Abstract
Biocultural diversity has made notable contributions that have furthered our understanding of the human culture-nature interrelationship. However, the usage of the term 'biocultural' is not unique to biocultural diversity. It was first used in biocultural studies within anthropology decades ahead of biocultural diversity. The existing literature on biocultural diversity does not acknowledge the prior existence of biocultural studies, or provide a clear demarcation between usages of the two terms. In this article, I discuss the varying contexts in usage of the term 'biocultural' between biocultural diversity and biocultural anthropology. While biocultural diversity deals with the linkages between biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity, biocultural studies in anthropology deal with the deterministic influence of physical and social environment on human biology and wellbeing. In biocultural studies, 'biocultural' refers to the integration of methodically collated cultural data with biological and environmental data. 'Bio' in biocultural anthropology therefore denotes biology, unlike biocultural diversity where it refers to biodiversity. Both biocultural studies and biocultural diversity apply 'biocultural' as descriptor to generate overlapping terminologies such as 'biocultural approach'. Such a confusing scenario is not in the interest of biocultural diversity, as it would impede theoretical advancements. I propose that advocates of biocultural diversity explore its harmonies with ecoculturalism and the possibilities of suitably adapting the term 'ecoculture' in lieu of 'bioculture'. Using 'ecocultural' instead of 'biocultural' as a descriptor to coin terminologies could solve confusions arising from the expanding usage of the term 'bioculture'.