Introduction and Research Context

And so it rained for thirteen days and thirteen nights. After the flood waters subsided the crops had been destroyed and there was nothing to eat, so our Lord’s first act was to make the edible mushrooms grow. Mushrooms are thus yutzil pulimal, the “Grace of the Flood,” God’s first gift to Noah and his crew after suffering through the long days of rain.

—excerpt from a Tzeltal Mayan story (see full text below)

While carrying out ethnomycological research in different parts of the world, one often encounters curious young Western tourists along the way. The conversation invariably comes around to the subject of one’s research, followed by the predictable response: “Mushrooms? You mean, like, magic mushrooms?!” This is especially true in Mexico; in addition to being one of the world’s most culturally and biologically diverse nations (Mittermeier et al. 1997; Loh and Harmon 2005), Mexico is also home to some of the world’s most famous mushrooms. R. G. Wasson’s (1957, 1961) widely-publicized rediscovery of the ritual use of Psilocybe spp. by several groups of Mexican Indians not only launched the field of ethnomycology but also helped spark the psychedelic revolution of the 1960s. The popular and scientific interest in Mexico’s hallucinogenic mushrooms has generated a vast bibliography (e.g., Wasson 1962; Guzmán et al. 2000), but has tended to overshadow the comparatively small, though growing, body of literature addressing other aspects of ethnomycological knowledge in Mexico (de Avila and Guzmán 1980; Mapes et al. 1981a,b; Martinez-Alfaro et al. 1983; Gonzalez-Elizondo 1991; Laferriere 1991; Shepard and Arora 1992; Bandala et al. 1997; Hunn et al. 2000; Lampman 2004; Garibay-Orijel et al. 2007; Lampman 2007a, b; Montoya et al. 2008 and Pérez-Moreno et al. 2008, this issue).

Previous ethnobotanical research in Chiapas only barely touched on Mayan mushroom naming and classification (Berlin et al. 1974; Laughlin 1975). In fact, mycological surveys remain limited, with only 291 mushroom species identified to date, though each subsequent study adds a dozen or more new registers (Pérez-Moreno and Villareal 1988; Robles Porras et al. 2006). This study was initiated by Glenn Shepard in 1992 as a general survey of mushroom knowledge among the highland Maya. Work began during the winter dry season and, as wild mushrooms were not in evidence, Shepard developed his Tzeltal and Tzotzil language skills while making contacts with informants in widely-dispersed townships, and used published mushroom photographs to elicit preliminary information. In June the rains arrived, and so did mycologist David Arora. These two spent the following month gathering mushrooms, accompanying and interviewing Mayan mushroom hunters, and visiting local markets where mushrooms were on sale, with the intention of returning in subsequent years to intensify and broaden the research (Shepard and Arora 1992; Shepard 1993). However, the Zapatista uprising of 1994 interrupted their plans (see Shepard and Anderson 1995).

Four years later, in 1998, the highland Maya ethnomycological research project was revived by Aaron Lampman (see also Berlin 1998) in affiliation with the Maya International Cooperative Biodiversity Group (Maya ICBG), but was also cut short when the bioprospecting activities of Maya ICBG came under intense local, national, and international scrutiny (Nigh 2002; Berlin and Berlin 2003; Hayden 2003). All affiliated researchers, including Lampman, voluntarily ceased their biodiversity collection efforts.

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

Study Area and Methods

Chiapas is a mountainous state located in southern Mexico on the border of Guatemala. With nearly one million of its inhabitants speaking an indigenous language, Chiapas stands out as one of the most culturally diverse states in a highly diverse country. The roughly 600,000 speakers of the various Tzeltal and Tzotzil dialects are scattered across 14 townships in the central highlands (Kohler 1980, 2000; INEGI 2000). Smaller communities within these townships are staunchly individualistic, asserting their identities through localized styles of clothing, religious practices, crafts, and agricultural production. Despite these differences, traditional Tzeltal and Tzotzil communities continue to engage in similar lifestyles, characterized by small-scale corn and bean swidden agriculture, the herding of sheep and cattle, and various kinds of low-income wage labor. Despite recent efforts to “modernize,” Chiapas remains one of the poorest states in Mexico due to a long history of outside control of productive resources and unequal access to basic government services.

The cultural diversity of Chiapas is mirrored by its ecological diversity. The mountains range up to 2,500 meters (m), providing a wide array of microhabitats that harbor approximately 3,000 species of vascular plants and many species of vertebrates (Breedlove 1981; Rzedowski 1993; Berlin and Berlin 1996). The climate is classified as subhumid temperate, with high yearly variation in rainfall and a pronounced rainy season (Hunn 1977; Rzedowski 1993). Highland areas were once dominated by Quercus-Pinus-Liquidambar forests. Despite widespread disturbance due to human activities, these forests are still apparent, transitioning to tropical moist forest at lower elevations.

While highland oak and pine forests support a wide variety of ectomycorrhizal mushrooms, saprotrophic mushrooms predominate in the lower elevations transitioning to tropical forest because there are fewer ectomycorrhizal tree hosts. Since ectomycorrhizal mushrooms tend to be large, fleshy, and appealing as food, while most neotropical saprotrophic mushrooms are too small and/or tough to tempt the palate (and are consequently less apt to form a significant part of the indigenous diet), we concentrated our investigation in the villages set amid the ectomycorrhizal forests of oak and pine.

