Open Access

Traditional uses of medicinal animals in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil

  • Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves1Email author,
  • Rita Oliveira de Sousa Neta1,
  • Dilma Maria de Brito Trovão1,
  • Jose Etham de Lucena Barbosa1,
  • Adrianne Teixeira Barros1 and
  • Thelma Lucia Pereira Dias1
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine20128:41

DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-8-41

Received: 15 August 2012

Accepted: 7 October 2012

Published: 10 October 2012

Abstract

The present work presents an inventory of the traditional medicinal uses of animals in the municipality of Bom Sucesso in Paraíba State (PB) in the semiarid northeastern region of Brazil. Information was obtained through the use of semi-structured interviews with 50 people who use zootherapeutic products. A total of 25 animal species used for medicinal purposes were identified (18 vertebrates and seven invertebrates) distributed among five taxonomic categories; the groups with the largest numbers of citations were: mammals (8 citations), insects (7), and reptiles (5). The most cited animal species were: Tubinambis merianae “teju” lizards (44 citations); Apis mellifera Italian honeybees (318 citations); Gallus gallus chickens (31 citations); Ovis aries sheep (31 citations); Crotalus durissus rattlesnakes (14 citations); Boa constrictor (12 citations); and Bos taurus cattle (12 citations). A significant number of illnesses and conditions treated with animal-based medicines were cited, and the category with the greatest number of citations was “problems affecting the respiratory system”. Our results suggest that the use of zootherapeutics in the region is persistent, and that knowledge about these curative practices is an integral part of the regional culture. As such, studies concerning the uses of zootherapeutics are important windows to understanding human/environmental/cultural interactions and a pathway to conciliating regional cultures with efforts to conserve the native fauna.

Background

Humans have always used nature as a source of basic resources for survival, including treatments for infirmities, and human medical practices include the use of plants, animals, and minerals in the production of remedies [1]. Researchers have generally emphasized studies of medicinal plants, relegating medicinal animals a lower priority. Recently, however, investigations of this theme have intensified, reinforcing the idea that the use of medicinal animal resources has long been present in all societies and continues even up to the present day [215].

Brazil’s high biological and sociocultural diversity [16, 17] translates into a wealth of traditional knowledge and practices, including the use of animals for medicinal purposes. It is estimated that Brazil hosts between 15% and 20% of the world’s biological diversity, and the greatest number of endemic species. Brazil has more than 200 indigenous tribes and a large number of traditional communities that all possess considerable knowledge about the local fauna and flora and exhibit an array of natural resource use strategies and each ethnic culture possesses a broad knowledge regarding the medicinal properties of wildlife species [18, 19]. The extensive medicinal use of animal parts and products has been documented both in rural and urban areas [3, 4, 6, 1731], and is sustained by a thriving trade in medicinal animals conducted by herbalists in markets throughout Brazil [3, 4, 17, 32].

Studies of the utilization of medicinal animals by human populations living in northeastern Brazil are still relatively scarce, even though the region retains significant cultural and biological diversity that is reflected in a rich popular knowledge about biological medicinal resources [24]. Historically, ethnobiological studies have been largely directed towards ethnobotanical themes, although ethnozoological studies have intensified in recent years [33]. In the specific case of the semiarid region of Paraíba State, studies undertaken in a number of localities [11, 30, 3436], have highlighted the cultural importance of using zootherapeutic items for treating human as well as animal illnesses and reflect the strong relationship these local populations have with the natural resources available around them [37, 38]. In an effort to contribute to our knowledge of zootherapeutic practices and their implications in the semiarid region of northeastern Brazil, the present work documented the animals used as zootherapeutics in the municipality of Bom Sucesso in the semiarid region of Paraíba State (PB).

Methods

The present research was carried out in the municipality of Bom Sucesso (06° 26' 42'' S; 37° 55' 46'' W), situated in western Paraíba State in northeastern Brazil (Figure 1). This municipality was created by State Law N° 3049 of June 17, 1963, and comprises an area of 198 km2, with a population of 5,280 inhabitants, of which 1,558 live in urban areas and 3,722 in the rural zone.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1746-4269-8-41/MediaObjects/13002_2012_Article_296_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Location of Bom Sucesso municipality, Paraíba State, Northeastern Brazilian region.

