Open Access

Plant identification credibility in ethnobotany: a closer look at Polish ethnographic studies

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine20106:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-6-36

Received: 15 October 2010

Accepted: 17 December 2010

Published: 17 December 2010

Abstract

Background

This paper is an attempt to estimate the percentage of erroneously identified taxa in ethnographic studies concerning the use of plants and to propose a code for recording credibility of identification in historical ethnobotany publications.

Methods

A sample of Polish-language ethnobotanical literature (45 published sources from 1874-2005) and four collections of voucher specimens (from 1894-1975) were analyzed. Errors were detected in the publications by comparing the data with existing knowledge on the distribution of plant names and species ranges. The voucher specimens were re-examined.

A one-letter code was invented for quick identification of the credibility of data published in lists of species compiled from historical or ethnographic sources, according to the source of identification: voucher specimen, Latin binominal, botanical expert, obvious widespread name, folk name, mode of use, range, physical description or photograph. To test the use of the code an up-to-date list of wild food plants used in Poland was made.

Results

A significant difference between the ratio of mistakes in the voucher specimen collections and the ratio of detectable mistakes in the studies without herbarium documentation was found. At least 2.3% of taxa in the publications were identified erroneously (mean rate was 6.2% per publication), and in half of these mistakes even the genus was not correct. As many as 10.0% of voucher specimens (on average 9.2% per collection) were originally erroneously identified, but three quarters of the identification mistakes remained within-genus.

The species of the genera Thymus, Rumex and Rubus were most often confused within the genus.

Not all of the invented credibility codes were used in the list of wild food plants, but they may be useful for other researchers. The most often used codes were the ones signifying identification by: voucher specimen, botanical expert and by a common name used throughout the country.

Conclusions

The results of this study support the rigorous use of voucher specimens in ethnobotany, although they also reveal a relatively high percentage of misidentified taxa in the specimens studied.

The invented credibility coding system may become a useful tool for communication between historical ethnobotanists, particularly in creating larger databases.

Background

One of the main problems ethnobotanists face when publishing their results is the possibility of a mistake in the identification of the studied taxa. Therefore securing voucher specimens is now standard procedure in ethnobotany [13], required by major journals and discussed in ethnobotany method manuals [e.g. [4, 5]]. On the other hand the results of studies not documented by voucher specimens are still sometimes published, particularly in the field of historical ethnobotany, where not only is there a lack of voucher specimens, but often we have to hypothesize about the taxonomic position of certain species known only by their extinct folk/local names [6]. Ethnobotanists may include sources in their databases, which contain Latin binominals that come from reliable authors (preferably from professional botanists), but which are not confirmed by voucher specimens. This situation comes about because historical data are often too important to be discarded just on the basis of insufficient documentation [7].

It seems that no one has ever endeavored to estimate the possible percentage of mistakes in ethnobotanical publications. One of the very few authors who has dealt with the credibility of data in historical ethnobotany is Svanberg [8, 9]. He presented a few examples of some so called "ghost data" - old and erroneous information, which has been repeated by subsequent authors. The importance of identification credibility in historical ethnobotany can be clearly shown by the study of Kufer et al. [10], who compared present use of plants by the Ch'orti' Maya from Guatemala with data gathered in the same population in the 1930s by Charles Wisdom. It turned out that some mistakes occurred in the former study, where a taxon was misidentified as belonging to a different family.

The quality of ethnobotanical information is increasingly discussed in a variety of contexts [1113], for instance ethnobotanical databases [14, 15]. For example in a database of ethnobotanical data on the Campania region in Italy [14], levels of certainty of identification were introduced (sure, unsure, etc.). Generally, the likelihood of a mistake in identification probably increases with the age of the studied publication/information. This happens for a variety of reasons, e.g. changing folk names or uses in time.

In order to analyze the issue of mistakes in plant identification we should look at the whole process of plant identification. With ethnobotanical data a few scenarios are most likely:
  1. 1.
    The plant was shown to the ethnobotanist by an informant.
    1. 1.1

      The informant showed the wrong plant.

       
    2. 1.2
      The informant showed the right plant.
      1. 1.2.1

        The plant was not taken from the field and the identification was performed "from memory".

         
      2. 1.2.2
        The plant was picked and used in the identification process.
        1. 1.2.2.1
          The plant was not preserved.
          1. 1.2.2.1.1

            A voucher specimen was not made.

             
          2. 1.2.2.1.2

            A voucher specimen was made later. from a plant, which according to the ethnobotanist's knowledge belongs to the same taxon.

             
           
        2. 1.2.2.2

          The plant was preserved as a voucher specimen.

           
         
       
     
  2. 2.
    The plant was not shown to the ethnobotanist.
    1. 2.1
      The plant was named by the informant using a local name.
      1. 2.1.1

        A scientific name was not assigned.

         
      2. 2.1.2

        The scientific name was found/hypothesized using other ethnobotanical literature containing the same or similar folk names as used in the studied population.

         
      3. 2.1.3

        The local name is identical or similar to an official 'scientific' name of a species and the plant was (often erroneously) identified by assuming that the local name referred to the same taxon.

         
       
    2. 2.2

      The plant was named by the informant using its scientific name (and a local name).

       
    3. 2.3

      The plant was identified by the ethnobotanist from a verbal description.

       
     

Obviously the ideal situation is 1.2.2.2, particularly if voucher specimens were shown/brought by more than one informant. However, different scenarios happen for a variety of reasons, of which the major three are:

1 the ignorance of the researcher,

2 the fact that the information may be published/recorded even if securing of a voucher specimen is not possible, because of the importance of studying the use of a taxon for the researcher,

3 the use of a plant is extinct and we have only historical records without voucher specimens.

In this study I would like to consider the problem of the credibility of ethnobotanical data in one country - Poland. Poland, like a few other European countries, has a rich 19 and 20th century ethnographic literature concerning the traditional use of plants - for a bibliography see Klepacki's review [16]. As the Polish flora is relatively poor in plant species (it has approximately three thousand species), the concept of voucher specimens was difficult to understand, not only for ethnographers studying the traditional use of plants, but also for botanists, who were relatively sure of their identifications.

The first person who tried to verify the credibility of older ethnobotanical studies in Poland was Köhler in 1996 [17], who checked the identification of plants in Udziela's herbarium from the turn of the 19th and 20th century. A few years earlier Radwańska-Paryska [18] re-examined the herbarium of an 18th century monk, Brother Cyprian, containing Slovak and Polish plant names from the Pieniny and Tatra mountain ranges bordering the two countries. Later, the author of this paper (ŁŁ) published an article on the taxonomic issues concerning the quality of the data and mistakes in the identification of taxa in ethnobotanical studies in Poland [19].