Research was carried out with a total of 24 informants (14 male, 10 female, ages 10–60) in 6 of the 14 highland Mayan townships, covering a wide span of ecological zones and including representatives of the two major language groups: the Tzeltal-speaking townships of Oxchuc and Aguacatenango, the Tzotzil-speaking townships of Chamula, Zinacantan and Chenalho, and the mixed-language township of Pantelho (Fig. 1). Oxchuc, Chamula, and Zinacantan are found in the central highland region known locally as “cold country,” while Aguacatenango, Chenalho, and Pantelho are found at transitional altitudes towards the lowland “hot country.”

Fig. 1.
figure 1

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

Full size image

Free-listing exercises were carried out with 14 informants (9 male, 5 female; see Table 1), during which they were asked to name all the mushrooms they could remember (Table 1; Appendices 2 and 3). They sketched drawings of each kind of mushroom (examples are shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), often drawing or describing detailed morphological features (see Table 2), as well as place and season of growth, edibility, and whether any similar kinds of mushrooms were known under the same name. Most of the informants did not know how to read or write, and some of the older ones had never held a pen or pencil before. Nonetheless, the drawings (annotated where necessary by Shepard) demonstrate detailed knowledge of mushroom morphology and ecology (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Classification of mushrooms by Martin Santís Gomez, a Tzeltal speaker from Oxchuc. Note the use of the 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 (coral mushrooms), sul te’ (shelf mushroom), k’an tsu (Amanita), tajxux (Neolentinus), chejche (Armillaria and similar small, yellowish species in dense groups on wood), chikin te’ (wood ears), and jol kotz (morels).

Full size image
Fig. 3.
figure 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 central bump (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).”

Full size image
Fig. 4.
figure 4

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

Full size image
Fig. 5.
figure 5

A series of particularly fine drawings by Domingo Diaz, a landless, Protestant Tzotzil speaker from Chamula who had fled local religious persecution to a shanty town on the outskirts of San Cristobal. Although he scarcely 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).

Full size image
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
Full size table
Table 2. Selected mushroom description vocabulary from an interview with a tzotzil-speaker from the township of chamula
Full size table

An expanded group including 21 informants (13 male, 8 female; see Table 1) were shown 62 high-quality color mushroom photographs selected from Arora’s (1991) portable field guide to western North American mushrooms and asked to name the mushrooms (see Appendix 4). The field guide was especially useful because it pictured fresh mushrooms in their natural habitats, providing informants with the kind of broader visual and ecological cues (place and habit of growth, staining, etc.) they use when identifying mushrooms in the wild. Though the mushroom flora of Chiapas is different from that of western North America, most of the species depicted in Arora (1991) have closely-related, visually-similar counterparts in Chiapas, permitting informants to assign local names consistently (most of which had already been elicited in free-listing) to the photographs they viewed. Many mushroom names and species were subsequently verified in the field (see Table 3 and Appendix 4).

Table 3. The most salient folk genera in tzeltal and tzotzil. english glosses provided (na: not analyzable; sp: spanish loan word)
Full size table

Mayan language terms found throughout the text are written using the standard orthographic conventions (see Berlin et al. 1974; Berlin 1992; Breedlove and Laughlin 1993), with the exception noted in Appendix 1.

During the early rainy season, daily outings were made with Mayan mushroom hunters in four of the previously-studied areas (Aguacatenango, Chamula, Oxchuc, Zinacantan) as well as to local mushroom markets. Informants were further interviewed about the names and uses of mushrooms found in the field. Mushrooms were collected, photographed, and identified by Arora, and in many cases eaten.

Results

Mushroom Knowledge, Collection, and Use

Despite significant variation between individuals and between villages, knowledge about wild mushrooms among the highland Maya is generally sophisticated and widespread within the population. Men and women alike share roughly equal knowledge, while children participate in mushroom gathering and preparation activities and learn to recognize the major edible species at an early age. During the June to November rainy season in the Chiapas highlands, wild mushrooms form an esteemed and nutritionally significant part of the highland Maya diet.

The first rains often come in late May and are usually followed by the prompt appearance in local markets and on Mayan supper tables of Neolentinus lepideus, a wood-rotter, and several grassland Agaricus species. These are usually followed during the peak months of June and July by copious quantities of ectomycorrhizal mushrooms. Most prominent among these are amanitas (Amanita, the most highly-esteemed group of edible mushrooms), milk caps (Lactarius) and russulas (Russula), lobster mushrooms (Hypomyces, actually a parasite of certain milk caps and russulas), boletes (Boletus, Leccinum, Suillus), chanterelles (Cantharellus), corts (Cortinarius), and coral mushrooms (Ramaria, Clavulina). Other types, including morels (Morchella), appear toward the end of the rainy season or later (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6.
figure 6

Morels drawn by Juana Patixtan Mendez, a landless Tzotzil woman who did not know how to write her own name. She indicated that they were edible and grew “near caves and rocks [in February].” (Note that this represents one of the southernmost records of morel usage known to date)

Full size image

Although the Maya are likely unaware of the details of invisible mycelial, mycorrhizal, and reproductive processes, they clearly understand the ecological relationships between certain mushrooms and their tree hosts. For instance, Tzotzil mushroom hunters recognize that the “true” or “thick” yuy (species in the Amanita caesarea complex) grows near or under pine, while the related “thin” yuy (described as a new species, Amanita hayalyuy Arora & Shepard, in Appendix 1) is invariably found under oak. In fact, many Mayan mushroom names indicate an association with specific trees, and the names for saprotrophic mushrooms often reflect growth habit (on rotting wood, in pastureland, on stumps in agricultural fields, etc.).