The municipality of Bom Sucesso is located within the semiarid region known as the Drought Polygon of Brazil. The regional climate is hot and humid, with rainfall in the autumn and winter (classified as AW' by the Koppen system). Paraíba State is divided into bioclimatic regions, and the municipality of Bom Sucesso has a hot and attenuated dry climate, with 7 to 8 months of drought, average yearly temperatures of 27 to 28°C, and with average annual rainfall of 1,000 mm (type 4ath-Tropical). The regional vegetation is known as Caatinga (deciduous thorny scrub) and the local topography varies from 270 to 600 m above sea level. The municipal health infrastructure includes a hospital with 16 beds and three ambulatory units. There are 16 grammar schools and one high school.

Procedures

Field research was conducted from December 2007 to February 2008. During the first contacts with the local population, we attempted to identify local people with a specialized knowledge of medicinal animal use, following Alves and Rosa [20]. A specialist is defined as “a person recognized by the community as having deep knowledge about the use of animals in manufacturing remedies and in promoting cures”. Information on the use of animal in traditional medicines was collected through interviews with 50 persons (11 men and 39 women), mainly from the elderly people, who still retain the major portion of traditional knowledge in their respective communities. Additional interviewees were chosen by using the snowball technique, based on information initially provided by the specialists. Interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis. Prior informed consent was obtained for all interviews conducted.

Data were gathered through interview-questionnaires, with some questions left open-ended [39]. Questionnaires encompassed the following aspects: local name of the animal used as remedy; parts used as medicine; conditions treated with the remedy; preparation and usage; restrictions of use; spiritual aspects linked to the use; use of live or dead animals; how animals were obtained; storage conditions; collection sites; efficacy of the remedies; traditional uses of the remedies in the community; how knowledge was acquired by the interviewees; reliance on animal-based remedies; why the interviewee used animal-based remedies.

The ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics committee of Paraiba University State. To respect intellectual property rights, we adopted the following protocol in the field: before the survey, we introduced ourselves, explained the nature and objectives of our research and asked the respondents for permission to record the information.

Species’ vernacular names were recorded as quoted by interviewees. Zoological material was identified with the aid of specialists, through (1) examination of voucher specimens donated by the interviewees; (2) photographs of the animals or their parts, taken during interviews; (3) vernacular names, with the aid of taxonomists familiar with the study areas’ fauna. Voucher specimens and/or photographs were deposited at the Department of Systematics and Ecology, Federal University of Paraíba.

Data analysis

Use value

For each species was calculated the use value (adapted from the proposal of Phillips et al. [40], a quantitative method that demonstrates the relative importance of species known locally. These value was calculated using the following formula: UV = ΣU/n, where: UV = use value of a species; U = number of citations per species; n = number of informants.

Application of the use-value of each species is based objectively on the importance attributed by the informants and does not depend on the opinion of the researcher.

Results and discussion

A total of 25 medicinal animals were cited by the interviewees (21 vertebrates and seven invertebrates). These species inventoried include five taxonomic groups: mammals (8 species), insects (7 species), birds (4 species), reptiles (5 species), and amphibians (1 species) belonging to 19 families (Table 1 and Figure 2).
Table 1

Animals species used in popular medicine in the municipality of Bom Sucesso, Paraíba State, Brazil

Family/species/local name

Number of citation

Use Value

Part used

Disease (or illness)

INSECTS

Apidae

Apis mellifera (Linnaeus, 1758)–Africanised honey bee, “abelha italiana”

38

0.56

Honey (7,8)

Sore throat, flu, shortness of breath, cough, tuberculosis

Partamona cupira (Smith)–a stingless Bee, “Abelha cupira”

2

0.04

Honey (7,8)

