. End of conversation. Thoughfunctionally this kind of wastebasket category issimilar to the English concept of “toadstool,” itscognitive associations are similar to the folkbotanical term “weed,” which implies both a lifeform (herbaceous), but also a fundamentaluselessness (Hunn 1982).It is also worth noting that the “stupid

mushroom” category is dominated by small, non-descript mushrooms (see discussion about “LittleBrown Mushrooms” in Arora 1986), but alsoincludes some large and prominent species. Thussmall size (see Hunn 1982) probably contributesto the likelihood of a mushroom being dismissedas “stupid” but is not the defining factor. It is alsounclear whether small size contributes directly tothe essence of mushroom “stupidness” or whethersmall size makes a mushroom less appealing as afood source, hence lowering the likelihood that itwill be appreciated and named. Admittedly, it isdifficult to distinguish whether terms such as bollu’ (“stupid/crazy mushroom”) are indeed ethno-biological categories, or whether they representwhat Berlin (1992) would call “special purpose”categories of use, or in this case, non-use.

DiscussionThe Tzeltal and Tzotzil demonstrate detailed

morphological and ecological knowledge aboutmanyimportant mushroom groups present in their envi-ronment. Their attention to macroscopic morpho-logical details is in many ways parallel to thatprovided in scientific mycological descriptions.However, Mayan mushroom classification differssignificantly in its scope and emphasis. The highlandMaya appear to have chosen to apply their consid-erable observational powers, terminology, and no-menclature almost entirely to useful mushrooms,especially those that are edible. This focus onedibility accounts for the high proportion of usefultaxa in Mayan mushroom classification, and thehigher proportion of polytypic folk genera in Mayanethnomycology compared to Mayan ethnobotany.


Only 10% of named Tzotzil and 4% of namedTzeltal mushroom folk genera contain no edibleor otherwise useful species. This contrasts sharplywith their classification of plants and animals,where a much larger proportion of folk genera(about 40%, according to Berlin 1992) containculturally useless taxa. The ephemeral nature ofmost mushrooms, their infrequent appearance,and their bewildering diversity, especially intemperate ectomycorrhizal forests (see Luoma etal. 1997; Van de Poll 2004) may go a long waytoward explaining why the highland Maya do notmake the cognitive effort to classify and name agreater proportion of the mushrooms in theirenvironment (as they do, for example, with plants),and instead relegate most of them to the dustbincategory of “crazy” or “stupid” mushrooms. Theephemeral nature of mushrooms may also help toexplain the significant regional and interinformantvariation in mushroom nomenclature and classifi-cation: there are far fewer opportunities for individ-uals to “compare notes” on local mushrooms thanon plants, for example.

If it is true, to paraphrase Berlin (1992), thatplants and animals are classified simply “becausethey are there” (i.e., to satisfy intellectual orcognitive needs because they are present andsalient in the environment, and not predominatelydue to their cultural utility), then it might be saidthat the highland Maya do not classify mushroomsmore thoroughly “because they are not there,” thatis, they are only there briefly, and many speciesfruit only once every few years. Faced with a vastnumber of ephemeral mushroom species (291documented so far, likely numbering in thethousands for all of Chiapas—see Pérez-Morenoand Villareal 1988), indigenous populations suchas the highland Maya appear to focus theirattention on those few, salient species that theyknow to be useful and consistently available.

The large category of useless, “stupid,” or“crazy” mushrooms notwithstanding, the high-land Maya’s knowledge of edible mushrooms isimpressive, and it is puzzling that this body ofknowledge has been ignored by several genera-tions of anthropologists, ethnobiologists, andmycologists. We hope this preliminary investigationwill inspire more extensive studies. Historically, theliterature on Mexican ethnomycology has beendominated by a focus on the spectacular use of afew hallucinogenic species by a few indigenouscultures, while native knowledge about other mush-

rooms and their usage and classification has receivedfar less attention. This may say more about theinvestigators’ interests and priorities than aboutthose of the indigenous peoples of Mexico. Thepriorities of one of our Mayan informants wasapparent when he accompanied us to a Tzeltaltownship where he had never been before. Uponarriving at the modest house of our local host, hegazed for a fewmoments at the nearby cornfields andpine forest, then asked three questions of her: “Howdo you grow such fine corn?What plants do you usefor diarrhea?What kinds of mushrooms do you eat?”

AcknowledgementsWe thank Brent Berlin for first suggesting a

study of highland Mayan ethnomycology duringthe early years of Shepard’s graduate studies at theUniversity of California, and we thank bothBrent and Elois Ann Berlin for their generosityand help facilitating the research project in all itsphases. Thanks also go to Robert Laughlin for hisimportant early work on Tzotzil ethnomycology,and for his kindness in hosting us during our firstvisit to San Cristóbal. We also thank MichelleDay, Kevin Groark, and Carol Karasik for theirfine company during many a feast on mushroomsand other local delicacies.

Literature CitedAllan, K. 1977. Classifiers. Language 532:285–311.Arora, D. 1986. Mushrooms Demystified. 2nd

ed. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley.———. 1991. All That the Rain Promises, and

More...: A Hip-Pocket Guide to WesternMushrooms. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley.

Bandala, V. M., L. Montoya, and I. H. Chapela.1997. Wild Edible Mushrooms in Mexico: AChallenge and Opportunity for Sustainable De-velopment. Pages 76–92 in M. E. Palm and I. H.Chapela, eds., Mycology in Sustainable Develop-ment: Expanding Concepts, Vanishing Borders.Parkway Publishers, Boone, North Carolina.

Benjamin, D. R. 1995. Mushrooms: Poisons andPanaceas. W. H. Freeman, New York.

Berlin, B. 1968. Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers: AStudy in Ethnographic Semantics. Mouton,The Hague, Paris.

———. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification:Principles of Categorization of Plants and


Animals in Traditional Societies. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

———. 1998. Biodiversity of Highland MayaDiet. Invited paper presented at the “Biodiver-sity and Health” symposium, American Anthro-pological Association Meetings, Philadelphia,November.

——— and B. Berlin. 1996. Medical Ethno-biology of the Highland Maya of Chiapas,Mexico: The Gastrointestinal Diseases. Prince-ton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey:

——— and E. Berlin. 2003. NGOs and theProcess of Prior Informed Consent in Bio-prospecting Research: The Maya ICBG Projectin Chiapas, Mexico. International Social ScienceJournal 554:629–638.

———, D. Breedlove, and P. Raven. 1974.Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification: AnIntroduction to the Botanical Ethnography ofa Mayan-Speaking People of Highland Chiapas.Academic Press, New York.