Much of the mushroom gathering is done in the early morning by women and children. Many women bring mushrooms to sell in market towns such as San Cristóbal de las Casas and Comitán, while others vend along the highways. A morning of collecting during the peak of the mushroom season can yield two or three large baskets of amanitas or lobster mushrooms, the most valuable commercial species, and these can be sold in the afternoon for the equivalent of three or more days of wage labor. The highland Maya also consume large quantities of mushrooms at home. Informants repeatedly emphasized how much they appreciated them for their flavor and as a healthy source of meat-like nutrition during the rainy season, when food crops are not yet harvestable.

Not surprisingly, mushroom names vary more between townships than within them. For example, there are major variations in the mushroom names applied by Tzotzil and Tzeltal speakers, and indeed, there is significant variation in the names applied by the regional dialects of each of these languages (see Table 3, Appendices 2 and 3). But the variation in knowledge goes much deeper than names. In some instances, a mushroom that is named and eaten in one township is shunned or considered poisonous in another. The inhabitants of Oxchuc, for instance, were amazed to find that their counterparts in Aguacatenango, some 50 km away, consumed and valued osoria, a bluish Cortinarius which they considered poisonous. By the same token, the people of Aguacatenango were astonished that Oxchuqueros ate the ubiquitous, bright blue Lactarius indigo and lived to tell about it. Knowledge about the edibility of mushrooms can vary even within communities, with different families from the same small township making diametrically opposed claims about the edibility versus toxicity of some species of boletes (see Lampman 2004).

Despite many similarities between the mushroom flora of Chiapas and North America, the mushrooms prized by the Maya differ significantly from those most valued by Europeans and North Americans. Several mushrooms habitually listed by Western mushroom guidebooks as inedible or of unknown edibility are esteemed by the highland Maya. For instance, the Maya consume a stump-growing species of Daldinia cf. concentrica—a so-called inedible ascomycete known by Westerners as “crampballs” or “carbon balls”—as a snack when working in cornfields. Impressed by their nutty flavor, especially when lightly toasted, Arora proposed renaming them “tree truffles” (Shepard 1993). North American mushroom hunters also shun the genus Cortinarius for fear of difficult-to-distinguish toxic look-alikes, but the people of Aguacatenango appreciate the robust flavor of the species known as osoria, distinguished by its papery cuticle that peels off in layers. Another species valued by the Maya but generally ignored by Westerners is the small, leathery saprobe, Schizophyllum commune Fr. This species is widely eaten in Mexico, especially in the lowlands, where it is esteemed for its chewy, dry, meatlike flesh (Ruán-Soto et al. 2006); it is also widely eaten (and cultivated) in southeast Asia, but is dismissed by North American mycologists as being “too small and tough” to be edible (Arora 1986; Miller and Miller 2006).

Conversely, Western guidebooks extol the virtues of boletes and chanterelles, while the Maya typically show less enthusiasm for these mushrooms than for lobster mushrooms (Hypomyces) or milk caps (Lactarius). Western guidebooks also contain strong warnings to readers not to collect edible species of Amanita for fear of confusing them with poisonous or intoxicating amanitas. Yet the highland Maya, like other peoples of Mexico, prize certain Amanita species (particularly those in sect. Caesareae) over most other mushrooms. More than one Mayan woman was able to give a cogent discussion of the distinguishing features between the various species of Amanita collected in the same woods. They could point out, for instance, the “diseased” (warty or scabby) veil tissue that distinguishes the intoxicating A. muscaria from the edible A. caesarea complex (see Fig. 3, notes). Even Maya children seemed to have no difficulty in distinguishing the edible Amanita species.

Nonetheless, informants told us that a few highland Maya are poisoned by mushrooms every year. Generally, such poisonings occur when less knowledgeable people—whether migrants from other regions, young people, or long-term city dwellers—collect inappropriate mushrooms that others would know to avoid. One such victim-in-waiting was a taxi driver in San Cristóbal de las Casas who, to the detriment of his driving, showed great interest in the mushrooms that we had collected that day. He proceeded to inform us, with the authority of an expert, that most of the edible species in our basket were poisonous while the poisonous amanitas that we had collected for study were excellent eating (see Shepard 1993).

Several mushrooms are used medicinally by the Maya. The powdery spores of puffballs and earthstars (Lycoperdon, Bovista, Geastrum, and Astraeus) are used to treat warts, wounds, and other skin conditions, as they are in many other parts of the world (Saar 1991; Benjamin 1995; Esquivel 1998). Several wood-rotting polypores, including Ganoderma and Trametes, were mentioned for treating diverse conditions ranging from stomach aches to mouth sores and insanity. It is interesting to note that similar polypores figure prominently in the traditional pharmacopoeia of China (Mizuno et al. 1995).

There is no indication for any current or historical ritual use of Psilocybe or any other psychoactive species among the highland Maya. Nonetheless, some of the symptoms commonly ascribed by the Maya to mushroom poisoning, e.g., references to singing, dancing, or going “crazy in the head,” suggest a nonspecific knowledge about the presence of psychoactive properties in some mushrooms.

A mushroom creation myth told to us by one informant (as recorded and translated in Shepard 1993) makes reference to intoxicating mushrooms, and is also notable for its syncretic imagery:

God sent a messenger bird to warn Noah, Job, Adam, Eve, Ali Baba, and all the village elders that a flood was about to destroy the Third Creation of the World. So they built an ark and filled it with their animals and possessions. And so it rained for thirteen days and thirteen nights. After the flood waters subsided the crops had been destroyed and there was nothing to eat, so our Lord’s first act was to make the edible mushrooms grow. Mushrooms are thus yutzil pulimal, the “Grace of the Flood,” God’s first gift to Noah and his crew after suffering through the long days of rain.