Earache, menstrual cramps

Melipona subnitida (Ducke, 1910)–jandaíra

12

0.16

Honey (7,8)

Sore throat, flu, earache, hoarseness

Tetragonisca angustula (Latreille, 1811)–abelha mosquito

6

0.10

Honey(7,8)

Earache, sore throat

Cephalotrigona capitata (Smith 1854)–Abelha mumbuca

2

0.02

Honey (7,8)

Sore throat, nervous problems

Termitidae

Nasutitermes macrocephalus (Silvestri, 1903)–Termite, Cupim

2

0.02

Whole anima (7)

Bronchitis, whooping cough

Unidentified family

Unidentified species-beetle

1

0.02

Beetle’s Nest

Mumps

AMPHIBIANS

Bufonidae

Rhinella jimi (Stevaux, 2002), Toad

1

0.02

Abdomen (10)

Erysipelas

REPTILES

Chelidae

Phrynops geoffroanus (Schweigger, 1812)–Geoffroy’s side-necked turtle, “cágado”

5

0.06

Fat (3)

Swelling, sore throat, flu, stuffy nose

Teiidae

Tupinambis merianae (Duméril & Bibron, 1839)–Teju lizard, “tegu”, “tejuaçú”

44

0.88

Fat (3), meat (5)

Sore throat, thrombosis

Crotalidae

Crotalus durissus Linnaeus, 1758–South American rattlesnake, “Cascavel”

14

0.22

Fat (3)

Rheumatism, skin spots, eye problems, plantar fasciitis, Swelling, pain in general, hoarseness

Boidae

Boa constrictor (Linnaeus, 1758)–Boa, Cobra de veado

12

0.22

Fat (3)

Rheumatism, swelling, herniated intervertebral disk, bone fractures

Tropiduridae

Tropidurus hispidus (Spix, 1825)–Lizard, Lagartixa

1

0.02

Whole animal (9)

Sore throat

BIRDS

Phasianidae

Gallus gallus domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758)–chicken, Galinha

31

0.38

Gizzard (5), fat (3 or 8), eggshells (2), egg yolk (6), meat (5)

Indigestion, sinusitis, shortness of breath, bronchitis, nervous problems, rheumatism, stuffy nose, weak bones, flu, weakness, sore throat, furuncle

Meleagrididae

Numida meleagris Linnaeus, 1758–Helmeted Guineafowl, “Guiné”

2

0.04

Meat (5)

whooping cough

Anatidae

Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758–Duck, Pato

1

0.02

Eggs (5)

Weakness

Corvidae

Cyanocorax cyanopogon (Wied-Neuwied, 1821)–White-naped Jay

1

0.02

Gizzard (5)

Asthma

MAMMALS

Trichechidae

Trichechus manatus (Linnaeus, 1758)–Manatee, Peixe-boi

3

0.02

Fat (3)

Headache, rheumatism, corporal lesions

Canidae

Canis lupus (Linnaeus, 1758)–Domestic dog, Cachorro

1

0.02

Faeces (1)

Measles

Dasypodidae

Dasypus novemcinctus (Linnaeus, 1758)–Nine-banded armadillo, Tatu-verdadeiro

2

0.04

Meat (5), tail (4)

Back ache, snake bite

Mustelidae

Conepatus semistriatus (Boddaert, 1785)–Striped hog-nosed skunk, “Ticaca”

1

0.02

Meat (5)

Rheumatism

Caviidae

Kerodon rupestris (Wied-Neuwied, 1820)–Rock cavy, “Mocó”

3

0.04

Meat (5)

Disorders after parturition (to accelerate recovery after parturition), weakness, thrombosis

Bovidae

Bos taurus Linnaeus, 1758–Domestic cattle, “Boi”

12

0.20

Liver (5), horn (1,7), marrow (7), milk (8), urine (8), butter (8), hoof proteins (7)

Anaemia, the evil eye, nervous problems, whooping cough, weakness, eye problems, sore throat, baldness, tuberculosis

