When making identiﬁcations at the ‘small family’ (semgenk) level, the features sought become narrower, and include micro-morphological variations. Individuals can more readily point out these narrow cues, in a manner familiar to a scientist. The difﬁculty is the considerable disagreement encountered between persons about the use of these diagnostic criteria to give names to particular animals, both at this and the ‘large family’ secondary level, which again takes us away from any parallels assumed with scientiﬁc zoology. It makes the ethnoscientiﬁc catalogues even more questionable. If persons cannot agree over all the features that they use to distinguish between different named creatures, what is the status of catalogues that purport to do so? A written taxonomy assumes and imposes order and agreement. These accounts represent a consensual view, what I think the majority of those persons I know would recognise as descriptions of named animals, or, put another way, they are what the preponderance of scientiﬁc identiﬁcations of animal specimens, where available, suggest the majority recognise as representatives of named classes. Where more than one species of animal has been identiﬁed under a single Wola name and they differ notably in some regards (for example birds with quite different coloured plumage), the catalogues give people’s accounts of the animal, which more often than not focus on one of the species, without attempting to reconcile the differences. The confusions are integral to the taxonomy.