Soon after, however, Adam and Eve betrayed their Lord by eating the poisonous, intoxicating mushroom 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 the Grace of the Flood. Poisonous, “crazy” mushrooms (bol lu’) then sprouted in the forests and fields—brothers and sisters to the original gift of edible mushrooms—and since that time mushroom hunters have had to carefully learn from their parents and grandparents which mushrooms are consecrated with the grace of God and which are the poisonous progeny of the Serpent Demon.

The account is noteworthy for its blend of Biblical and indigenous elements. For instance, the Mayan “lucky number” of 13 is substituted for the usual “forty days and forty nights” and the “Third Creation of the World” is an element of apocalyptic Mayan cosmology; there is also the juxtaposition of Noah, Adam, Eve and other mythical foreigners with the village elders; and there is the striking substitution of intoxicating mushrooms for the Biblical forbidden fruit. The story further clarifies the ineluctable association between mushrooms and the rainy season, and depicts mushrooms not only as a valued food resource, but as a divine manna, delivered by God in a time of need: a time which, as noted above, coincides with the “hunger months” before the harvest. The story also makes clear that the Maya have no need for books or field guides, and that mushroom knowledge is transmitted orally from parents and elders to children.

Tzeltal and Tzotzil Mushroom Names

In free-listing exercises (Table 1), 14 informants named, described, and sketched between 6 and 37 different kinds of mushrooms per informant (mean: 16.4). This resulted in a total sample of 55 Tzeltal and 50 Tzotzil names. The youngest informant, a 10-year-old girl, listed the second highest number of mushroom names (28), attesting to the widespread nature of mushroom knowledge and the active participation of children in mushroom-related activities.

An expanded group of 21 informants (Table 1) ascribed local names to a selection of mushroom photographs from Arora’s (1991) guide to the mushrooms of the western United States (see Appendix 4). The use of photographs confirmed that many of the names elicited during free-listing refer to well-known mushrooms, and permitted the elicitation of additional names that did not appear in free-lists. Despite the obvious limitations of photographic identification, there is a high degree of similarity between the mushroom genera of North America and the highlands of Chiapas; this permitted a preliminary mycological classification of many locally-named mushrooms to scientific family or genus, and helped identify overlapping folk genera and regional cognates or variants. Combining the results of the two exercises, but excluding close synonyms and names not mentioned independently at least twice, resulted in consensus for 38 named mushrooms in Tzeltal and 32 named mushrooms in Tzotzil (Appendices 2 and 3). By comparison, Laughlin’s (1975) dictionary includes 34 Tzotzil genus-level mushroom names, while Lampman (2004) presents a more exhaustive study that includes 51 Tzeltal folk genera.

While interviewing informants, we encountered an extensive descriptive vocabulary relating to mushroom morphology, growth, and habit (Table 2; Figs. 2–4). We counted more than 100 terms that were applied to 20 or more morphological features, such as the presence or absence of a distinct cap, position of the stalk, presence or absence of gills, volva and/or grooves or lines (striations) on the edge of the cap, characteristics of the cap surface (stickiness, scaliness, etc.), odor and texture, and, of course, specific gradations of color. As already noted, the physical and temporal features of mushroom growth, including habitat and tree associates, are also frequent topics of conversation. This descriptive vocabulary is remarkably close to the macromorphological features used in scientific descriptions of mushrooms, and indicate the cultural importance of wild mushrooms in the Maya highlands and their long history of use.

Ethnomycological Classification

According to Berlin (1992), folk classification of animals and plants follows a predictable pattern across cultures, including the existence of a taxonomic structure composed of five hierarchical levels, including:

  1. (1)

    the “unique beginner” or kingdom rank, reserved for a small number of highly-inclusive terms, typically “animal” and “plant”;

  2. (2)

    the “life form” rank, a small number of broad classes combining organisms that share basic biological features; examples in folk biological systems correspond to English-language concepts such as bird, fish, insect, tree, herb, vine;

  3. (3)

    the “folk genus” rank, including the vast majority of biological taxa recognized by local peoples, often corresponding closely with scientific genera or families, e.g., oak, pine, woodpecker, trout;

  4. (4)

    the “folk species” rank, representing subdivisions of folk genera, often using binomials such as white oak, rainbow trout, etc., and sometimes but not always corresponding with scientific species concepts;

  5. (5)

    the “variety” rank, a further subdivision of folk species that is usually reserved for domesticated plants or animals of high cultural significance, e.g., beagle, jalapeño.

A sixth, “intermediate category” is sometimes identified at a level between the life form and folk genus in which are lumped folk genera that are morphologically or behaviorally similar, an example of which, in folk English, might be “water birds.” For the most part, folk biological classification in Berlin’s analysis proceeds according to perceived biological affinities among organisms, and the Linnaean system of scientific nomenclature can be seen as a natural but formal and more rigorous refinement of folk classification. Utilitarian or cultural value (edibility, material use, mythological origin), though important aspects of peoples’ interactions with the biological world, are considered less important in Berlin’s view than biological affinities in the recognition and naming of organisms in a natural setting.

Many theorists, however, disagree with Berlin (1992) and assert that utility is extremely important to ethnobiological systems of classification and nomenclature. These theorists assert that folk classification systems reflect a unique history of interaction with local environments and culturally-defined beliefs, behaviors, and preferences (Ellen 1979a, 1979b, 1993; Hunn 1982; see also Ellen 2008, this issue). They also note the unstable and shifting nature of folk classification systems, the idiosyncratic differences found between informants, and the numerous “special cases” found within systems of classification. What is interesting about these two theoretical approaches to understanding folk classification is that both seem to apply to Mayan ethnomycology. In other words, the Maya appear to categorize mushrooms into a shallow hierarchy based on perceived “natural” affiliations, but utility significantly affects the size and shape of the recognized mushroom domain. The following discussion will elaborate.