Breedlove, D. E. 1981. Flora of Chiapas, Part 1:Introduction to the Flora of Chiapas. Califor-nia Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.

——— and R. M. Laughlin. 1993. The Flower-ing of Man: A Tzotzil Botany of Zinacantán.Smithsonian Contributions to AnthropologyNo. 35. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

DeAvila, A. and G. Guzmán. 1980. Notes on theEthnomycology ofHueyapan,Morelos, Mexico.Journal of Ethnopharmacology 2:311–321.

Ellen, R. F. 1979a. Introductory Essay. Pages 1–32 in R. F. Ellen and D. Reason, eds.,Classifications and their Social Context. Aca-demic Press, New York.

———. 1979b. Omniscience and Ignorance:Variation in Nuaulu Knowledge, Identification,and Classification of Animals. Language inSociety 8:337–364.

———. 1993. The Cultural Relations of Classifi-cation: An Analysis of Nuaulu Animal Catego-ries from Central Seram. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

———. 2008. Ethnomycology among the Nuauluof the Moluccas: Putting Berlin’s “GeneralPrinciples” of Ethnobiological Classification tothe Test. Economic Botany 62(3).

Esquivel, A. M. 1998. Ethnomycology of Tlax-cala, Mexico. McIlvainea 132:6–12.

Garibay-Orijel, R., J. Caballero, A. Estrada-Torres, and J. Cifuentes. 2007. Understanding

Cultural Significance, The Edible MushroomsCase. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethno-medicine 3(4). http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/ 3/1/4.

Gonzalez-Elizondo, M. 1991. Ethnobotany ofSouthern Tepehuan of Durango, Mexico: I.Edible Mushrooms. Journal of Ethnobiology112:165–173.

Guzmán, G. and F. Ramírez-Guillén. 2001. TheAmanita caesarea Complex. Bibliotheca Myco-logica 187:1–66.

———, J. W. Allen, and J. Gartz. 2000. TheNeurotropic Mushrooms: A Worldwide Dis-tribution, Analysis and Discussion. Annali deiMusei Civici di Rovereto 141998:189–280.

Hayden, C. 2003. When Nature Goes Public:The Making and Unmaking of BioprospectinginMexico. Princeton University Press, Princeton,New Jersey.

Hunn, E. S. 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: TheClassification of Discontinuities in Nature.Academic Press, New York.

———. 1982. The Utilitarian Factor in FolkBiological Classification. American Anthropol-ogist 844:830–847.

———, D. Acuca Vasquez, and H. L. Avendano.2000. Where Do Fungi Fit? The FungalDomain in Mixtepec Zapotec. Presented tothe Society of Ethnobiology Annual Meetings,Ann Arbor, Michigan, March 31.

INEGI. 2000. Anuário Estadístico: Chiapas.Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía eInformática, Mexico.

Kohler, U. 1980. Patterns of Interethnic EconomicExchange in Southeastern Mexico. Journal ofAnthropological Research 363:316–337.

———. 2000. The Maya of Chiapas since 1965.Pages 179–206 in J. D. Monaghan, ed., Supple-ment to the Handbook of Middle AmericanIndians, Vol. 6. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Laferriere, J. E. 1991. Short Communication:Mountain Pima Ethnomycology. Journal ofEthnobiology 111:159–160.

Lampman, A. M. 2004. Tzeltal Ethnomycology:Naming, Classification and Use of Mush-rooms in the Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico.Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropol-ogy, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

———. (2007a). General Principles of Ethno-mycological Classification among the TzeltalMaya of Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Ethno-biology 27(1):11–27.


http://www.ethnobiomed.com/ content/ 3/1/4/

http://www.ethnobiomed.com/ content/ 3/1/4/

———. (2007b). Ethnomycology: Medicinaland Edible Mushrooms of the Tzeltal Mayaof Chiapas, México. International Journal ofMedicinal Mushrooms 9(1):1–5.

Laughlin, R. M. 1975. The Great Tzotzil Dictio-nary of San Lorenzo Zinacantán. SmithsonianContributions to Anthropology, No. 19. Smith-sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Loh, J. and D. Harmon. 2005. A Global Index ofBiocultural Diversity. Ecological Indicators53:231–241.

Luoma, D. L., J. L. Eberhart, and M. P.Amaranthus. 1997. Biodiversity of Ectomy-corrhizal Types from Southwest Oregon.Pages 249–253 in T. N. Kaye, A. Liston, R.M. Love, D. L. Luoma, R. J. Meinke, and M.V. Wilson, eds., Conservation and Manage-ment of Native Plants and Fungi. Native PlantSociety of Oregon, Corvallis.

Mapes, C., G. Guzmán, and J. Caballero. 1981a.Elements of the Purepecha Mycological Clas-sification. Journal of Ethnobiology 12:231–237.

———, ———, ———. 1981b. Ethnomicolo-gía Purepecha: El conocimiento y uso de loshongos en la huenca de Pátzcuaro, Michoacán.SEP/UNAM, México D.F.

Martinez-Alfaro, M. N., E. Pérez-Silva, and E.Aguirre-Acosta. 1983. Etnomicología y explor-aciones micológicas en la Sierra Norte dePuebla. Boletin Informativo Sociedad Mexicanade Micología 18:51–63.

Miller, O. K. and H. H. Miller. 2006. NorthAmerican Mushrooms. The Globe PequotPress, Guilford, Connecticut.

Mittermeier, R. A., P. Robles Gil, and C. G.Mittermeier. 1997. Megadiversity: Earth’sBiologically Wealthiest Nations. CEMEX, S.A.,Mexico City.

Mizuno, T., G. Wang, J. Zhang, H. Kawagishi,T. Nishitoba, and J. Li. 1995. Reishi, Gano-derma lucidum and Ganoderma tsugae: Bioac-tive Substances and Medicinal Effects. FoodReviews International Special Issue “TheVersatile Mushroom: Food and MedicinalProperties” 11:151–165.

Montoya, A., N. Hernandez, C. Mapes, A. Kongand A. Estrada-Torres. 2008. The Collectionand Sale of Wild Mushrooms in a Communityof Tlaxcala, Mexico. Economic Botany 62(3).

Nigh, R. 2002. Maya Medicine in the BiologicalGaze. Current Anthropology 43:451–477.

Pérez-Moreno, J. and L. Villareal. 1988. Loshongos y myxomycetes del estado de Chiapas,Mexico: Estado actual de conocimiento ynuevos registros. Micología Neotropical Apli-cada 1:97–133.