Ovis aries Linnaeus, 1758–Sheep, “Carneiro”

31

0.36

Fat (4), suet (4)

Rheumatism, cracks in the sole of the feet inflammations, swelling, nervous problems, furuncle, one fractures, suck a splinter out of skin or flesh, mycosis

Hydrochaeridae

Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris (Linnaeus, 1766), capybara, capivara

1

0.02

Fa (3)

Osteoporosis

Legend: 1, Tea; 2, powder, to be ingested with food; 3, ointment to be rubbed on the affected area; 4, ear drops; 5, ingestion of the cooked part; 6, ingestion of the crude part; 7, beverage (‘garrafada’), obtained by mixing medicinal plants and animals; 8, taken as a drink; 9, concoction, taken as a drink; 10, Rubbed on the affected area.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1746-4269-8-41/MediaObjects/13002_2012_Article_296_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Animal species used as remedies by taxa in Bom Sucesso, Paraíba State, Northeastern Brazil.

The most cited animal species were: Tubinambis merianae (Duméril & Bibron, 1839 (Figure 3)) “teju” lizards (44 citations); Apis mellifera (Linnaeus, 1758) Italian honeybees (28 citations); Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758) chickens (19 citations); Ovis aries (Linnaeus, 1758) sheep (17 citations); Crotalus durissus (Linnaeus, 1758) rattlesnakes (11 citations); Boa constrictor (11 citations); and Bos taurus (Linnaeus, 1758) cattle (10 citations).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1746-4269-8-41/MediaObjects/13002_2012_Article_296_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Tubinambis merianae , the most important medicinal animal in the municipality of Bom Sucesso, Paraíba State, Brazil.

As has been seen in other studies of zootherapeutics undertaken in Brazil [41] many animals had multiple medicinal uses, such as: cattle (Bos taurus), whose body parts (liver, urine, butter, marrow, hoof proteins) are used to treat illnesses such as sore throats, anemia, and severe coughing (whooping cough), and; chickens (Gallus domesticus), whose body parts (fat, gizzard, eggs [shells and yolks], and meat) are used to treat sinus problems, shortness of breath, indigestion, bronchitis, stuffy nose, rheumatism, weak bones, colds, general weakness, sore throats, hoarseness, and boils. Among the species with multiple therapeutic indications are Apis mellifera, Ovis aries, and Crotalus durissus.

The accessibility and availability of local faunal resources influence the choices of the zootherapeutics utilized, so that the majority of the medicinal animals used occur within the research area. The commerce of zootherapeutic items in public markets is very common in many Brazilian towns and cities [4, 5, 7, 32, 42, 43], which results in additional pressure on useful species, although the results of our interviews indicated that relatively few people in the region bought their zootherapeutic items, being able to obtain these substances from animals captured and/or kept near their homes.

The medicinal animals cited in this survey were used to treat 43 different illnesses and maladies (Table 1). The treatment categories with the largest number of citations were: problems affecting the respiratory apparatus and illnesses of the osteomuscular system – which corroborates the results of other research projects that have examined the use of zootherapeutics. Alves and Rosa [20] demonstrated that problems affecting the respiratory system and the osteomuscular system and connective tissues always appeared as the most cited in investigations of home-remedy uses in northern and northeastern Brazil. Costa-Neto [26] likewise found that animal-based medicines are frequently used to treat respiratory diseases in Bahia State, in northeastern Brazil. Similar results were reported by Silva et al. [44] in a survey of public markets in the city of Recife in Pernambuco State (also in the northeastern region of that country).

Home remedies are obtained from whole animals, or their body parts, or products extracted from them, such as fat, honey, milk, butter, wax, urine, feces, meat, skin, bones, liver, tails, gizzards, and eggs. Among these products, animal fat was the most cited in this and in other studies [2, 57, 14, 18, 20, 25, 32, 35]. Most of these materials have been reported in other surveys of human utilization of zootherapeutic resources in Brazil [14, 24, 45], indicating that these practices are widely disseminated throughout the country.