Kingdom

There is considerable evidence that the Maya treat mushrooms as a separate ethnobiological kingdom from animals and plants (Lampman 2007a). Perhaps the most important evidence that the Maya cognitively recognize mushrooms as a folk kingdom is linguistic. Highland Mayan languages are characterized by numeral-incorporated classifiers (Berlin 1968; Allan 1977; Shepard 1997) requiring objects to be assigned to specific perceptual categories when counting. For example, to say “two dogs” in proper Tzeltal, the expression is cha-kojt tz’i’, literally “two animals of dog,” where cha is the number two, kojt is the classifier for animals, and tz’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 for mushrooms were found to vary from informant to informant. Some of the most commonly mentioned 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 mushrooms as a category, Laughlin (1975) notes the Tzotzil term chanul te’tik, “creatures of the forest,” for mushrooms, where chan is a term referring to snakes, insects, and other generally noxious, disgusting, or useless creatures, somewhat like the colloquial English word “critter.” Berlin et al. (1974) note ti’balil balamilal, “meat of the earth,” for mushrooms in Tzeltal. The exclusive use of the verb ti’, referring specifically to the act of eating meat, confirms that as a food source, mushrooms are classified by the Maya as a kind of meat. (The verb ti’ contrasts with three other verbs referring to the specific consumption of fruits versus tortillas and other bread-like foods versus beans and other crunchy foods). Considering these diverse lines of linguistic evidence simultaneously, mushrooms appear to occupy a rather ambiguous status, neither plant nor animal yet sharing characteristics of both: meaty and fleshy like animals, but fixed and rooted like plants. Western taxonomists have shared a similar ambivalence—it wasn’t until the second half of the 20th century that mushrooms were formally separated from plants and placed in a separate kingdom, the Fungi.

The general, “kingdom level” term for mushrooms appears to vary considerably between townships and even between informants within townships. In Oxchuc, the general term for mushrooms appears to be lu’, literally “vagina.” Curiously, both Westerners and the Maya ascribe sexual 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 between mushrooms and sexual organs is due, in part, to concrete perceptual features: suggestive shape, fleshy consistency, and often moist or slimy texture. However these sexually-laden terms also imply a certain emotional response: depending on the conditions, context, and the passions of the moment, mushrooms can be slightly disgusting, highly desirable, or both.

In neighboring Tenejapa, lu’ is apparently used in a more restricted manner to refer to poisonous mushrooms or those of unknown edibility (Lampman 2004). But in Oxchuc, lu’ is clearly used to refer to mushrooms at the kingdom level, and includes edible species. For example, when naming the edible Amanita caesarea complex, known commonly as k’an tsu (“yellow gourd”), some Oxchuc informants noted the more complete name k’an tsu lu’ (see Fig. 3), which is to say, “yellow gourd mushroom,” emphasizing membership in the wider kingdom category of lu’, or “mushrooms.” Likewise, coral mushrooms, commonly called yisim chij (“sheep beard”), were referred to by some informants during free-listing as yisim chij lu’, “sheep beard mushroom,” again reinforcing the inclusive, kingdom-level nature of the term lu’.

In Aguacatenango, lu’ te’ (literally “tree vagina”) is the most common kingdom-level term for mushrooms. In Pantelho and Chenalho, Tzotzil and Tzeltal speakers use chikin te’ (“tree-ear”) as a kingdom-level denominator for mushrooms. As all three of these townships are located in warmer, tropical transitional areas, it is interesting to speculate that a possibly higher proportion of saprotophic, wood-growing (as opposed to terrestrial) mushrooms in the environment leads speakers to treat “tree-ears” as the most inclusive category of mushrooms.

However, some informants generalize lower-order genus-rank terms to the kingdom rank. For example, one Oxchuc informant referred to the mushroom kingdom as k’an chayetik (in the plural), and then proceeded to draw the very same k’an chay in the singular to represent a particular folk genus (chanterelles), followed by tiny representations of eight other distinctive folk genera ranging from boletes to amanitas to coral mushrooms to “tree ears” to morels (see Fig. 2). He clearly 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 mushrooms such as Cantharellus and Lactarius. But when expressed in the plural, the same term was elevated to the kingdom-level taxonomic status, intending to encompass all named mushrooms. In a similar vein, Lampman (2004) notes chejchew—a Tzeltal folk genus referring to small, yellowish gilled mushrooms growing in dense clusters on wood or under trees—as the kingdom-level name for mushrooms in Tenejapa.

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

Life Form

At the level of life form, the highland Maya appear to divide mushrooms into two broad categories according to their form and habit: (1) fleshy, terrestrial mushrooms; and (2) mushrooms that grow on trees or rotting wood and often have a woody texture and/or earlike shape. The term for the latter life-form group is almost universally chikin te’, meaning “tree-ear.” The term sul te’ (“tree bark-layer”), usually reserved for woody species like Trametes, was also used more inclusively by some informants of Oxchuc as a life-form name for all “tree-ears.” The life-form term chikin te’ appears to represent a combination of both growth on wood and earlike shape, that is to say, with the stem of the mushroom attached laterally to the cap rather than attached umbrella-like from below. Mushrooms that are intermediate in form may be treated ambiguously. In studying the way Tzeltal and Tzotzil informants identified mushrooms from photographs, we found that not only growth on wood but also earlike shape and the absence of a clear, elongated, central stalk contributed towards the categorization of mushrooms as “tree-ears.” Sometimes when looking at photographs of terrestrial mushrooms with off-center stalks (e.g. some Cantharellus), informants might 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, central stalk and a convex or bell-shaped cap (e.g., Pholiota), informants often did not initially label them as “tree ears,” but would sometimes change their minds after noticing the wood or stump in the photograph. Thus, central stalk and convex cap are as much the focal features of terrestrial mushrooms as their growth on the earth, while the lateral to absent stalk and earlike cap are important focal features for “tree ears” besides their growth on wood.