The aim of this article is to extend the investigations of the previous work [19], in particular:
  1. 1.

    To quantify a possible percentage of taxonomic errors in publications from this field.

     
  2. 2.

    To propose a standard of coding the credibility of identification of scientific names in ethnobotanical publications, and test its usefulness by making a list of edible plants used in Poland.

     

Methods

A sample of Polish-language ethnobotanical literature consisting of 45 published sources [2064] (Table 1) and four voucher specimen collections were analyzed (Table 2). The analyzed publications consisted of a large proportion of Polish-language ethnographic publications with ethnobotanical content, which contained lists of regionally used plants including at least one Latin name. All such papers available to the author were taken into account. Most of the analyzed sources deal with either wild food plants (reviewed in the Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine in 2007 [65]) or medicinal plants. Papers without Latin binominals or monographs on the use of single species were not included. Maurizio's [66] and Moszyński's [67, 68] major works were not taken into account, as they are syntheses concerning the whole of northern Eurasia (the former author) or all Slavs (the latter). Lists of plant names and databases compiled mainly on the basis of other published sources were not included either [e.g. [6971]]. The analyzed publications usually concern studies from the present area of Poland and in a few cases - western Belarus [44, 45, 47], western Ukraine [37] and Lithuania [56]. The publications from these countries were included in the analyses as they were written by Polish ethnographers working close to the present area of Poland, within its former, broader territory from before World War II.
Table 1

Literature sources [2064] where the level of botanical mistakes was assessed using comparative methods (using the present knowledge of species ranges and the distribution of folk names).

Author's name

Reference Number

Year

Main topic

No. of taxa with Latin names

Errors

Bohdanowicz

[20]

1996

food

10

2

Chętnik

[21]

1936

food

14

0

Dekowski

[22]

1968

food

35

0

Dekowski

[23]

1973

foraging

38

0

Dydowiczowa

[24]

1964

foraging

44

0

Eljasz-Radzikowski

[25]

1897

general ethnographic

18

0

Gajkowa

[26]

1947

general ethnographic

4

3

Gawełek

[27]

1910

ethnomedicine

36

0

Gustawicz

[28]

1904

general ethnographic

18

0

Henslowa

[29]

1962

selected edible taxa

12

0

Janicka-Krzywda

[30]

2004

food

5

1

Jostowa

[31]

1954

food

1

0

Kantor

[32]

1907

general ethnogr.

46

5

Kolberg

[33]

1962 (1874)

general ethnogr.

54

1

Kolberg

[34]

1962 (1882)

general ethnogr.

35

1

Kolberg

[35]

1962 (1891)

general ethnogr.

75

0

Kolberg

[36]

1973

general ethnogr.

6

0

Kolberg

[37]

1963 (1888)

general ethnogr.

22

0

Kolberg

[38]

1968

general ethnogr.

29

0

Libera, Paluch

[39]

1993

ethnomedicine

98

0

Łęga

[40]

1961

general ethnogr.

2

0

Malicki

[41]

1971

foraging

20

0

Ochrymowicz

[42]

1900

beliefs about herbs

52

1

Oczykowski

[43]

1896

ethnomedicine

10

1

Orzeszkowa

[44]

1888

ethnomedicine and beliefs

69

0

Orzeszkowa

[45]

1891

ethnomedicine and beliefs

51

0

Paluch

[46]

1984

ethnomedicine

176

0

Pietkiewicz

[47]

1928

material culture

23

0

Plichta

[48]

1891

ethnomedicine

8

0

Ruszel

[49]

2004

ethnographic dictionary

85

8

Siarkowski

[50]

1890

ethnomedicine

17

0

Siarkowski

[51]

1891

ethnomedicine

5

1

Sulisz

[52]

1906

general ethnogr.

11

3

Sulisz

[53]

1906

general

8

4

Szot-Radziszewska

[54]

2005

ethnomedicine

129

4

Szromba-Rysowa

[55]

1966

foraging

63

2

Szukiewicz

[56]

1903

folk beliefs

5

0

Szulczewski

[57]

1996

general ethnogr.

>100

0

Szychowska-Boebel

[58]

1972

ethnomedicine

95

1

Szychowska-Boebel

[59]

1978

ethnomedicine

49

1

Tylkowa

[60]

1988

ethnomedicine

81

4

Wawrzeniecki

[61]

1916

ritual plants

14

2

Weryho

[62]

1888

ethnomedicine

31

1

Wysłouchowa

[63]

1896

general ethnogr.

38

0

Udziela

[64]

1931

ethnomedicine and beliefs

141

0

Table 2

Voucher specimen collections analyzed.

Author's name

Publication place of original names

Publication place of corrected names

No. of voucher specimens analyzed

No. of errors

Udziela

[61]

[17]

119

8

Orzeszkowa

[44, 45]

partly in [77]

129

8

Gajek

unpublished

[79]

196

28

Szychowska-Boebel

[59]

-

21

2

The total number of identified plant taxa was recorded for each publication, as well as the number of taxa which were presumably identified erroneously. A reference to a species from one publication and each herbarium specimen were later referred to as a use-report, a term, which, although mainly applied to indicate a plant-use mentioned by a given informant [72], in this case can be used with a publication as a unit. This way of treating a literature citation as one use-report is used in ethnobotanical studies, which review earlier publications, where the number of informants and informant consensus is not given. For example this approach was used by Leonti et al. [73] to analyze the influence of the 16th century herbal of Matthioli on present day ethnobotanical knowledge in Campania (Italy), and in reviews of edible plants of Spain [74].

The following methods of identifying errors were used:
  • For wild taxa the distribution was checked in the atlas of the distribution of Polish vascular plants [75] - if the species did not occur in the geobotanical region (kraina geobotaniczna as mapped by Matuszkiewicz [76]) of the publication, an error was assumed.

  • Some taxa were widely used under one name and their 'identity' is obvious but a different Latin name had been erroneously assigned to this folk taxon. For example in one publication szałwia - Salvia officinalis was named S. pratensis, although the description of the plant without doubt refers to the former.

The second part of the study dealt with the re-examination of voucher specimens (Table 2). The voucher specimen collections for ethnobotanical data are extremely rare in Poland and so far only four such herbariums have been found:
  1. 1.

    The documentation of Udziela's study [61] of medicinal and ritual plants of the Kraków area, stored in the Herbarium of the Institute of Botany of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków (KRAM). The whole collection (119 specimens) was already previously checked by Köhler [17] but in 2010 I reexamined the collection. The specimens probably come from 1894-99 when Udziela collected his field data [17].

     
  2. 2.