———, M.Martínez-Reyes, A. Yescas-Pérez, A. D.Alvarado, and B. Xoconostle- Cázares. 2008. ABrief Look at the Wild Mushrooms andMushroom Sellers of the Ozumba Market inMexico. Economic Botany 62(3).

Pine, E., D. S. Hibbett, and M. J. Donoghue.1999. Phylogenetic Relationships of Canthar-elloid and Clavarioid HomobasidiomycetesBased on Mitochondrial and Nuclear rDNASequences. Mycologia 916:944–963.

Robles Porras, L., M. Ishiki Ishihara, and R.Valenzuela. 2006. Inventario preliminar de losmacromicetos en los Altos de Chiapas, México.Polibotánica 21:89–101.

Ruán-Soto, F., R. Garibay-Orijel, and J.Cifuentes. 2006. Process and Dynamics ofTraditional Selling Wild Edible Mushrooms inTropical Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology andEthnomedicine 2:3.

Rzedowski, J. 1993. Diversity and Origins ofPhanerogamic Flora of Mexico. Pages 129–148 in T. P. Ramamoorthy, A. Bye, A. Lot,and J. Fa, eds., Biological Diversity of Mexico:Origins and Distribution. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Saar, M. 1991. Mushrooms in Khanty FolkMedicine. Journal of Ethnopharmacology.31:175–179.

Shepard, G. H., Jr. 1993. The Grace of theFlood: Mushrooms and Mayan Culture inChiapas. Ethnographic film (20 min.) with D.Arora. Ethnographic Film Program, Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of Califor-nia, Berkeley.

———. 1997. Noun Classification and Ethno-zoological Classification in Machiguenga, anArawakan Language of the Peruvian Amazon.The Journal of Amazonian Languages 1:29–57.

———. and D. Arora. 1992. The Grace of theFlood: Naming and Use of Mushroomsamong the Highland Maya of Chiapas. Paperpresented at the III International Society ofEthnobiologyMeetings, Mexico City, November.

———. and Anderson, T. 1995. Zapatistas:Voices from the Edge of Revolution. Ethno-graphic film (50 min.). “Best Student Film,”American Anthropological Association Film


Festival, November, 1995, with EthnographicFilm Program, Department of Anthropology,University of California, Berkeley.

Tulloss, R. 2008. Notes on Amanita SectionCaesareae, Torrendia and Amarrendia (Agar-icales, Amanitaceae) with Provisional Divisioninto Stirpes and World Key to Species of theSection. http://pluto.njcc.com/~ret/amanita/key.dir/hemibkey.pdf.

Van de Poll, R. V. 2004. Vegetation Analysis ofthe Horatio Colony Preserve. Report submittedto Colony Memorial Trust, Keene, New Hamp-shire. www.anei.org/download/94_vegexecsummary.pdf.

Wasson, R. G. 1957. Seeking the Magic Mush-room: A New York Banker Goes to Mexico’sMountains to Participate in the Age-Old Ritualsof Indians Who Chew Strange Growths ThatProduce Visions. Life 4219:100.

———. 1961. The Hallucinogenic Mushroomsof Mexico: An Inquiry into the Origins of theReligious Idea among Primitive Peoples. Bo-tanical Museum Leaflets, Harvard University19:137–162.

———. 1962. The Hallucinogenic Mushroomsof Mexico and Psilocybin: A Bibliography.Botanical Museum Leaflets, Harvard University202:25–73.

During this investigation, we encountered alarge, striking edible amanita that is commonlygathered, sold, and consumed in and aroundSan Cristóbal de las Casas, but is apparentlyundescribed. The name applied to this speciesin one Tzotzil Maya dialect is hayal yuy (orjayal yuy, depending on the phonetic alphabetused), meaning “thin amanita,” where hayal/jayal is the adjective “thin” and yuy is theTzotzil folk genus name for Amanita in generaland the A. caesarea complex in particular. Notethat there are several slightly different phoneticalphabets used to write the highland Mayanlanguages and dialects. Some (see Laughlin1975) have represented the aspirate consonantwith an “h” as in English, while more recent

and now standardized alphabets (see Berlin1992; Breedlove and Laughlin 1993) use theSpanish “j” (as in “Juan,” “José”). In order tofacilitate correct pronunciation for non-Spanishspeakers, the former orthography is used toname the new species. The Tzotzil name,meaning “thin amanita,” is especially appropri-ate because this species and many of its closerelatives in stirps Hemibapha are slimmer andthinner-fleshed than those of stirps Caesarea(see below).

AMANITA HAYALYUY SP. NOV. D. ARORA &SHEPARD

Pileus convexus vel planus, saepe umbonatus, typiceglandaceus centro fusciore et margine magis luteo etsulcato-striato. Contextus tenuis. Lamellae albae velcremeae. Stipes typice longus, gracilis, aequalis, pallideluteolus, sub zonis fuscioribus, fibrillosisquamatis,typice annulo supero et volva ampla, alba, basali,saccata. Sporae ellipsoideae, inamyloideae, (8.6-)9.3–11.7 (-14) × 6.2–7.8 (-9.3) µm; Q=1.42(1.29–1.69, n=30, a typo mensa). In terra propequercibus, Chiapas, Mexico. Typus hic designatus:UC 1860232 (San Cristóbal de las Casas,Chiapas).Pileus (cap) 8–18 (25) cm, convex becoming

broadly convex to plane or with slightly uplifted,often splitting margin, the center usually with alow, broad umbo at maturity (Fig. 7); colortypically golden-brown or bright yellow-brown asseen from a distance but actually darker brown(or at times olive or reddish) on the disc, muchbrighter in the mid-portion and paler still(yellow) at the margin. Surface slightly viscid ortacky when moist, typically bald, but occasionallywith a thin patch of white universal veil tissueover the center, radially sulcate-striate from themargin inward, the striations typically 1–3 cmlong; margin nonappendiculate. Context whitishto pale yellow, very thin at the margin, notstaining appreciably when cut; odor mild, notdistinctive. Lamellae (gills) off-white to cream-colored or pale yellow (not bright yellow), close,adnexed or free to narrowly adnate, with shortertruncate gills interspersed. Stipe typically long andrelatively slender, 15–30 cm long when mature,and generally about 1–1.5 (2) cm thick, more orless equal or tapered slightly at the top; surfaceyellowish or cream-colored when fresh, butfrequently decorated beneath the annulus with a

Appendix 1

A NEW, CULTURALLY SALIENT SPECIESOF AMANITA


http://pluto.njcc.com/~ret/amanita/key.dir/hemibkey.pdf

http://pluto.njcc.com/~ret/amanita/key.dir/hemibkey.pdf

http://www.anei.org/download/94_vegexecsummary.pdf

http://www.anei.org/download/94_vegexecsummary.pdf

darker orangish-brown to slightly reddish feltyfibrillose layer (remnants of the inner layer of theuniversal veil) that frequently breaks up to formscaly, zigzagging zones (Fig. 8) around the stalk,these zones often discoloring with age or handling,and becoming duller and browner. Interior of stalkwhitish to pale yellowish or cream-colored andhollow throughout or stuffed with a cottony whitematerial. Partial veil typically forming a thin,superior, skirtlike yellowish annulus on the stalkthat is striate on the upper surface and easilyobliterated by handling. Universal veil white,forming an ample, sheathing, membranous, lobedsaccate volva attached to the very base of the stalk;volva typically 2–5 cm high, often with a smalllimb (“limbus internus”) within it at the base of thestalk, but this feature not always well-developed.