The term for terrestrial mushrooms at the life-form rank is highly variable from region to region and even from person to person. Sometimes the kingdom-level term for mushroom is repeated at the level of life form to refer to terrestrial fleshy mushrooms (or to exclude “tree ears”). For example, in the Tzeltal of Oxchuc, lu’ refers to the mushrooms generally, but when contrasted with the term chikin te’ (“tree ear”), lu’ appears to refer more specifically to terrestrial mushrooms. In other cases, genus-level terrestrial mushroom terms can be used in the plural, elevating them to the life-form level of terrestrial mushrooms, and in contrast to “tree ears.” Tzotzil speakers of Chamula use yuy unambiguously for Amanita, but by placing it in the plural, yuyetik, the same term can be used to refer to terrestrial mushrooms more generally (i.e., not “tree-ears”). By the same token, chejchew and chechev (small, yellowish, tightly-clustered mushrooms under trees; see Fig. 4) and other genus names (k’an chay—yellowish, funnel-shaped Cantharellus and Lactarius; yax ak—pasture-growing Agaricus) are sometimes used in the plural (chejchewetik / chechevetik, k’an chayetik, yax aketik) to refer to fleshy terrestrial mushrooms more generally.

Folk Genus

Table 3 lists some 20 of the most salient folk-genus names for mushrooms in Tzeltal and Tzotzil. Many of the names refer to clearly-defined biological groups, for example Agaricus, Amanita, boletes, morels, and puffballs. Fully 17 of 21 (86%) of the most salient Tzeltal folk genera and 17 of 19 (89%) of Tzotzil genera are composed of species belonging to a single scientific genus or family, reinforcing Berlin’s (1992) claim for a universal cognitive basis for the genus level of classification in folk and scientific systems of taxonomy. Some Mayan folk genus concepts, however, do not correspond so neatly with scientific mycological taxonomy. For example, k’an chay (Tzeltal, literally “yellow fish”) and mana yok (Tzotzil, literally “cat’s paw”) are identical folk genus concepts in the two languages referring focally to yellowish to white, funnel-shaped mushrooms that include both Cantharellus and Lactarius, members of two distinctive mycotaxonomic orders (Cantharellales, Russulales). The hedgehog mushroom (Hydnum repandum) is also included at the margins of this same genus grouping as ch’ix k’an chay in Tzeltal and chi’x mana yok in Tzotzil, literally “spiny yellow fish” and “spiny cat’s paw,” respectively; both terms might 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 these apparently incongruous groupings actually presage recent molecular findings. For example, Pine et al. (1999) found that Cantharellus and Hydnum (but not Lactarius) are closely related, though kept, for the present, in separate families. Likewise, the Maya refer to parasol mushrooms (Macrolepiota cf. procera) as “tall white Agaricus.” Western taxonomists, on the other hand, used to segregate them in different families based on spore color, but now tend to agree that their phylogeny places them in a single family, the Agaricaceae.

As noted for k’an chay and mana yok (chanterelles and milk caps plus hedgehog mushrooms), many names for folk genera are cognate across the two languages: k’an tsu in Tzeltal and yuy in Tzotzil are essentially identical concepts (Amanita), as are Tzeltal bonkos/tonkos and Tzotzil sek’ub tul (boletes). However, some names and genus concepts are restricted to one language 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, the strikingly blue Lactarius indigo is recognized and labeled with a unique name in each of two major Tzotzil dialects as sba vinajel and yaxal vinajel (literally “vault of the sky” or “blue sky”), whereas Tzeltal speakers either do not recognize it, or classify it (somewhat correctly, from a taxonomic standpoint) 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%) of Tzeltal genus names and 33 of 51 (65%) of Tzotzil genus names refer to the overall shape or texture of the mushrooms being named (see also Appendices 2 and 3). Many names create an analogy between some salient feature of the mushroom or mushroom group and some aspect of human, animal, or plant anatomy. Tzeltal examples include k’an chay (literally “yellow fish”) for chanterelles/milk caps/hedgehog mushrooms (perhaps they resemble fish tails?), t’ot’ lu’ (“snail mushroom”) for Daldinia, tson kotz (“turkey comb”) for morels, pom chikin (“incense-dusted ear”) for lobster mushroom, k’an tsu (“yellow gourd”) for Amanita, and sak itaj (“white cabbage”) for oyster mushroom. Tzotzil examples include sek’ub tul (“rabbit’s liver”) and sot’ot’ wakash (“cow lung”) for boletes (due to their spongy, organ-like texture), sat pukuj (“demon’s eye”) 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 mushroom such as chejchew, yuy, osoria, and usum (Table 3; Appendices 2 and 3). A smaller number of names refer to the place of growth, for example, chol-chol be’ (“lined up along the path”) for grisettes, and k’ab taj (“pine branch”) for Trametes and similar bracket mushrooms. Ustilago maydis is a parasite of corn that is considered a delicacy in Mexican cuisine (huitlacoche), but bears the decidedly ignoble English name of corn smut. Its Tzotzil name is not only poetic, but encodes ecological information about its habit: stok’al ixim, “storm clouds of the corn,” due to its gray, billowy form and appearance during the humid rainy season in corn fields. However, the predominant trend toward emphasizing shape, texture, and general form in the naming of folk genera lends support to Hunn’s (1977) observation that the recognition of folk genera is based on the “gestalt” of the organism rather than on specific sets of features.