    The documentation of Orzeszkowa's ethnobotanical study from the river Niemen region (now western Belarus) published in a few parts in the periodical Wisła between 1888 and 1891 [e.g. [44, 45]] stored in the archive of the Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk society in Poznań. The detailed description of this herbarium was published by Kielak [77]. Kielak's book contains colour photographs of around half of the voucher specimens in the archive (129 specimens out of 280). Plants were re-identified using photographs from this book.

     
  3. 3.

    The archives of the Polish Ethnographic Atlas study of wild edible plants from 1948-49 and medicinal plants from 1949-50 [78]. The herbarium (as a part of the field questionnaires) is stored in the office of the Polish Ethnographic Atlas in Cieszyn (University of Silesia) but formally belongs to the Polish Folklore Society in Wrocław. For this study 196 questionnaires (concerning edible plants) containing herbarium specimens, identified with Latin names, were used. The person who identified them is not recorded, the name of the Department of Plant Systematics and Geography of the University of Curie-Skłodowska in Lublin is printed as the identifying institution. The content of these questionnaires was published in 2008 with identifications already corrected by Łuczaj [79] - however in this study the original identifications were analyzed with reference to the kinds of errors that were made. The archive contains a few hundred more voucher specimens but they were not included in this study as they were only recently rediscovered and have not been analyzed in detail.

     
  4. 4.

    The herbarium of Szychowska-Boebel, stored in the archive of the Ethnographic Museum in Toruń. It is a documentation of her studies of ethnomedicinal plants in the village of Wiele in Eastern Pomerania in 1975 [59]. It contains 43 specimens, including 21 identified taxa.

     

Both in publications and voucher specimen collections, only taxonomic errors were taken into account. Spelling mistakes were not included, nor were cases where the author was cautious and identified only the genus (for example Equisetum sp. instead of Equisetum hyemale). However the cases when only one species was reported in the literature as used in the area, though we have firm evidence that a larger number of closely related species was/is utilized were also treated as errors (inaccuracies), for example, a passage like: "blackberries (Rubus caesius) are used as food", as "Rubus caesius" should be replaced by "Rubus subgenus Rubus" or "Rubus spp."

The author set up a code of credibility for presentation of historical ethnobotanical data in tables:

H - confirmed by (a) voucher specimen(s),

A - confirmed by authority (expert botanist),

O - obvious common name universally used in a large area,

L - highly probable Latin name or a binominal scientific name used in the language of a given country corresponding to a Latin name, given by non-botanist,

N - identified using comparative analysis of folk names,

M - identified using data on the species' mode of use (in case of unusual species/uses),

D - identified using physical description of species,

R - identified with the help of the data of a species range or/and habitat,

U - highly uncertain (should be combined with another code),

P - identified using pictures (photographs or drawings).

The usefulness of such a code was tested by compiling an up-to-date list of wild food plants used in Poland from the 19th to 21st century (within the present territory, excluding the German population pre-1939). The list was based on the review of edible plants of Poland [65] and amended by recent publications by Łuczaj [7981] and Pirożnikow [82, 83] bringing more data on the subject.

Results

Forty-six identification mistakes were detected both in the published material using comparative methods (Tables 1 and 3) and in the voucher specimens (Tables 2, 4 and 5). This constitutes 2.3% of the analyzed use-reports for the former set of data and 10.0% of voucher specimens. The mean mistakes rates per publication differ significantly between the two sets of data (Mann-Whitney U test, U = 35.5, P (exact version) = 0.032, P (Monte Carlo version) = 0.022), they were 6.2% and 9.2% respectively.
Table 3

Errors detected in the studied publications, assessed using comparative methods.

Author

Name in the publication (with original spelling)

The correct name

Type of mistake/inaccuracy

Bohdanowicz [20]

Origanum vulgare

Chenopodiumsp.

L

Bohdanowicz [20]

Carduus

Cirsium sp.

L

Gajkowa [26]

cuminum cyminum

Carum carvi L.

L

Gajkowa [26]

panicum miliaceum

Echinochloa crus-galli (L.)P.Beauv.

L

Gajkowa [26]

atriplex hortense

Chenopodium & Atriplex spp.

L

Janicka-Krzywda [30]

Carlina vulgaris

Carlina acaulis L.

?

Kantor [32]

Geranium

Dahlia sp.

?

Kantor [32]

Iris

Lilium sp.?

?

Kantor [32]

Salsola

?

?

Kantor [32]

Selinum carvifolia

Carum carvi L.

I

Kantor [32]

Sesleria coerulea

Sesleria sadlerana Janka ssp. tatrae (Degen) Deyl?

I

Kolberg [33]

Hippophae rhamnoides

Salix sp.

L

Kolberg [34]

Helleborus albus

Veratrum sp.? Vincetoxicum hirundinaria Medik.?

L

Ochrymowicz [42]

Iris germanica

Iris sp. or Eupatorium cannabinum L.

?

Oczykowski [43]

Rumex hydrolapathum

some other Rumex spp.

I

Ruszel [49]

Plantago major

Plantago spp.

S (the name refers to all the Plantago species)

Ruszel [49]

Helleborus viridis

Veratrum lobelianum Bernh.?

L

Ruszel [49]

Carum carvi

Glechoma hederacea L. s.l.

?

Ruszel [49]

Thymus serpyllum

Thymus serpyllum L. em. Fr. &Th. pulegioides L.

S (both species are used)

Ruszel [49]

Tilia cordata

Tilia cordata Mill. &T. platyphyllos Scop.

S (both species are used equally frequently)

Ruszel [49]

Rubus plicatus

Rubus subgenus Rubus spp.

S (there are a few dozen species of Rubus in this area, R. plicatus is not the most frequent [84]

Ruszel [49]

Carduus

Cirsium & Carduus spp.

L

Ruszel [49]

Rumex hydrolapathum

Rumex spp. mainly R. obtusifolius L.

I

Siarkowski [51]

Thymus serpyllum

Thymus spp.

S

Sulisz [52]

Origanum vulgare

Chenopodium sp.

L

Sulisz [52]

Thymus vulgaris

Thymus serpyllum L. em. Fr. or Th. pulegioides L.

I

Sulisz [52]

Matricaria Chamomilla

Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch.Bip.

I

Sulisz [53]

Acorus calamus

Calamagrostis epigejos (L.)Roth

?

Sulisz [53]

Rhamnus cathartica

Staphylea pinnata L.

?

Sulisz [53]

Galium cruciata

Euonymus europaeus L./Rhamnus cathartica L.?

? (L?)