Spores white in mass; individual spores hyalineunder the microscope, ellipsoid, apiculate,smooth, inamyloid, (8.6) 9.3–11.7 (14) × 6.2–7.8 (9.3) µm; Q=1.42 (1.29–1.69), n=30, asmeasured from the type. Pileipellis a trichoder-mium with some gelatinization at the surface.

Basidia clavate, mostly 4-sterigmate, the baseswith clamp connections. Subhymenium a thin (1–2 cell thick) layer of inflated cells. Gill tramabilateral. Tissue of the volva composed mainly ofmoderately branched, interwoven filamentoushyphae, but universal veil remnants on the surfaceof the stalk with large, swollen cells.

Collections Examined: UC 1860232 (holotype),bought in July in the main market of SanCristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, by Brent Berlin,but originating in the nearby village of Chamula;UC 1860233.

Habitat and Seasonality: Solitary or in smallgroups, on ground near or under oaks (Quercusspp.) at elevations of 2,000 m. and higher;common in the mountains surrounding SanCristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico, andespecially prominent in oak forests in the vicinityof the small towns of Chamula and Teopisca. Ittypically fruits from June to September but ismost common in late June and July.

Fig. 7. Amanita hayalyuy, type collection showingthe pale gills and broad umbo at the center of the cap.(Photo: Brent Berlin, all rights reserved).

Fig. 8. Amanita hayalyuy in oak woodlands near thetown of Teopisca. Note the tall stature when matureand the zigzag pattern of scales on the stalk. (Photo:David Arora, all rights reserved).


Comments: Amanita hayalyuy is one of the mostsalient edible mushrooms among the TzotzilMaya of the Chiapas highlands. Within the largegenus Amanita, this species clearly belongs tostirps Hemibapha of Section Caesareae as perTulloss (2008). A. hayalyuy is close to A.arkansana Rosen. of the southeastern UnitedStates, but differs in its larger, ellipsoid (ratherthan broadly ellipsoid) spores and more promi-nently umbonate pileus (Fig. 7). The cap colorvaries somewhat but is usually yellow-brown,being yellowest at the prominently sulcate-striatemargin and often darker (more olive or reddish)toward the center. It is easily distinguished frommembers of the A. caesarea complex (see Guzmánand Ramírez-Guillén 2001) by its yellow-brownrather than red-orange cap color, and its pale(never bright yellow) gills. Typically it is alsotaller, slimmer, and thinner-fleshed than speciesin the A. caesarea complex (referred to by theTzotzil as “thick yuy,” “true yuy,” “yellow yuy,”or merely, yuy).As there is considerable dialect variation for

mushroom names, especially at the folk-species

level, we expect that color distinctions (forexample “red” vs. “yellow”) may also be usedvariably by other Tzotzil speakers to distinguishbetween A. caesarea, A. hayalyuy, and other edibleamanitas. However, hayal yuy was the only localname we encountered that referred unambigu-ously to this species. We did not encounter thisspecies while in the field with Tzeltal Mayanspeakers, and thus did not register a properTzeltal folk-species name for it, but one or morenames may certainly be in use. Since A. hayalyuyis a prominent commercial species in markets androadside stands throughout the highlands ofChiapas (but especially in San Cristóbal andComitán), it would be not be surprising to findit appreciated in the neighboring highland areasof Guatemala, at least where there are oaks. Thetaste of the cooked mushroom is much strongerthan that of yuy, reminiscent of asparagus or fish.It is often roasted directly over the coals by theTzotzil, the long stalk being used as a handle tomanipulate it. It is also used in posole or soups,spiced with chili peppers and epazote (Chenopo-dium ambrosoides L.).


APPENDIX

2.TZELT

AL

MUSH

ROOM

NAMES.

Criteria

Nam

eGloss

Tow

nListFrequency

PhotoConsensus

Use

Notes

Form

/texture

chik

pomillu’/p

omchikin

lu’;chikin

toro

incenseearmushroom

(Ox);bu

llear(Ag)

Ox,

Ag

4Sarcoscypha

coccinea

(4)

edible

Con

firm

edas

Hypom

yces

lactifluorum

(see

Table3);

someinform

antsapplied

term

totheredcupfungus,

Sarcoscypha,

butin

photos

only

jolkotz/tsonkotz

turkey

head/turkeycomb

Ox,

Tn*

3Morchella

spp.

(10)

edible

Morels;seeTable3

k’ochikin

lu’/p

ok’o

chikin

snailearmushroom

Ag,

Ox,

Tn*

4Auricularia

auricula

(10)

edible

Ear

mushroom;seeTable3

sitchijlu’

eyeof

deer/sheep

mushroom

Ox

1Noconsensus

(3mentio

ns)

edible

Probably

apu

ffball

t’ot’lu’

snailmushroom

Ox,

Tn*

2Noconsensus

(3mentio

ns)

edible

Con

firm

edas

Daldiniacf.

concentrica(see

Table3)

ts’ijts’im

lu’

hairymushroom

Ox,

Tn*

2Hericium

(3),

Ramaria

(3),

Sparassis

(3)

someedible

Coralmushroom;seeTable3

yatka’

horsepenis

Po1

Noconsensus

(2mentio

nsforStropharia)

notedible

Dun

g-grow

ingspecies;see

Table3

yisim

chij

beardof

deer/sheep

Ag,

Ox

3Sparassis

(7),

Ramaria

(6),

edible

Coralmushrooms;seeTable3

yokwakash

lu’/yakan

wakax

lu’

cowfoot/legmushroom

Ox,

Tn*

2Noconsensus

(2mentio

ns)

edible

Dun

g-grow

ing,

possibly

Coprinus,basedon

draw

ings

show

ingthin

stem

andfragile,elongated

bell-shaped

cap

Color

(+form

)ch’ix

k’an

chay

spinyyellowfish

Ag

0Hydnum

repandum

(5)

edible

Hedgehogmushroom;see

Table3

k’an

chay

yellowfish

Ag,

Ox,

Po,Tn*

6Cantharellus(15),

Lactarius(4)

edible

Chanterellesandmilk

caps

(plushedgehog

mushrooms);seeTable3

k’an

tsu

yellowgourd

Ag,

Ox,

Po,Tn*

6Amanita

(46)

someedible

Amanita,especially

A.caesarea

complex;seeTable3


APPENDIX

2.(C

ONTIN

UED).