Folk Species

Seven (about 35%) of the most salient Tzeltal and Tzotzil folk genus concepts listed in Table 3 are polytypic, i.e., they include habitually-named subgenus categories or “folk species,” though the latter do not necessarily correspond exactly with scientific species concepts. This value is significantly higher than the 20% of polytypic folk genera noted for Tzeltal classification of plants (Berlin et al. 1974). The overwhelming majority (80%) of Tzeltal folk genera for plants are monotypic, that is, they contain only one habitually named folk species (although these may encompass several biological species, which they do not differentiate by name). It appears that the overwhelming concern for utility (i.e., edibility) in Mayan mushroom classification (see below) may result in closer attention being paid to classification of mushrooms at the subgenus level when compared to plants.

As has been noted in folk biological systems throughout the world (Berlin 1992), Mayan folk species for mushrooms are named by adding descriptive epithets to the folk-genus name. The importance of color for naming folk species is notable: color terms are found in 22 of 49 (45%) habitually-named Tzeltal folk species, and 23 of 53 (43%) of habitually-named Tzotzil folk species (see Table 3). By contrast, color is incorporated into only 4 out of 38 Tzeltal folk-genus names and 3 out of 32 Tzotzil folk-genus names (about 10% each) for mushrooms (e.g., “yellow fish,” “white cabbage,” “blue sky,” “red mushroom”; see Appendices 2 and 3).

In all Mayan folk-mushroom genera containing edible species, the prototype for the genus is a highly salient edible species. For example, the prototypical or “type” species for the Tzeltal folk genus k’an tsu (“yellow gourd”) is the Amanita caesarea complex (see Guzmán and Ramírez-Guillén 2001), probably the most widely-eaten mushrooms in Mexico and certainly among the most available and prominent (Garibay-Orijel et al. 2007). The term k’an tsu may be used with or without a descriptive epithet to refer to this particular species group. In other circumstances, batz’il (“true”) or mero (Sp: “true”) may be added to emphasize its prototypical status. Folk species names are created by adding descriptive epithets, for example k’anal k’an tsu (“yellow amanita”), sakil k’an tsu (“white amanita”), tsajal k’an tsu (“red amanita”), and ijk’al k’an tsu (“black/dark amanita”) (Table 3), though these terms may not be applied consistently to locally-occurring Amanita species by all informants. Closely affiliated to the k’an tsu genus is a group known as chol-chol be’ (“lined up along the path”), which refers focally to the Amanita vaginata group, known in European folk taxonomy as grisettes (from French grise [“gray”] for their characteristic color). Some informants refer to this group alternatively as ijk’al k’an tsu (“black amanita”), reflecting a close association with the core group of amanitas. Finally, “false” species of amanitas are also distinguished, that is to say, species resembling their named, edible counterparts, but that are not (for the most part) given distinctive names and are thus considered inedible, indeed lethally poisonous. These are not usually given descriptive epithets, but rather are labeled with terms indicating marginal (as opposed to focal) status in the genus, for example wixil (“older sister”), bankilal (“older brother”), sjoy (“its friend, companion”), yan (“another”), amen (“bad”), or (as discussed below) merely bol lu’ (“stupid/crazy mushroom”, i.e. poisonous).

The fly agaric, Amanita muscaria, is a special case, however—a highly-salient species of spectacular appearance that many informants mentioned and depicted with detailed drawings in the free-listing exercise. It is universally considered among the highland Maya to be poisonous; many informants noted that it causes a drunken-like state of intoxication (yax yakub pajal sok pox, “It makes you drunk, like alcohol”) as well as causing potential death (yaxlaj kotik, “It kills us”). Curiously, there appears to be no single, habitual Tzeltal name for A. muscaria. Some informants referred to it as tsajal k’an tsu (“red amanita”), others as slu’ chawuk (“thunderbolt mushroom”; see Fig. 3 notes), and still others used descriptive terms such as chintik sjol (“with warts/measles on the cap”) or tsajal lu’ (“red mushroom”). Tzotzil speakers are more consistent in using the term yuy chauk (“thunderbolt amanita”) or yuy angel (“ghost/angel amanita”) for A. muscaria. In both languages, however, mushroom hunters may ignore altogether the correct genus-level classification of A. muscaria and call it simply bol lu’ (“stupid/crazy mushroom”) or vinino (Sp: “venom, poison”).

Stupid Vaginas, Crazy Squirrels, and Mad Tree Ears

So far, the picture that we have painted of highland Maya mushroom classification is similar to that of Mayan ethnobotany (Berlin et al. 1974) and other systems of ethnobiological classification around the world (Berlin 1992), and also bears some similarities to the Linnaean system of scientific nomenclature. However, Mayan mushroom classification differs in one striking respect. At any point down the hierarchical process of classifying a given example of a mushroom, a Mayan speaker can “give up,” as it were, on the cognitive effort of identifying that mushroom to the folk-genus level, and proclaim, bol lu’: “stupid/crazy vagina.” This is roughly equivalent to an English speaker saying “toadstool,” though English speakers are likely to name and recognize far fewer edible mushrooms.

Inedible, poisonous, and unknown mushrooms may sometimes be labeled as marginal “older sister/brother” (wixil/bankilal) members of some known genus grouping. In the case of the amanitas, poisonous and unknown species may be referred to with the same terms used for A. muscaria: yuy chawuk or yuy angel (“thunderbolt/ghost amanita”). But in many cases, these and other poisonous or unknown mushrooms may be lumped together in a single broad category called “stupid,” “crazy,” or “useless” mushrooms.