Sulisz [53]

Ledum palustre

the term bagnięta was used erroneously as it refers to any wooden branches

L

Szot-Radziszewska [54]

Cicuta virosa

Solanaceae, probably Hyoscyamus niger L.

L

Szot-Radziszewska [54]

Thymus serpyllum

Thymus spp.

S

Szot-Radziszewska [54]

Salvia pratensis

Salvia officinalis L.

L

Szot-Radziszewska [54]

Papaver rhoeas

Papaver officinalis L.

L

Szromba-Rysowa [55]

Rubus caesius

Rubus subgenus Rubus spp.

S (other Rubus spp. are used more frequently)

Szromba-Rysowa [55]

Carduus sp.

Cirsium & Carduus spp.

L

Szychowska-Boebel [59]

Crataegus oxyacantha L.

Crataegus spp.

S (Crataegus monogyna is more frequent)

Szychowska-Boebel [59]

Crataegus oxyacantha L.

Crataegus spp.

S (as above)

Tylkowa [60]

Sonchus olearceus L.

Taraxacum sp.

L

Tylkowa [60]

Rubus plicatus L.

Rubus spp.

S (there are a few dozen species of Rubus in this area, R. plicatus is not the most frequent [84]

Tylkowa [60]

Malva alcea L.

Alcea rosea L.

L

Tylkowa [60]

Thymus serpyllum L.

Thymus pulegioides L.

S - T. serpyllum does not occur in the region, the other species is commonly used

Wawrzeniecki [61]

Thymus vulgaris

Thymus spp.

I

Wawrzeniecki [61]

Urtica urens

Urtica dioica L. & U. urens L.

S

Weryho [62]

Vinca major

Vinca minor L.

?

L - wrong Latin name given by a researcher who looked the plant up in a guide using the local name as if it was an official name; I - other kind of wrong identification of a species; S - oversimplification/inaccuracy - one name given because more than one species from the genus is known under the same folk name, and the names are used with at least equal frequency, and in the same way, in the local area.

Table 4

Errors detected in the voucher specimen collections.

Collector

Name in the publication

The correct name

Orzeszkowa

Anchusa arvensis

?

Orzeszkowa

Thymus serpyllum

Thymus pulegioides L.

Orzeszkowa

Anchusa arvensis

Anchusa officinalis L.

Orzeszkowa

Asarum europaeum

Hepatica nobilis L.

Orzeszkowa

Sium latifolium

Cicuta virosa L.

Orzeszkowa

Ranunculus sceleratus

Ranunculus flammula L.

Orzeszkowa

Ranunculus flammula

Ranunculus sceleratus L.

Orzeszkowa

Lamium maculatum

Lamiaceae but not Lamium

Udziela

Arabis arenosa

Epilobium adenocaulon Hasskn.

Udziela

Daucus carota

Pimpinella saxifraga L.

Udziela

Inula germanica

Inula britannica L.

Udziela

Lappa maior (=Arctium lappa)

Arctium tomentosum Mill.

Udziela

Marrubium vulgare

Nepeta cataria L.

Udziela

Mentha piperita

Mentha cfr verticillata L.

Udziela

Thymus serpyllum

Thymus pulegioides L.

Udziela

Tilia grandiflora

Tilia cordata Mill.

PAE

Betula alba

Betula pubescens Ehrh.

PAE

Carlina vulgaris

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.

PAE

Echium vulgare

Symphytum officinale L.

PAE

Hypericum perforatum

Vaccinium uliginosum L.

PAE

Malva neglecta (x3)

Malva sylvestris L.

PAE

Mentha cfr. aquatica

Mentha longifolia (L.)Huds.

PAE

Mentha piperita

Mentha longifolia (L.)Huds.

PAE

Polygonum bistorta

Rumex acetosa L.

PAE

Polygonum convolvulus

Convolvulus arvensis L.

PAE

Polygonum mite (x2)

Polygonum lapathifolium L. s.l. (including P. tomentosum Schrank)

PAE

Ribes rubrum (x2)

Ribes spicatum Robson

PAE

Rosa canina (x3)

Rosa sp.

PAE

Rubus hirtus

Rubus sp.

PAE

Rubus hirtus

Rubus caesius L.

PAE

Rubus saxatilis

Rubus caesius L.

PAE

Rumex acetosella

R. thyrsiforus Fing.

PAE

Rumex acetosella L (x 2)

Rumex acetosa L.

PAE

Thymus serpyllum (x2)

Thymus pulegioides L.

PAE

Trifolium medium

Trifolium repens L. and T. pratense L.

PAE

Trifolium medium

Trifolium pratense L.

Szychowska-Boebel

Trifolium arvense L.

Trifolium pratense L.

Szychowska-Boebel

Trifolium arvense L.

Trifolium repens L.

PAE - Polish Ethnographic Atlas (specimens collected by numerous researchers)

Table 5

Comparison of error rates in the studied sources

Type of study

Literature

Voucher specimens

Number of publications/herbariums

45

4

No. of use-reports/specimens

1983

459

No. of errors detected

46

46

Average rate of mistakes per publication/source

6.2

9.2

Percentage of errors detected

2.3

10.0

Types of errors:

Number of taxa (Percentage given in parentheses)

wrong genus

22 (48%)

11 (24%)

wrong species within the same genus

7 (15%)

29 (63%)

more species from the same genus are actually used in the area

16 (35%)

-

the identification is too detailed (the voucher specimen is in bad condition - it should have been identified only to the genus level)

-

5 (11%)

The comparative method revealed a relatively large number of mistakes in a few publications, both older [26, 32, 52, 53] and new ones [49, 54, 60], however no or single mistakes were found in most sources.

There was no correlation between the year of publication and the percentage of errors in the species list (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = -0.004, P = 0.98, Kolberg's postmortem publications were assigned to his death date of 1890). Longer lists of plants had slightly lower error rates (the correlation between the number of Latin binominals in a list and the percentage of errors in it was r = -0.28, P = 0.060).

The mistakes concerned a variety of taxa but only a few taxa were mistaken more than twice: Thymus, ten times (e.g Thymus serpyllum confused with Thymus pulegioides or T. vulgaris), Rubus (six), Rumex (six), Cirsium, Trifolium (both four), Chenopodium/Atriplex, Malva and Mentha (three each). When the taxa from two families were confused this usually happened because of two similar folk/scientific names (e.g. Chenopodium - 'lebioda', Origanum vulgare - 'lebiodka'; Hippophae rhamnoides -' rokitnik', narrow leaved Salix spp. - 'rokita', etc.), which suggests that the author looked up Latin names in a scientific key without illustrations. This kind of error was the commonest type of mistake (eighteen out of thirty-six errors where a possible reason for the error was identified). The second commonest type (twelve cases) were simplifications and inaccuracies - such as reporting the use of only one species when more species from the same genus were used at least as frequently (Table 3).