Criteria

Nam

eGloss

Tow

nListFrequency

PhotoConsensus

Use

Notes

sakitaj

white

cabb

age

Ag,

Ox,

Po,Tn*

4Pleurotus

ostreatus(7)

edible

Oystermushroom;seeTable3

tsajal

lu’/tsajal

chikin

te’

redmushroom/

redtree

ear

Ag,

Ox,

Tn*

3Amanita

(7),

Russu

la(6),

Hygrocybe

(4)

notedible/

poisonous

Misc.redspecies,especially

A.muscaria;

seeTable3

Habit(+

form

)ba

lumila

llu’

earthmushroom

Ox,

Tn*

2Noconsensus

(4mentio

ns)

someedible

Not

identifi

ed,mushrooms

grow

inglowto

theground

,oftenin

gardens

chikin

te’

tree

ear

Ox,

Po,Tn*

1Noconsensus

(28mentio

ns)

notedible

InOxchu

c,generalterm

for

wood-grow

ingmushrooms;

inPantelho,generalterm

forun

know

n/poisonous

mushrooms

cholchol

be’

lined

upalongthepath

Ag

2Amanita

(10)

someedible

Grisettes;seeTable3

k’ab

tajlu’

pine

branch

mushroom

Ox

1Noconsensus

(1mentio

nforTrametes)

notedible

Not

identifi

ed,possibly

Trametes

najk’ullu

hidd

enmushroom

Ox

1Noconsensus

(1mentio

nfor

Tricholom

a)

edible

Not

identifi

ed

lu’te’

tree/forestmushroom

Ag

2Noconsensus

(38mentio

ns)

notedible

orpoisonous

InAguacatenango,general

term

forun

know

n/poisonousmushrooms

slu’ilixim

;tsotsojillu’

ixim

/slu’

kaweyoixim

corn

mushroom;

corn-hairmushroom

Ox,

Tn*

4Ustilago

maydis(11)

edible

Huitlacoche;seeTable3

tajxux/tajchuch

(pine+squirrel?)

Ox,

Tn*

1no

consensus

(18mentio

ns)

someedible

Growson

wood;

probably

Neolentinus

lepideus;

seeTable3

sulte’

tree

bark

Ox,

Tn*

1no

consensus

(5mentio

ns)

someedible

Hard,

wood-grow

ing

mushrooms(e.g.,

Ganoderma,

Schizophyllum)

yaxak/yax

akila

nlu’

greengrass/green

grassmushroom

Ag,

Ox

3Agaricus(23)

edible

Pasture-grow

ingAgaricusspp.;

seeTable3


APPENDIX

2.(C

ONTIN

UED).

Criteria

Nam

eGloss

Tow

nListFrequency

PhotoConsensus

Use

Notes

Non-analyzable

bonk

oslu’/b

ankaslu’

NA+mushroom

Ox,

Tn*

3Boletus(13),

Leccinum

(6),

Suillus

(3)

someedible

Boletes;seeTable3

chejchew

/jechew

NA

Ag,

Ox,

Po,Tn*

5Lyophyllum

(10),

Cantharellus(9),

Arm

illaria

(3),

Hypholoma(3)

someedible

Arm

illaria

andothers;see

Table3

osoria

NA(Sp.

loan?)

Ag

2Lactariusindigo

(6),

Clitocybe(3),

Tricholom

a(3)

edible

Con

firm

edas

bluish

Cortin

arius,Aguacatenango

only;seeTable3

tex-texlu’

NA(texture?)+

mushroom

Ox

1Noconsensus

(1mentio

nfor

Ganoderma)

notedible

Shelfmushroom

tonk

oslu’/t’onk

oslu’/t’on-t’o

nlu’

NA+mushroom

Ox,

Tn*

3Boletus-L

eccinum-

Suillus

(6),

Agaricus(5)

someedible

Probably

asegregateof

bonk

os(boletes);seeTable3

usum

NA

Po1

Noconsensus(5)

someedible

Wood-grow

ingmushroom,

notidentifi

edUtility

bollu’

stup

id/crazy

mushroom

Ox,

Tn*

2Noconsensus

(11mentio

ns)

poison

InOxchu

c,generalterm

forun

know

n/poisonous

mushrooms

but’ba

k’et

flesh-healer

Ag

0Astraeus

(3),

Geastrum

(3),

Bovista

(2)

medicinal

Earthstars;seeTable3

poxiltsisna

tik/

p’un

k’us

fartmedicine/

onom

atopoeia:

fartsoun

d

Ag,

Po2

Bovista

(11),

Calvatia

(5)

edible,

medicinal

Puffball,

edibleonly

before

spores

mature;remedyfor

flatulence:pu

ffspores

onto

anus

(!)wus-wus

lu’

onom

atopoeia:

spore-pu

ffing

soun

d+mushroom

Ox,

Tn*

3Bovista

(4),

Geastrum

(3)

medicinal

(edible)

Puffballs;spores

appliedto

warts;someconsider

youn

gpu

ffballs

edible

Spanish

loan

word

konk

ito

little

mushroom

(Sp:

honguito)

Po1

Noconsensus

(3mentio

ns)

someedible

Smallwhite

toyellow

mushrooms


APPENDIX

2.(C

ONTIN

UED).

Criteria

Nam

eGloss

Tow

nListFrequency

PhotoConsensus

Use

Notes

panlu’,pa

nzalu’

breadmushroom

(Sp:

pan)

Ox

1Boletus(5)

edible

Boletes

(incl.Leccinum

)with

firm

,drylight-brown

caplikeabreadroll;

seeTable3

parawo

umbrella

(Sp:

paragua)

Ag

0Macrolepiota

procera(4)

edible

Parasolmushroom

inpastures;seeTable3

Presentedhere

are38

Tzeltalm

ushroom

names

mentio

nedtwiceor

morein

free-listingor

photograph

icidentifi

catio

nexercise,criteriaused

innomenclature,Englishgloss(N

A:

non-analyzableterm

s:Sp:Spanishloan

words),use,frequencyin

free-listing(n=8inform

ants),andinform

antconsensusin

ascribingnames

tomushroom

photograph

s.“Photo

Consensus”columnbasedon

587identifi

catio

neventsby

14Tzeltal-speakinginform

ants(see

App

endix4).O

nlyTzeltaln

amesascribed

threetim

esor

moreto

agivenspeciesor

speciesgroupareinclud

ed.Tow

nshipabbreviatio

ns:Ox(O

xchu

c),Ag(Aguacatenango),Po

(Pantelho).Nam

esalso

notedin

Lampm

an(200

4)forTenejapaareindicatedwith

Tn*.