The zootherapeutic resources identified in the present study demonstrated Use-values (VU) that varied from 0.02 to 0.88. Most of the species surveyed had low VU values, with 67% percent of them being below 0.10 (Table 1). These data indicates considerable variation in species uses, with some species being frequently utilized and therefore more important in traditional local medicine. The species having the greatest use-values were Tupinambis merianae (VU = 0.88), Apis mellifera (VU = 0.56), and Gallus domesticus (VU = 0.38), and all three are known to be widely used in traditional medicine throughout Brazil [14, 24, 45].

One important aspect of the use of medicinal animals is related to public health [15, 20]. In the present study, which involved many home visits, we witnessed inappropriate storage of many products and only minimal considerations of hygiene. These lax storage practices did not seem to concern most of the people using these materials, and they demonstrated a lack awareness of the possible grave health consequences of inadequate storage of zootherapeutics (or any other product used for medicinal purposes). In their research on zootherapy in northern and northeastern Brazil, Alves and Rosa [32], likewise observed a general lack of concern for the storage conditions of zootherapeutic products and the risks of bacterial contamination, and Alves and Rosa [15] recommended the implementation of sanitary measures to govern the use and storage of these folk medicines in light of possible negative effects on public health.

Our results indicated that the use of animals for medicinal purposes in the community studied was quite accentuated, and that these people retain considerable knowledge about the local fauna used in health care treatments. It was also seen that zootherapeutics are most frequently used to treat the common illnesses in the population, such as problems affecting the respiratory apparatus (including throat inflammations, coughing, colds, and asthma). Popular knowledge about these curative practices is an integral part of the regional culture and demonstrates the necessity of carefully studying zootherapeutic practices to better understand human/environmental/cultural interactions – especially in light of the probable existence of valuable pharmacologically active substances in these remedies and the opportunity to conciliate the regional culture with animal conservation efforts.

The results obtained in the present research, together with data provided by other workers, confirm that the medicinal uses of animals represent ethnozoological connections of relevant cultural value in the semiarid region of northeastern Brazil. Additional studies will be necessary to amplify our knowledge of the regional medicinal fauna from a historical perspective and examine the interwoven cultural, pharmacological, and ecological interdependencies of zootherapeutic practices in traditional cultures.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to acknowledge to CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for providing a research fellowship. The authors would like to acknowledge to CNPq/Edital Universal program (472623/2009-5 and 486005/2011-9) and to UEPB/PROPESQ (2008 and 2011) for financial support. Special thanks are due to all interviewees, who kindly shared their knowledge with us.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba

References

  1. Alves RRN, Rosa IL: Animals in Traditional Folk Medicine: Implications for Conservation. 2012, Berlin Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves RRN: Relationships between fauna and people and the role of ethnozoology in animal conservation. Ethnobiology and Conservation. 2012, 1: 1-69.Google Scholar
  3. Alves RRN, Oliveira MGG, Barboza RRD, Lopez LCS: An ethnozoological survey of medicinal animals commercialized in the markets of Campina Grande, NE Brazil. Hum Ecol Rev. 2010, 17: 11-17.Google Scholar
  4. Oliveira ES, Torres DF, Brooks SE, Alves RRN: The medicinal animal markets in the metropolitan region of Natal City, Northeastern Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010, 130: 54-60. 10.1016/j.jep.2010.04.010.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferreira FS, Albuquerque UP, Coutinho HDM, Almeida WO, Alves RRN: The trade in medicinal animals in Northeastern Brazil. eCAM. 2012, 2012: 1-20.Google Scholar
  6. Ferreira FS, Brito S, Ribeiro S, Almeida W, Alves RRN: Zootherapeutics utilized by residents of the community Poco Dantas, Crato-CE, Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009, 5: 21-10.1186/1746-4269-5-21.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferreira FS, Brito S, Ribeiro S, Saraiva A, Almeida W, Alves RRN: Animal-based folk remedies sold in public markets in Crato and Juazeiro do Norte, Ceara, Brazil. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2009, 9: 17-10.1186/1472-6882-9-17.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Alves RRN, Souto WMS, Barboza RRD: Primates in traditional folk medicine: a world overview. Mammal Rev. 2010, 40: 155-180. 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00158.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Barboza RRD, Souto WMS, Mourão JS: The use of zootherapeutics in folk veterinary medicine in the district of Cubati, Paraíba State, Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2007, 3: 14-10.1186/1746-4269-3-14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Souto W, Mourao JS, Barboza RRD, Alves RRN: Parallels between zootherapeutic practices in Ethnoveterinary and Human Complementary Medicine in NE Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2011, 134 (3): 753-767. 10.1016/j.jep.2011.01.041.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Souto WMS, Mourão JS, Barboza RRD, Mendonca LET, Lucena RFP, Confessor MVA, Vieira WLS, Montenegro PFGP, Lopez LCS, Alves RRN: Medicinal animals used in ethnoveterinary practices of the‘Cariri Paraibano’, NE Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011, 7: 30-10.1186/1746-4269-7-30.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Souto WMS, Mourão JS, Barboza RRD, Rocha MSP, Alves RRN: Animal-based medicines used in ethnoveterinary practices in the semi-arid region of Northeastern Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2012, 84 (3): 669-678. 10.1590/S0001-37652012005000038.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Alves RRN, Alves HN: The faunal drugstore: Animal-based remedies used in traditional medicines in Latin America. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011, 7: 9-10.1186/1746-4269-7-9.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Alves RRN, Rosa IL, Santana GG: The role of animal-derived remedies as complementary medicine in brazil. Bioscience. 2007, 57: 949-955. 10.1641/B571107.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Alves RRN, Rosa IL: Why study the use of animal products in traditional medicines?. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2005, 1: 1-5. 10.1186/1746-4269-1-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Elisabetsky E, Wannmacher L: The status of ethnopharmacology in Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 1993, 38: 129-135. 10.1016/0378-8741(93)90008-S.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Alves RRN, Rosa IL: Zootherapy goes to town: the use of animal-based remedies in urban areas of NE and N Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007, 113: 541-555. 10.1016/j.jep.2007.07.015.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Alves RRN, Rosa IL: Zootherapeutic practices among fishing communities in North and Northeast Brazil: a comparison. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007, 111: 82-103. 10.1016/j.jep.2006.10.033.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Alves RRN: Animal-based remedies as complementary medicine in Brazil. Forsch Komplementmed. 2008, 15: 226-227.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Alves RRN, Rosa IL: From cnidarians to mammals: the use of animals as remedies in fishing communities in NE Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2006, 107: 259-276. 10.1016/j.jep.2006.03.007.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Alves RRN, Pereira-Filho GA, Lima YCC: Snakes used in ethnomedicine in Northeast Brazil. Environ Dev Sustainability. 2007, 9: 455-464. 10.1007/s10668-006-9031-x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Alves RRN, Pereira Filho GA: Commercialization and use of snakes in North and Northeastern Brazil: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv. 2007, 16: 969-985. 