In the list of edible plants of Poland (Table 6) 39% of 192 use-reports are confirmed by voucher specimens (code H), 30% by scholars with reliable botanical expertise (code A), 13% using folk names known widely throughout the country and 11% by scientific names with unknown reliability (L). Only ten out of 192 were identified using folk names (N) and four by comparing species ranges (R; with help of other data, e.g. folk names). None of the species were identified by only using a physical description from literature (D), pictures (P) or mode of use (M). In ten cases the code U (uncertain) was used.
Table 6

The list of wild food plants used in Poland since the 19th century.

Species

Family

Method of Identification

Source

Parts Used

Mode of Use

Acer platanoides L.

Aceraceae

H

1, 2, 5

sap

raw and fermented

  

A

1

cambium

raw

  

A

1

fruits

raw

  

A

1

opening leaf buds

fermented

  

A

1, 5

leaves

under baking bread

Acer pseudoplatanus L.

 

A

1, 2

sap

raw

  

A

1

leaf buds

raw, ff

Aegopodium podagraria L.

Apiaceae

A

3, 5, 6

young leaves

soup

Carum carvi L.

 

H

1, 2, 5

seeds

spice

  

A

1

young plants

soup

Daucus carota L.

 

A

5, 6

roots, leaves, fruits

soup, spice

Heracleum sphondylium L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5, 6

leaves and flowering stalks

soup

Pastinaca sativa L.

 

O

1, 2, 6

roots

cooked foods

Acorus calamus L.

Araceae

H

1, 2, 5

inner parts of stems

raw

  

H

1, 5

leaves

under baking bread

Achillea millefolium L.

Asteraceae

A

4, 5, 6

leaves

raw and as spice

Arctium sp.

 

A

3

leaf stalks

lacto-fermented

  

A

6

roots

boiled

Artemisia absinthium L.

 

O

6

leaves

spice for meat

Bellis perennis L.

 

N

2

unspecified

unspecified

  

A

5, 6

flowers

raw

Carlina acaulis L.

 

H

1, 2, 3

receptacles, roots

unknown

Carlina vulgaris L.

 

U

1

unspecified parts

unkown

Centaurea cyanus L.

 

H

1

petals

fermented drink

Chamomilla recutita (L.)Rauschert

 

L

2

shoots

infusion

Cichorium intybus L.

 

U

1, 6

leaves

boiled (ff), raw

  

L

1, 5, 6

roots

coffee surrogate

Cirsium oleraceum Scop.

 

A

1, 3, 4

leaves, roots

boiled, ff

Cirsium rivulare All.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 4

leaves

boiled, ff

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.

 

H

2, 3, 4

leaves, stalks

boiled, ff

Sonchus arvensis L.

 

LU

1, 3

green parts

raw

Taraxacum sp. pl.

 

A

1, 5

inflorescences

syrup, wine

  

H

1, 2, 5

leaves

raw, boiled

Tragopogon pratensis L. s.l.

 

H

2

stalks

raw

Tussilago farfara L.

 

A

1

leaves

boiled, ff

Berberis vulgaris L.

Berberidaceae

H

1, 2, 3

fruits

raw, preserves

Alnus sp.

Betulaceae

O

2

  

Betula pendula Roth & Betula pubescens Ehrh.

 

H

1, 2, 5

sap

raw or fermented

  

H

1

leaf buds

fermented

  

H

1, 2

cambium

flour, ff

Anchusa arvensis (L.) M.Bieb.

Boraginaceae

A

3

shoots

boiled, ff

Echium vulgare L.

 

A

6

flowers

nectar sucked

Pulmonaria obscura L.

 

AR

1

leaves

boiled, ff

Symphytum officinale L.

 

H

1, 2, 3

leaves

boiled, ff

  

H

2, 6

flowers

nectar sucked

  

A

6

roots

boiled (ff?)

Armoracia rusticana P.Gaertn., B.Mey,&Scherb.

Brassicaceae

H

1, 2, 5

roots

spice

  

A

1

leaves

under baking bread or as spice

Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.)Medik.

 

A

1, 2

fruits

raw

  

A

5, 6

whole plant?

boiled

Cardamine amara L.

 

RU

3

leaves

raw

Cardamine pratensis L.

 

A

3

leaves

ff

Raphanus raphanistrum L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 4

leaves

boiled, ff

Sinapis arvensis L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 4

leaves

boiled, ff

Campanula persicifolia L.

Campanulaceae

L

1, 6

flowers

raw

Phyteuma spicatum L.

 

L

1

roots

unspecified

Humulus lupulus L.

Cannabaceae

O

1, 2, 5

inflorescences and fruits

beer, mead, bread

  

O

1

probably shoots

ff

Sambucus nigra L.

Caprifoliaceae

H

1, 2, 3, 5, 6

fruits

boiled: wine, jam, soup, rarely raw

  

O

3, 5

flowers

fried in batter or preserves

Viburnum opulus L.

 

A

1, 2, 5

fruits

boiled: wine, juice, jam

Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garcke

Caryophyllaceae

A

3

shoots

boiled, ff

Stellaria media (L.) Vill.

 

N

3

shoots

boiled, ff

Euonymus verrucosus Scop.

Celastraceae

A

5

fruits

added to wine?

Atriplex patula L.

Chenopodiaceae

L?

1

leaves

boiled, fried

Chenopodium album L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

leaves

boiled, fried

Chenopodium bonus-henricus L.

 

A

1, 3

leaves

boiled, fried

Chenopodium hybridum L.

 

A

3

leaves

boiled, fried

Chenopodium polyspermum L.

 

A

3

leaves

boiled, fried

Chenopodium polyspermum L.

 

A

3

leaves

boiled, fried

Convolvulus arvensis L.

Convolvulaceae

H

1, 2, 3

shoots

boiled, ff

Carpinus betulus L.

Corylaceae

H

1

sap

raw

Corylus avellana L.

 

H

1, 3

inflorescences, leaves

ff, mainly for flour

  

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruits

raw and in cakes

Juniperus communis L.

Cupressaceae

O

1, 2, 5

pseudofruits

spice, beer, snack

Scirpus sylvaticus L.

Cyperaceae

A

1, 6

inner parts of young shoots

raw

Pteridium aquilinum L.

Dennstaedtiaceae

LU

1

rhizomes

unspecified, ff

Empetrum nigrum L.

Empetraceae

A

1

fruits

unspecified

Equisetum arvense L.

Equisetaceae

H

1, 2, 6

strobils

raw, cooked

  

A

2, 6

bulbils

raw

Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull ON

Ericaceae

L

1

seeds

bread, ff

Vaccinium myrtillus L.