APPENDIX

3.TZOTZIL

MUSH

ROOM

NAMES.

Criteria

Nam

eGloss

Tow

n.ListFrequency

PhotoConsensus

Use

Notes

Form

/texture

bililux

slipp

erytop

Ch,

Zn*

2(N

omentio

ns)

edible

From

inform

antdescriptions

and

sketches,probably

Agaricus

jolkotz

turkey

head

Co,

Po1

Morchella

(4)

edible

Morel;seeTable3

lolo

pik’

loose,open

vagina

Ch,

Po0

Auricularia

(2)

edible

Ear

mushroom;seeTable3

man

ayok/

man

uyok

catpaw

Ch,

Po,

Zn,

Zn*

4Cantharellus(7)

edible

Chanterellesandmilk

caps

(plus

hedgehog

mushrooms);seeTable3

ch’ix

man

ayok

spinycatpaw

Ch,

Zn,

Zn*

0Hydnum

repandum

(2)

edible

Hedgehogmushroom;seeTable3

mochilum

knotted,

curled

Ch

1Morchella

(2)

edible

Morel,synonym

forjolkotz;

seeTable3

satpu

kuj

demon

eye

Ch,

Po,Zn*

3Bovista

(4),

Geastrum

(2)

edible

Puffballs,earthstars;ediblewhen

immature;seeTable3

seku

bt’u

lrabb

itliver

Ch,

Co,

Po,

Zn,

Zn*

6Boletus(16),

Suillus

(8)

someedible

Boletes;seeTable3


APPENDIX

3.(C

ONTIN

UED).

Criteria

Nam

eGloss

Tow

n.ListFrequency

PhotoConsensus

Use

Notes

seku

bwakax/

sot’o

t’wakash

cow’sliver/

cow’slung

Ch,

Zn*

2(N

omentio

ns)

someedible

Larger

boletes;seeTable3

yatka’

horsepenis

Ch,

Po,Zn*

4Noconsensus

(5mentio

ns)

notedible

Dun

g-grow

ingmushrooms;

seeTable3

yatpu

kuj

demon

penis

Ch,

Po2

Bovista

(3)

notedible

Possibly

refersto

Phallus

impudicus(L.)Fr.

yisim

chij/jo

lchij

beard/head

ofdeer/sheep

Ch,

Zn,

Zn*

5Ra

maria

(5),

Sparassis

(5)

edible

Coralmushrooms;seeTable3

yo’onton

tuluk/

yo’ontuluk

turkey

heart

Ch,

Zn,

Zn*

3Noconsensus

(4mentio

ns)

someedible

Smallerboletes(Suillus)

yok’

sup/yok’

wakax/yok’

tz’i’i

cattongue/cow

tongue/dog

tongue

Ch

4(N

omentio

ns)

edible

Drawings

show

smallteeth;

probably

Hydnum

repandum

Color

(+form

)chakat’ob

redprotrusion

Ch,

Zn,

Zn*

3Noconsensus

(1mentio

nfor

Sarcoscypha

coccinea)

edible

Con

firm

edas

Hypom

yceslactifluorum;

seeTable3

sakitaj/sakil

chikin

te’

white

cabb

age/

white

tree

ear

Ch,

Po,

Zn,

Zn*

4Pleurotus

ostreatus(3)

edible

oyster

mushroom;seeTable3

yaxalvina

jel/

sbavina

jel

blue

sky/vault

ofthesky

Ch,

Zn,

Zn*

2Noconsensus

(1mentio

nfor

Lactariusindigo)

edible

Lactariusindigo;seeTable3

Habit(+

form

)chikin

te’

tree

ear

Ch,

Po4

Ganoderma(3),

Trametes(3)

notedible

InChamula,generalterm

forwoody,

wood-grow

ingmushrooms;in

Pantelho,generalwordfor

unknow


chol-cholbe’

lined

upalong

thepath

Ch,

Zn*

2Amanita

(2)

someedible

Grisettes;seeTable3

k’ab

ixtoj

pine

branch

Ch,

Zn,

Zn*

3Cantharellus(2)

someedible

Not

identifi

ed,possibly

includ

esLaccaria

stok’alixim

,stok’al

ajan

/sjo’ja

lajan

/chu

’ixim

corn

clouds/corn

hair/corngrow

thCh,

Co,

Po,Zn

0Ustilago

maydis(6)

edible

Huitlacoche;seeTable3


APPENDIX

3.(C

ONTIN

UED).

Criteria

Nam

eGloss

Tow

n.ListFrequency

PhotoConsensus

Use

Notes

tajchu

chpine

squirrel

Ch,

Po,

Zn,

Zn*

2Noconsensus

(2mentio

ns)

edible

Growson

wood;

Laughlin

(197

5)listsas

Lentinus;confi

rmed

asNeolentinus

lepideus

Non-analyzable

chechev

NA

Ch,

Po,

Zn,

Zn*

5Lyophyllum

(6),

Arm

illaria

(5),

Hypholoma(3)

someedible

Arm

illaria

andothers;seeTable3

moni’

NA

Ch,

Zn,

Zn*

4Agaricus(12)

someedible

Grass-growingAgaricus;seeTable3

usum

/kusum

NA

Ch,

Zn,

Zn*

2Noconsensus(3

mentio

nsfor

Auricularia,

Pleurotus)

edible

Not

identifi

ed:edible,wood-grow

ing

mushroom

yuy

NA

Ch,

Co,

Po,

Zn,

Zn*

5Amanita

(26)

someedible

Amanita,especially

A.caesarea

complex;seeTable3

Utility

bolchikin

te’

stup

id/crazy

tree

ear

Co

0Stropharia-Psilocybe

(3),(also

2mentio

nsfor

Amanita)

poisonous

InChenalho,

generalterm

for

unknow


(cognate

with

Tzeltalbollu’)

jovilchikin

te’

crazytree

ear

Po0

Noconsensus

(7mentio

ns)

poisonous

InPantelho,generalterm

for

unknow


(cognate

with

Tzeltalbollu’)

yuychau

k/yuy

angel

thun

derboltyuy/

ghostyuy

Ch,

Zn*

2A.muscaria(3)

poisonous

Flyagaric;seeTable3

Spanish

loan

word

honk

iyo

little

mushroom

(Sp:

honguito)