10.1007/s10531-006-9036-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Alves RRN, Rosa IL: Use of Tucuxi Dolphin Sotalia fluviatilis for medicinal and magic/religious purposes in North of Brazil. Hum Ecol. 2008, 36: 443-447. 10.1007/s10745-008-9174-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Alves RRN: Fauna used in popular medicine in Northeast Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009, 5: 1-30. 10.1186/1746-4269-5-1.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Alves RRN, Neto NAL, Brooks SE, Albuquerque UP: Commercialization of animal-derived remedies as complementary medicine in the semi-arid region of Northeastern Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2009, 124: 600-608. 10.1016/j.jep.2009.04.049.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Costa-Neto EM: Healing with animals in Feira de Santana City, Bahia, Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 1999, 65: 225-230. 10.1016/S0378-8741(98)00158-5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Figueiredo N: Os ‘bichos’ que curam: os animais e a medicina ‘folk’ em Belém do Pará. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Göeldi. 1994, 10: 75-91.Google Scholar
  28. Silva AL: Animais medicinais: conhecimento e uso entre as populações ribeirinhas do rio Negro, Amazonas, Brasil. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Göeldi. 2008, 3: 343-357.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Branch L, Silva MF: Folk medicine in Alter do Chão, Pará, Brasil. Acta Amazônica. 1983, 13: 737-797.Google Scholar
  30. Confessor MVA, Mendonca LET, Mourao JS, Alves RRN: Animals to heal animals: ethnoveterinary practices in semi-arid region, Northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009, 5: 37-10.1186/1746-4269-5-37.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Almeida CFCBR, Albuquerque UP: Uso e conservação de plantas e animais medicinais no Estado de Pernambuco (Nordeste do Brasil): um estudo de caso. Interciencia. 2002, 27: 276-285.Google Scholar
  32. Alves RRN, Rosa IL: Trade of animals used in Brazilian traditional medicine: trends and implications for conservation. Hum Ecol. 2010, 38: 691-704. 10.1007/s10745-010-9352-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Alves RRN, Souto WMS: Ethnozoology in Brazil: current status and perspectives. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011, 7: 22-10.1186/1746-4269-7-22.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Souto WMS, Alves RRN, Confessor MVA, Barboza RRD, Mourão JS, Mendonça LET: A Zooterapia na Etnoveterinária do semi-árido paraibano. A Etnozoologia no Brasil: Importância, Status atual e Perspectivas. Volume 7. Edited by: Alves RRN, Souto WMS, Mourão JS. 2010, Recife, PE: NUPEEA, 423-446. 1stGoogle Scholar
  35. Alves RRN, Barbosa JAA, Santos SLDX, Souto WMS, Barboza RRD: Animal-based Remedies as Complementary Medicines in the Semi-arid Region of Northeastern Brazil. eCAM. 2011, 2011: 179876-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Alves RRN, Gonçalves MBR, Vieira WLS: Caça, uso e conservação de vertebrados no semiárido Brasileiro. Trop Conserv Sci. 2012, 5: 394-416.Google Scholar
  37. Alves RRN, Mendonça LET, Confessor MVA, Vieira WLS, Lopez LCS: Hunting strategies used in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009, 5: 12-10.1186/1746-4269-5-12.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Barbosa JAA, Nobrega VA, Alves RRN: Hunting practices in the semiarid region of Brazil. Indian J Traditional Knowledge. 2011, 10: 486-490.Google Scholar
  39. Huntington HP: Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl. 2000, 10: 1270-1274. 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Phillips O, Gentry AH, Reynel C, Wilkin P, Galvez-Durand BC: Quantitative ethnobotany and amazonian conservation. Conserv Biol. 1994, 8: 225-248. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010225.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Costa-Neto EM, Alves RRN: Estado da arte da zooterapia popular no Brasil. Zooterapia: Os Animais na Medicina Popular Brasileira. Volume 2. Edited by: Costa-Neto EM, Alves RRN. 2010, Recife, PE: NUPEEA, 13-54. 1stGoogle Scholar
  42. Alves RRN: O comércio de recursos zooterápicos. Zooterapia: Os Animais na Medicina Popular Brasileira. Volume 2. Edited by: Costa-Neto EM, Alves RRN. 2010, Recife, PE: NUPEEA, 159-176. 1stGoogle Scholar
  43. Alves RRN, Lima HN, Tavares MC, Souto WMS, Barboza RRD, Vasconcellos A: Animal-based remedies as complementary medicines in Santa Cruz do Capibaribe, Brazil. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008, 8: 44-10.1186/1472-6882-8-44.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Silva MLV, Alves ÂGC, Almeida AV: A zooterapia no Recife (Pernambuco): uma articulação entre as práticas e a história. Biotemas. 2004, 17: 95-116.Google Scholar
  45. Costa-Neto EM, Alves RRN: Zooterapia: Os Animais na Medicina Popular Brasileira. 2010, Recife, PE: NUPEEA, 1stGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Alves et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.