 

H

1, 2, 3

fruit

raw, boiled

Vaccinium oxycoccos L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruit

raw or in preserves

Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruit

raw or in preserves

Vaccinium uliginosum L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

  

Euphorbia peplus L.

Euphorbiaceae

L

1

whole plant

boiled, ff

Astragalus glycyphyllos L.

Fabaceae

A

5, 6

stalks

raw

Medicago lupulina L.

 

A

6

thickened parts of the roots

raw

Robinia pseudoacacia L.

 

H

2

flowers

raw, jams

Trifolium pratense L., T. repens L., T. montanum L.

 

H

1, 2

inflorescences

nectar sucked or dried for baking bread

Vicia sp. pl.

 

L

1, 2

seeds

flour for bread, ff

Fagus sylvatica L.

Fagaceae

H

1, 3

fruits

raw or baked, oil

Quercus robur L. & Q. petraea Mattuschka (Liebl.)

 

H

1

fruits

flour (ff), coffee surrogate

Ribes alpinum L.

Grossulariaceae

A

5

fruits

raw (rarely)

Ribes alpinum L. or R. petraeum Wulfen

 

NR

1

fruits

raw

Ribes nigrum L.

 

H

1, 2, 6

fruits

raw, jams

  

H

1, 6

leaves

spice

Ribes spicatum Robson

 

H

2, 6

fruits

raw, jams

Ribes uva-crispa L.

 

O

2, 3

fruits

raw

Stratiotes aloides L.

Hydrocharitaceae

H

2

leaves, roots

boiled, ff

Dracocephalum ruyschiana L.

Lamiaceae

A

5

flowers

nectar sucked

Galeopsis sp.

 

A

1

leaves

boiled, ff

Glechoma hederacea L. s.l.

 

H

1, 2, 3

leaves

spice

Lamium sp pl. (mainly L. album L.)

 

A

3

shoots

boiled

Lamium purpureum L.

 

A

5

shoots

boiled

Melittis melisophyllum L.

 

LU

1

leaves

unspecified, ff; liquors

  

A

6

flowers

nectar sucked

Mentha arvensis L.

 

H

1, 6

leaves

spice, infusions, raw

Mentha longifolia (L.)Hudson

 

H

1

leaves

spice

Origanum vulgare L.

 

A

1

flowering tops

beer condiment

Prunella vulgaris L.

 

N

4

shoots

boiled, ff

Stachys palustris L.

 

H

2, 3

rhizomes

raw, boiled

Thymus pulegioides L.

 

H

l

flowering tops

spice, teas

Thymus serpyllum L.

 

H

1, 5

flowering tops

spice, teas

Lemna minor L.

 

L

1

leaves

fried, ff

Allium ursinum L.

Liliaceae

LU

1

roots

spice

  

O

1, 5, 6

leaves

raw

Allium sp.

 

N

2

?

?

Maianthemum bifolium (L.) F. W. Schmidt

 

H

1, 3

fruits

raw, wine

Viscum album L.

Loranthaceae

H

2

fruits

raw

Malva neglecta Wallr.

Malvaceae

H

1, 2

leaves

boiled

  

H

1, 2, 5

immature fruits

raw

Malva sylvestris L.

 

H

1, 2

leaves

boiled

  

H

1, 2

immature fruits

raw

Fraxinus excelsior L.

Oleaceae

O

5, 6

fruits

boiled, ff

Oenothera sp.

Onagraceae

A

6

roots

boiled

Oxalis acetosella L.

Oxalidaceae

H

1, 2, 3, 5, 6

leaves

raw, cooked

Oxalis stricta L. s.l.

 

H

1, 2

leaves

raw, cooked

Papaver rhoeas L.

Papaveraceae

N

2, 5

seeds

unspecified

Abies alba Mill.

Pinaceae

O

1

young shoots

syrup

Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.

 

O

1

young shoots

raw, syrup

  

O

1

male inflorescences

raw

  

O

1

young cones

raw

  

O

2

cambium

ff

Pinus cembra L.

 

O

1

male inflorescences

raw

  

O

1

seeds

raw

Pinus sylvestris L.

 

O

5

young vegetative and generative shoots

raw, syrup

Plantago lanceolata L.

Plantaginaceae

L

1, 2, 6

leaves

boiled, raw

Bromus secalinus L.

Poaceae

A

1, 2, 3

seeds

ground for flour, ff

Dactylis glomerata L.

 

A

1

stem base

raw

Elymus repens (L.) Gould

 

H

1

rhizomes

ground for flour

Festuca pratensis L.

 

LU

1

seeds

unspecified

Glyceria fluitans (L.) R. Br.

 

A

1

seeds

seeds, boiled or for flour

Glyceria plicata Fries

 

L

1

seeds

seeds, boiled or for flour

Phleum pratense L.

 

N

2

seeds

for flour, ff

Setaria pumila (Poir.) Schult. or/and Setaria viridis (L.) P.Beauv.

 

NR

3

seeds

boiled

Fallopia convolvulus (L.) AA.Löve

Polygonaceae

H

3

shoots

boiled, ff

Polygonum hydropiper L.

 

A

5

leaves

raw

Polygonum lapathifolium L. ssp. pallidum

 

H

1

shoots

fried, ff

Rumex acetosa L.

 

H

1, 3, 5

leaves

raw, cooked

Rumex acetosella L.

 

H

1, 3

leaves

raw, cooked

Rumex crispus L.

 

A

6

leaves

cooked

Rumex crispus L. or R. obtusifolius L.

 

A

5, 6

fruit

boiled, ff

Rumex hydrolapathum Huds.

 

A

6

leaves

cooked

Rumex obtusifolius L.

 

HU

2

leaves

for compotes

Rumex thyrsiflorus Fing.

 

H

2

leaves

raw, cooked

Rumex crispus L.

 

L

1

leaves, seeds

flour, ff

Polypodium vulgare L.

Polypodiaceae

H

1,2,3

rhizomes

raw or cooked as sweetener

Ranunculus ficaria L.

Ranunculaceae

A

1, 3, 6

leaves

boiled, raw

Nigella sp.

 

L

1

seeds

spice

Nigella arvensis L.

 

A

6

seeds

spice

Frangula alnus Miller

Rhamnaceae

NU

2

fruits

jams

Alchemilla sp.

Rosaceae

L

1

leaves

boiled, ff

Crataegus sp. pl.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruit

raw, wine, jams

  

A

6

flowers

raw

Fragaria vesca L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruit

raw, wine, jams

Malus domestica Borkh. (feral plants)

 

O

1, 2, 3, 5

fruit

raw, compotes or in sauerkraut

Potentilla anserina L.