Co,

Po0

Noconsensus

(4mentio

ns)

someedible

Miscellaneoussm

allmushrooms

pancito,

simita

breadroll(Sp:

pancito,semita)

Ch

2Boletus-

Leccinum

(5)

someedible

Boletes

(incl.Leccinum

)with

firm

,dry,

light-browncaplikea

breadroll

vinino

poison (Sp:

veneno)

Ch,

Po0

Noconsensus

(11mentio

ns)

poisonous

Generalterm

forpoisonous

mushrooms

Presentedhere

are32

Tzotzilmushroom

names

mentio

nedtwiceor

morebetweenfree-listingandph

otograph

icidentifi

catio

nexercise,E

nglishgloss(N

A:n

on-analyzableterm

s:Sp:S

panish

loan

words),use,frequencyin

free

list(n=6inform

ants),andinform

antconsensusin

ascribingnames

tomushroom

photograph

s.“Photo

Frequency”

columnbased

on25

7identifi

catio

nevents

by7Tzotzil-speaking

inform

ants

(see

App

endix4);only

names

ascribed

threetim

esor

moreto

agivenspeciesor

speciesgroupareinclud

ed.

Tow

nshipabbreviatio

ns:Ch(Chamula),Co(Chenalho),Po

(Pantelho),Zn(Zinacantan).Nam

esalso

notedin

Laughlin

(197

5)forZinacantanareindicatedwith

Zn*.


APPENDIX

4.M

USH

ROOMSID

ENTIFIED

FROM

PHOTOGRAPH

SIN

ARORA(1991).

Page

Family

SpeciesPictured

ClosestSpeciesIdentifi

edin

Field

TzeltalNam

es(n=14

inform

ants)

TzotzilNam

es(n=7inform

ants)

228

Morchellaceae

Morchella

elata,

M.angusticeps

Morchella

spp.

jolkotz

(5)

mochilum

(2)jolkotz

(1)

232

Morchellaceae

Morchella

esculenta

Morchella

sp.

jolkotz

(5)

mochilum

(2)jolkotz

(2)

240

Sarcoscyph

aceae

Sarcoscyphacoccinea

–tsajal

lu’/tsajalchikin

te’(4)chikin

toro

(3)

tzajal

chikin

te’(2)

223

Astraeaceae

Astraeus

hygrom

etricus

Astraeus

hygrom

etricus

(Pers.)Morgan

but’ba

k’et

(3)

satpu

kuj/yat

puku

j(2)

215

Geastraceae

Gaestrum

saccatum

Gaestrum

sp.

wus

wus

lu’(3)bu

t’ba

k’et

(3)

satpu

kuj(2)

218

Lycoperdaceae

Calvatia

booniana

Calvatia

sp.

p’un

k’us

(5)

NC

215–

216

Lycoperdaceae

Bovista

plum

bea

Bovista

sp.

p’un

k’us

(10)

wus

wus

lu(4)

satpu

kuj(4)yatpu

kuj(4)

107

Agaricaceae

Agaricusaugustu

sAgaricussp.

NC

NC

121

Agaricaceae

Agaricusbitorquis

Agaricussp.

yaxak

(7)

moni’(2)

102

Agaricaceae

Agaricusosecanus

Agaricussp.

yaxak

(6)

moni’(3)

101

Agaricaceae

Agaricussilvicola

Agaricussp.

yaxak

(5)

moni’(3)

110

Agaricaceae

Agaricusxanthoderm

usAgaricussp.

yaxak

(4)

moni’(3)

92Agaricaceae

Chlorophyllum

molybdites

–yaxak

(3)chejchew

(2)

yuy(2)yatka’(2)

96Agaricaceae

Lepiotaprocera

Macrolepiotacf.procera

(Scop.)Singer

parawo(3)yaxak

(2)

moni’(2)

67Pluteaceae/Amanitaceae

Amanita

caesarea

Amanita

caesarea

sensu

auct.mex.(A.basii

Guzmán

&Ram

irez-

Guillen,

A.yema

Guzmán

&Ram

irez-

Guillen,

etc.)

k’an

tsu(6)

yuy(4)


Amanita

calyptroderm

aAmanita

sp.

k’an

tsu(9)cholchol

be’(2)

yuy(4)


Amanita

muscaria

Amanita

muscaria

(L.)Lam.

tsajal

lu’/tsajal

chikin

te’(4)k’an

tsu

chintik/woroxik’(3)

(“warty

Amanita”)

slu’

chaw

uk(1)

(“thun

derbolt

mushroom”)

yuychau

k/yuyan

gel(3)

(“thun

derbolt/ghostAmanita”)


APPENDIX

4.(C

ONTIN

UED).

Page

Family

SpeciesPictured


edin

Field

TzeltalNam

es(n=14

inform

ants)

TzotzilNam

es(n=7inform

ants)


Amanita

ocreata

Amanita

sp.

k’an

tsu(4)chol

chol

be’(2)

yuy(3)


Amanita

pachycolea

Amanita

aff.vaginata

(Bull.)

Lam.

k’an

tsu(7)chol

chol

be’(2)

yuy(3)


Amanita

phalloides

Amanita

sp.

k’an

tsu(7)chol

chol

be(3)

yuy(3)


Amanita

velosa

Amanita

sp.

k’an

tsu(10)

yuy(4)

144

Cortin

ariaceae

Dermocybephoenicea

–chejchew

(2)

vinino/jo

vilchikin

te’(3)(“poison”)

135

Cortin

ariaceae

Galerinaautumnalis

–bollu’/bolchikin

te’(3)

vinino/jo

vilchikin

te’(3)

45Hygroph

oraceae

Hygrocybe

punicea

–tsajal

lu’(5)

NC

18Russulaceae

Lactariusindigo

Lactariusindigo

(Schwein.)Fr.

osoria

(6)yaxal

k’an

chay

(2)

sbavina

jel/yaxal

man

ayok(2)

15Russulaceae

Lactariusrubrilacteus

Lactariuscf.sanguifluus

(Paulet)Fr.

lu’te’/v

eneno/bol

lu’(5)(“poison”)

k’an

chay

(2)

NC

28Russulaceae

Russu

laem

etica

Russu

laspp.

