Nage Birds 
99 
^nth 
f opos 91.1996 
Thirdly, while a few, mostly small, clusters evi 
dent in the free recall lists appear to associate bird 
kinds on the basis of conventional criteria (e.g., 
the customary pairing of names like peti and kolo 
and kaka [kaka kea] and ha), most intermediate 
classes pertain to shared perceptual features such 
as body form, colour, tail size, leg length, habitat, 
and behaviour. This indicates, then, a classification 
based primarily on physical, and more specifically 
visual, features rather than on functional or utili 
tarian values. At the same time, utilitarian values 
do tend to coincide with perceptual criteria, as 
| s most evident from the two largest and clearest 
^stances of intermediate clusters, the “hawks and 
Pigeons.” Falconiformes not only manifest malev- 
°lent spirits and thus figure as omens (see Forth 
n -d.) but are also notorious chicken thieves against 
w hich one must maintain constant vigilance, while 
Columbiformes are favoured human foods. Yet not 
a h raptors are equally chicken thieves. Also, inas 
much as Nage consume the flesh of a great variety 
°f wild birds, Columbiformes are not nearly so 
functionally distinctive as might be supposed. On 
balance, then, one can say that perceptual resem 
blances account for intermediate clusterings to a 
far greater extent than do common utilitarian val 
ues. 
A fourth generalization concerns the discrete- 
ness of intermediate groups. In some instances, 
f^age classification appears to offer the possibility 
°f placing a basic term in more than one group- 
ln g. For example, while free recall lists suggest 
a tendency to classify the Spangled Drongo as a 
° n g-tailed bird, it is occasionally referred to, in the 
^tended sense at least, as an ana peti. The quail 
kind named piko is listed most often with other 
fiuails (bewu, muke)\ but it is also associated with 
Sl Uall Columbiformes (kolo) by virtue of utilitarian 
c °nsiderations as expressed in the standard phrase 
h l ko kolo. On the whole, though, the evidence does 
n °t reveal any significant overlap between inter 
mediate groupings. Thus, whereas the Spangled 
r °ngo is potentially classifiable as a crow-like 
^Uchbird, this association is not at all evident from 
e free recall lists. Nor is its membership of the 
Qna Peti, which in any case is disputed. 
. khe category po (owls) provides another neg- 
^*! Ve instance, inasmuch as it was usually listed 
uh the names of other nocturnal birds and almost 
j^ver with those of diurnal raptors, other members 
mystical group of entities thought capable 
e mitting nocturnal sounds also designated as 
The same applies to the Munia named ana peti 
u, the one non-raptor belonging to the auditorily 
uned mystical class, since this bird was never 
mentioned with nocturnal and diurnal raptors - the 
other po-sounding birds - in free recall. 
On the whole, therefore, intermediate groupings 
do appear to be relatively well-bounded. The same 
applies at other levels of the classification. In a few 
instances, informants disagreed about whether a 
term referred to an actual bird or to something 
else (see e.g., manu mesi, 2. Identification and 
Taxonomy). In general, though, the unnamed class 
of “birds” is also taxonomically discrete. 
Further attention should be given to several 
of the standard pairings of bird names. Among 
these are the expressions piko kolo and kaka ha, 
mentioned just earlier. Other instances include jata 
kua, iki jata (two pairings referring more generally 
to diurnal raptors), gako tasi o ae (herons, though 
also a metaphorical reference to a tall person), and 
bopo zawa (larger pigeons and doves). Implicitly 
at least, all these expressions refer to groupings 
more inclusive than the two kinds named; yet none 
can properly be said to label intermediate ethnoor- 
nithological taxa. Part of the reason is that, like 
peti kolo (understood either as a general term for 
birds, or for seed-eating birds), none is numerable 
with the classifier eko, so that when referring more 
generally to raptors for example, one cannot say 
“two eagles (and) kites” (*jata kua eko dhua). 
Consistent with this, the evidence of the recall 
lists suggests that this sort of pairing does not sig 
nificantly affect the ordering of natural kinds. Di 
urnal raptors for example are indeed usually listed 
together, as often are long-legged water birds, but 
this is attributable to shared morphological features 
as much as to linguistic conventions. 11 In contrast, 
piko (“quail”) and kolo (“dove”), and even peti 
(ana peti) and kolo - that is, names of birds linked 
by utilitarian associations rather than physical re 
semblances - do not cluster in the same way. 
The same observations pertain to bird names 
that are regularly paired in the more elaborate idi 
om of ritual language, in proverbs and aphorisms, 
or in the lyrics of songs. Examples include the 
pairs bama/lceka, cecel/koka, kokaHleo, koka//za- 
wa, kea (= kaka kea)//ha, kete dhengillio wea, kua 
11 In the recall lists, iki precedes or follows jata five times; 
in four cases iki is thus combined with kua, and in three 
instances with sizo. Kua and jata appear together five times. 
Given that there are only six named raptor taxa, however, 
these combinations are not obviously significant. Sizo and 
bele teka were named together by five out of eight infor 
mants who mentioned both. While the names appear not 
to compose a standard pair, the two birds are described as 
resembling one another more than either does other raptors. 
In the opinion of one informant, the names denote the same 
bird.