 

L

1

young shoots

raw

Prunus avium L.

 

O

1

fruits

raw, compotes

  

O

1

solidified sap

raw

Prunus padus L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruits

mainly raw

Prunus spinosa L.

 

H

1, 2, 3

fruits

raw, compotes, jams, wine

Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. & Pyrus communis L. em. Gaertner

 

O

1, 2, 3, 5

fruits

raw, dried, pickled

Rosa sp. pl. (mainly Rosa canina L.)

 

H

1, 2, 5

fruits

raw, wine, jams, infusions

Rubus caesius L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruits

raw, wine, jams, infusions

Rubus idaeus L.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruits

raw, wine, jams, infusions

Rubus L. sect. Rubus sp. pl.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5

fruits

raw, wine, jams, infusions

Rubus saxatilis L.

 

A

1, 2, 5

fruits

raw, juice

Sedum maximum (L.) Hoffm.

 

H

2

thick roots

unspecified

Sorbus aucuparia L. emend. Hedl.

 

H

1, 2, 3, 5, 6

fruits

wine, jams, liqueur, rarely as spice

Galium odoratum (L.) Scop.

Rubiaceae

H

2

flowering shoots

spice, infusions

V. beccabunga L. or V. anagallis-aquatica L.

Scrophulariaceae

A

3

shoots

raw

Tilia cordata Miller & Tilia platyphyllos Scop.

Tiliaceae

H

1, 2

flowers

infusion

  

O

2

cambium

raw

  

O

3

seeds

oil

  

O

3, 4

leaves

boiled or into flour, ff

Trapa natans L.

Trapaceae

L

1

leaves

raw, boiled, flour

Typha latifolia L.

Typhaceae

A

5, 6

shoots and rhizomes

boiled, roasted

Ulmus sp.

Ulmaceae

N

2

fruits, leaves

unspecified

Urtica dioica L. & Urtica urens L.

Urticaceae

H

1, 2, 3

shoot tops

boiled, infusions

Parthenocissus sp.

Vitaceae

H

2

fruits

fermented drink

Viola arvensis Murr.

Violaceae

A

5

flowers

raw

The credibility of identification: H - confirmed by voucher specimen; A - confirmed by a reliable professional or amateur botanist; O - obvious common name universally used in a large area; L - probable Latin name or scientific name used in the language of a given country, given by a non-botanist; N - determined using comparative analysis of folk names; R - determined with the help of the data of a species range or/and habitat; U - highly uncertain; ff - used only as famine food. Source: 1 - [65], 2 - [79], 3 - [80], 4 - [81], 5 - [82], 6 - [83]

Discussion

The lack of voucher specimens is obviously a problem in determining the real level of mistakes in older European ethnobotanical studies. A considerable number of errors was detected in the studied herbariums. The comparative analysis of species ranges and names did not reveal these mistakes. One may wonder to what extent other works can be trusted? Some ethnographers probably avoided making taxonomic mistakes by writing only about more common and widely known taxa and identifying taxa only to the genus level. Some authors mentioned in their publications that their study was documented by voucher specimens identified by a professional biologist (e.g. Orzeszkowa [77] and Wysłouchowa [64]) or that living/dried specimens were at least shown to professional botanists [30, 46] or that voucher specimens from the Polish Ethnographic Atlas were used [46]. Thus in the above mentioned cases the possibility of mistakes is much lower.

Some taxa are more likely to be confused than others. Unsurprisingly, errors often occur in genera with more than one species, in which the species are similar to each other and are poorly recognized in folk taxonomy, e.g. in the genera Mentha, Thymus, Tilia, Crataegus, Rosa, Rumex and in the subgenus Rubus. The identification may be particularly difficult in apomictic taxa (like Rubus - [84]). Intergeneric mistakes occur either between two closely related genera not distinguished by folk taxonomy (Carduus and Cirsium) or less related (or unrelated) genera, if one of them has a folk name identical or similar to the scientific or folk name of another genus (in Poland, Origanum and Chenopodium, Sonchus and Taraxacum).

Nearly all of the quoted studies were performed by ethnographers, not botanists, so it is impossible to quantitatively compare the quality of their work with that of the few people with a biological background who have contributed to ethnobotany in Poland (e.g. Pirożnikow, Rostafiński, Maurizio, Moszyński, Szulczewski, though the latter two were known mainly as ethnographers). This comparison is particularly difficult given that most of these expert botanists supplied us with relatively large synthetic studies [6669], and only Szulczewski and Pirożnikow contributed local monographs with ethnobotanical data [57, 82]. Each of these studies [57, 6669, 82] contains well over a hundred species. In five out of six of these works I have not encountered any identification mistakes. On the other hand in the work of Maurizio two mistakes can be suspected, which probably arose from the misidentification of folk taxa. Both concern famine plants used in Poland, quoted by the author. One of them is Cichorium, supposedly used as famine food in the Tatra mountains. Maurizio got this information from an ethnographic paper [25]. However the original source does not mention Cichorium but only a folk name - szczerbak. This folk name was used both for Cichorium intybus, Cirsium rivulare, as well as other Cirsium species [85]. Cirsium rivulare was a very important famine plant in the Tatras [85], whereas Cichorium intybus was never mentioned as famine food by any other source listed in this article. Another possible mistake concerns the use of Mellitis melisophyllum. Maurizio mentioned that this plant (he also cited the folk name miodnik) was used during famine in Poland. However this is a relatively rare plant. On the other hand there are a few species of plants, which were used as famine food under similar names (miodunka, medunka, miodownik), i.e. Lamium spp., Symphytum officinale and Pulonaria obscura [65, 7981].

Even if these two mistakes were confirmed, the total ratio of mistakes in the works of the five professional botanists would remain well below half a percent. However, due to the different character of these studies, I restrained from deeper statistical comparisons.

It is worth pointing out that the quality of the ethnographers' work is highly variable. More than half of the publications contained no detectable mistakes, in contrast to a few authors who frequently misnamed the plants they had studied.

It must be noted that there is a significant difference between the mean percentage of mistakes detected in the studied works without voucher specimens (6.2%) and the level of errors found in the works documented by voucher specimens (9.2%). This also illustrates that even in works documented by a herbarium, gross mistakes can occur when the specimens are not verified by a good taxonomist. Single voucher specimens impose yet another threat: although the plant was correctly identified in the field or due to a widely known folk name a specimen of the wrong plant may be collected. This may have happened to Orzeszkowa. Her herbarium contains a specimen of Hepatica nobilis identified as 'kopytnik' Asarum europaeum. The name kopytnik is universally used throughout Poland to name Asarum, so Orzeszkowa may have collected a wrong specimen as both species have evergreen leaves of similar size and grow in the same habitat (identification scenario 1.1 or 1.2.2.1.2 in the Background chapter).