tsajal

lu’/tsajal

chechew

(9)

tzajal

chikin

te’/tzajal

yatka’(2)

yuychau

k/tzajal

yuy(2)

134

Stroph

ariaceae

Naemotolom

a(H

y-pholom

a)fasciculare

–chejchew

(3)

chechev(3)

130

Stroph

ariaceae

Psilocybe

cyanescens

Psilocybe

sp.

chejchew

(4)

chechev(3)bolchikin

te’/vinino

(2)

126

Stroph

ariaceae

Stropharia

ambigua

–bollu’/lu’

te’(3)

yatka’(1)

yuychau

k(1)

125

Stroph

ariaceae

Stropharia

rugoso-

annulata

–bollu’/lu’te’(3)

tzajal

lu’(2)yat

ka’(1)

NC

82Tricholom

ataceae

Arm

illariella

mellea

Arm

illaria

mellea(Vahl)

P.Kum

m.,A.tabescens

(Scop)

Emel.,

Arm

illaria

spp.

chejchew

(3)

chechev(5)

54Tricholom

ataceae

Clitocybenuda

–yaxak

(3)osoria

(3)

NC

62Tricholom

ataceae

Lyophyllum

decastes

Lyophyllum

spp.

chejchew

(10)

chechev(6)

86Tricholom

ataceae

Tricholom

amagnivelare

–yaxak

(3)

NC

89Tricholom

ataceae

Tricholom

azelleri

–k’an

tsu(2)yaxak

(2)osoria

(2)

NC


APPENDIX

4.(C

ONTIN

UED).

Page

Family

SpeciesPictured


edin

Field

TzeltalNam

es(n=14

inform

ants)

TzotzilNam

es(n=7inform

ants)

2Cantharellaceae

Cantharelluscibarius

Cantharelluscf.

cibarius

Fr.

k’an

chay

(9)

man

ayok(3)

6Cantharellaceae

Cantharellustubaeformis/

C.infundibuliform

isCraterellus

(Cantharellus)sp.

chejchew

(9)k’an

chay

(2)

k’ab

ixtoj(2)chechev(2)

5Cantharellaceae

Cantharellussubalbidus

–k’an

chay

(4)

man

ayok(3)

12Theleph

oraceae

Polyozellusmultiplex

–k’an

chay

(3)

k’an

chay

(2)

man

ayok(4)

212

Gom

phaceae

Clavariadelphus

truncatus,C.borealis

Clavariadelphus

sp.

NC

NC

208

Gom

phaceae

Ramaria

sp.

Ramaria

spp.

yisim

chij(6)

tz’ijtz’im

lu’(4)

yisim

chij/jo

lchij(5)

209

Sparassidaceae

Sparassis

crispa

–yisim

chij(7)

tz’ijtz’im

lu’(4)

yisim

chij/jo

lchij(5)

199

Hericiaceae

Hericium

abietis

Hericium

sp.

tzijtzim

lu’(5)

yisim

chij(4)

yisim

chij/jo

lchij(4)

203

Hydnaceae

Hydnum

repandum

Hydnum

repandum

L.k’an

chay

ch’ix

(6)

ch’ix

man

ayok(2)

35Pleurotaceae

Pleurotusostreatus

Pleurotussp.

sakitaj

(7)taj

xuch

(3)usum

(1)

sakitaj/sak

chikin

te’(3)usum

(1)

194

Ganodermataceae

Ganodermaapplanatum

Ganodermacf.

applanatum

(Pers)Pat.

textex

lu’(2)

letz’letz’(2)

chikin

te’(4)

197

Polyporaceae

Trametesversicolor

Trametesspp.

(probablyalso

Trichaptum

spp.)

k’ab

taj(2)k’aa

lte’/lu‘te

(2)

chikin

te’(3)

159

Boletaceae

Boletusaereus

Boletuscf.variipesPeck

bonk

os/tonkos

lu’(6)

seku

bt’u

l(4)pa

ncito(1)

154

Boletaceae

Boletusedulis

BoletusedulisBull.

&closerelatives

bonk

os/tonkos

lu’(3)pa

nlu’(2)

seku

bt’u

l(5)pa

ncito(1)

166

Boletaceae

Boletuserythropus

Boletusspp.

tsajal

bonk

oslu’(2)

tsajal

lu(2)

bollu’(2)

seku

btulpa

ncito(2)

164

Boletaceae

Boletusmirabilis

Boletussp.

bonk

os/tonkos

lu’(6)

seku

bt’u

l(6)

174

Boletaceae

Leccinum

manzanitae

Leccinum

sp.

bonk

os/tonkos(6)

seku

bt’u

l(2)

169

Boletaceae

Leccinum

scabrum

Leccinum

sp.

NC

pancito(2)seku

bt’u

l(1)


APPENDIX

4.(C

ONTIN

UED).

Page

Family

SpeciesPictured


edin

Field

TzeltalNam

es(n=14

inform

ants)

TzotzilNam

es(n=7inform

ants)

175

Suillaceae

Suillus

brevipes

Suillus

sp.

bonk

os/tonkos(2)

seku

bt’u

l(4)

182

Suillaceae

Suillus

cavipes

–lu’te’(2)bonk

os(1)

seku

bt’u

l(2)

179

Suillaceae

Suillus

umbonatus

Suillus

sp.

NC

seku

bt’u

l(2)

243

Auriculariaceae

Auricularia

auricula

Auricularia

spp.

pok’ochikin

(10)

lolo

pik’

(3)usum

(2)

250

Ustilaginaceae

Ustilago

maydis

Ustilago

maydis

(DC.)Corda

lu’jo’(7)slu’ilixim

(4)scha

mel

ixim

(1)

stok’alixim

(2)sjojal

ajan

(3)chuixim

(1)

Mushroom

speciesshow

nin

photograph

icidentifi

catio

nexercise,p

agenu

mberin

Arora

(199

1),m

ostclosely-relatedspeciesor

genu

sidentifi

edin

thefield,

andmostfrequently

mentio

nedTzeltaland

Tzotzilmushroom

names

(closelysynonymousnames

areseparatedby

slash

[/]andcoun

tedtogether).Mushroom

speciesareorganizedtaxonomicallyto

highlight

correspond

enceswith

infolk

genu

sconcepts.Speciesauthorities

areonly

includ

edformushroomsidentifi

edin

thefield.

(–):notidentifi

edin

thefield;

NC:no

consensus.


The Grace of the Flood: Classification and Use of Wild Mushrooms among the Highland Maya of Chiapas

Documents

Transcript of The Grace of the Flood: Classification and Use of Wild Mushrooms among the Highland Maya of Chiapas