In different townships, this all-encompassing term for poisonous or inconsequential mushrooms is generally formed by adding the epithet “crazy,” “poison,” or “useless” to the kingdom-level term for mushroom:

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

  • Chamula: chuch —mushroom (literally “squirrel”) ≫bol chuch (“stupid/crazy squirrel”) —any unknown mushroom, assumed poisonous

  • Zinacantan: chanul te’etik—mushroom (“creature of the forest”) ≫tojol chon (“ordinary mushroom, useless creature”)—any unknown mushroom, assumed poisonous

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

  • Aguacatenango: lu’ te’—mushroom (literally “tree vagina”) ≫also used to refer to any unknown mushroom, assumed poisonous

In some cases, the simple term vinino (Spanish loan term veneno, “venom, poison”) is used by itself to refer to poisonous mushrooms, or added as an epithet to the name of a mushroom folk genus. When describing mushroom intoxication, informants sometimes acted out vivid pantomimes of vomiting, getting “drunk” and going crazy or rabid (singing, dancing, running naked), sticking out the tongue (the tongue is said to swell and bleed), and finally, closing the eyes to signal death. Although different kinds of poisonous mushrooms produce very different symptoms, the Maya informants interviewed tended to group and mix all these symptoms together. Thus, a mushroom that is not immediately recognized as an edible species is automatically presumed to be poisonous in all the possible 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 miscellaneous, unknown species are mostly rejected offhand: bol lu’. End of conversation. Though functionally this kind of wastebasket category is similar to the English concept of “toadstool,” its cognitive associations are similar to the folk botanical term “weed,” which implies both a life form (herbaceous), but also a fundamental uselessness (Hunn 1982).

It is also worth noting that the “stupid mushroom” category is dominated by small, nondescript mushrooms (see discussion about “Little Brown Mushrooms” in Arora 1986), but also includes some large and prominent species. Thus small size (see Hunn 1982) probably contributes to the likelihood of a mushroom being dismissed as “stupid” but is not the defining factor. It is also unclear whether small size contributes directly to the essence of mushroom “stupidness” or whether small size makes a mushroom less appealing as a food source, hence lowering the likelihood that it will be appreciated and named. Admittedly, it is difficult to distinguish whether terms such as bol lu’ (“stupid/crazy mushroom”) are indeed ethnobiological categories, or whether they represent what Berlin (1992) would call “special purpose” categories of use, or in this case, non-use.

Discussion

The Tzeltal and Tzotzil demonstrate detailed morphological and ecological knowledge about many important mushroom groups present in their environment. Their attention to macroscopic morphological details is in many ways parallel to that provided in scientific mycological descriptions. However, Mayan mushroom classification differs significantly in its scope and emphasis. The highland Maya appear to have chosen to apply their considerable observational powers, terminology, and nomenclature almost entirely to useful mushrooms, especially those that are edible. This focus on edibility accounts for the high proportion of useful taxa in Mayan mushroom classification, and the higher proportion of polytypic folk genera in Mayan ethnomycology compared to Mayan ethnobotany.

Only 10% of named Tzotzil and 4% of named Tzeltal mushroom folk genera contain no edible or otherwise useful species. This contrasts sharply with their classification of plants and animals, where a much larger proportion of folk genera (about 40%, according to Berlin 1992) contain culturally useless taxa. The ephemeral nature of most mushrooms, their infrequent appearance, and their bewildering diversity, especially in temperate ectomycorrhizal forests (see Luoma et al. 1997; Van de Poll 2004) may go a long way toward explaining why the highland Maya do not make the cognitive effort to classify and name a greater proportion of the mushrooms in their environment (as they do, for example, with plants), and instead relegate most of them to the dustbin category of “crazy” or “stupid” mushrooms. The ephemeral nature of mushrooms may also help to explain the significant regional and interinformant variation in mushroom nomenclature and classification: there are far fewer opportunities for individuals to “compare notes” on local mushrooms than on plants, for example.

If it is true, to paraphrase Berlin (1992), that plants and animals are classified simply “because they are there” (i.e., to satisfy intellectual or cognitive needs because they are present and salient in the environment, and not predominately due to their cultural utility), then it might be said that the highland Maya do not classify mushrooms more thoroughly “because they are not there,” that is, they are only there briefly, and many species fruit only once every few years. Faced with a vast number of ephemeral mushroom species (291 documented so far, likely numbering in the thousands for all of Chiapas—see Pérez-Moreno and Villareal 1988), indigenous populations such as the highland Maya appear to focus their attention on those few, salient species that they know to be useful and consistently available.

The large category of useless, “stupid,” or “crazy” mushrooms notwithstanding, the highland Maya’s knowledge of edible mushrooms is impressive, and it is puzzling that this body of knowledge has been ignored by several generations of anthropologists, ethnobiologists, and mycologists. We hope this preliminary investigation will inspire more extensive studies. Historically, the literature on Mexican ethnomycology has been dominated by a focus on the spectacular use of a few hallucinogenic species by a few indigenous cultures, while native knowledge about other mushrooms and their usage and classification has received far less attention. This may say more about the investigators’ interests and priorities than about those of the indigenous peoples of Mexico. The priorities of one of our Mayan informants was apparent when he accompanied us to a Tzeltal township where he had never been before. Upon arriving at the modest house of our local host, he gazed for a few moments at the nearby cornfields and pine forest, then asked three questions of her: “How do you grow such fine corn? What plants do you use for diarrhea? What kinds of mushrooms do you eat?”