It must be emphasized that the main source of errors in the analyzed literature was the confusion of local names with Polish official names (scenario 2.1.3 in the Background chapter). This probably occurred by the researcher looking up a particular local name in a plant guide and then automatically assigning to it the Latin binominal of a different genus whose official name was identical to the local name of the studied species.

The studied papers usually contained little or no methodological information, so in most cases we cannot be sure if mistakes arose with or without seeing the actual studied plants in the field.

Most errors in the identification of voucher specimens occurred within the same genus, and only 24% of genera were misidentified. In contrast with this, 48% of mistakes detected in the publications without voucher specimens concern incorrectly identified genera. As the total number of detectable mistakes in the studies without voucher specimens is roughly four times lower than that of the studies with voucher specimens (2.3% versus 10%), we can assume that three quarters of all the errors and half of the misidentified genera remained undetected in the studies without voucher specimens.

It is a matter of dispute whether there should be separate codes for voucher specimens identified by an expert in the field and for those identified by a non-specialist (e.g. a separate code E could be used for a taxonomic expert). This could be useful, but on the other hand it is very difficult to draw a line between these two categories. As a rule, all voucher specimens should be identified/verified by a specialist - in case of easily identified taxa - a botanist, and in the case of critical taxa (in the Polish flora: Rubus, Rosa, Hieracium, Oenothera, Alchemilla) - a specialized taxonomist, or the specimens should be identified only to the genus, subgenus or section level [25, 19].

Fortunately the errors made in the presented publications were rarely repeated later. The only case of erroneous "ghost information" in Polish studies is a list of plant names compiled in two ethnographic works [70, 71]. This situation contrasts with Swedish publications, which according to Svanberg [8, 9] contain numerous ghost data.

In all the studied cases the ethnobotanical herbaria contained species which had been reported in the given region or cultivated there, which supports the idea of using detailed atlases of plant distribution to verify ethnobotanical data. Such biogeographical data could be coupled with estimates of species abundance and distribution in local habitat spectra.

Not all the codes presented in the methodology section were used in the real-life list of edible plants of Poland. Most taxa were identified using the codes H, A and L, more rarely O, N or R. The codes D, M and P were not used. However this list was compiled using numerous voucher specimens (hence code H predominates) and data from 'reliable' researchers (like Rostafiński and Pirożnikow, hence code A). If a similar list were to be compiled for countries where voucher specimens were not collected, or for earlier periods, the proportion of codes in the list may have been reversed.

An interesting issue is the use of photography to document ethnobotanical studies [86]. Although photographic images cannot replace voucher specimens, they can help to document the use of plants, as many (but not all) taxa can be easily identified to a genus level from photographs [87]. Currently, as many electronic journals allow for the attachment of additional files to an article, authors could be encouraged to provide photographs of voucher specimens. Or perhaps we could start thinking about a service of online depositories of photographs of voucher specimens? Yet another option for plant identification, almost exclusively concerning historical ethnobotany, is the identification of plants from drawings (e.g. in old herbals). This is not always easy, but is sometimes possible, particularly when coupled with plant descriptions and folk names [73, 88, 89].

At the end of this paper the author must confess his own error. While preparing a table for the article on the taxonomic issues in Polish ethnobotanical studies [19], a mistaken name for Veronica chamaedrys was published, i.e. wole oczy instead of żabie oczka. ('ox-eyes' instead of 'frogs' eyes'). This mistake happened when transferring hand-written records to the computer. That is another example of the way errors and "ghost information" can enter ethnobotany, even via a botanist.

Conclusions

Ethnographic papers without herbarium documentation contain on average at least 6.2% of mistakes. The verification of voucher specimens can increase this ratio to 9.2%. These mistakes most often arise by looking up plants using a local name in a botanical guide, and by the lack of cooperation between ethnographers and botanists. The large difference between the ratio of mistakes in the voucher specimen collections and the ratio of detectable mistakes in the literature is an argument for the rigorous use of voucher specimens, which are identified by a specialist, and for creating a service of online depositories of photographs of voucher specimens.

The presented code of credibility may become a useful tool for historical ethnobotany.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Dr Ingvar Svanberg (Uppsala) for an inspiring discussion on the topic of mistakes in ethnobotanical publications.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The Wild Garden

References

  1. Archer WA: Collecting data and specimens for study of economic plants. 1945, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publications Publications 568.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bye RA: Voucher specimens in ethnobiological studies and publications. Journal of Ethnobiology. 1986, 6 (1): 1-8.Google Scholar
  3. McClatchey W: Improving the Quality of International Ethnobotany Research and Publications. Ethnobotany Research & Applications. 2006, 4: 1-9.Google Scholar
  4. Martin GJ: Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual. 1995, London: Chapman and HallView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexiades MN, Sheldon JW, (Eds): Selected Guidelines for Ethnobotanical Research: A Field Manual (Advances in Economic Botany). 1996, New York: New York Botanical Garden Pr DeptGoogle Scholar
  6. Heinrich M, Kufer J, Leonti M, Pardo-de-Santayana M: Ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology-Interdisciplinary links with the historical sciences. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2006, 107 (2): 157-160. 10.1016/j.jep.2006.05.035.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Moerman D: Native American Ethnobotany. 1998, Portland (Oregon): Timber PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Svanberg I: Fabulat, plagiat och spökuppgifter: att använda berättande källor inom etnobiologi. Nycklar till kunskap: om människans bruk av nature. Edited by: Tunón H, Dahlström A. 2010, Stockholm: Kungl. Skogs- och LantbruksakademienGoogle Scholar
  9. Svanberg I: The use of lichens for dyeing candles: ethnobotanical documentation of a local Swedish practice?. Svenska Landsmål och Svenskt Folkliv. 1998, 324: 133-139.Google Scholar
  10. Kufer J, Förther H, Pöll E, Heinrich M: Ethnobotany of the Ch'orti'. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 2005, 57: 1127-1152. 10.1211/jpp.57.9.0008.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Soejarto DD: Ethnographic component and organism documentation in an ethnopharmacology passper: A "minimun" standard. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2005, 100 (1-2): 27-29. 10.1016/j.jep.2005.06.005.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Etkin NL: Perspectives in ethnopharmacology: forging a closer link between bioscience and traditional empirical knowledge. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2001, 76 (2): 177-182. 10.1016/S0378-8741(01)00232-X.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. de Albuquerque UP, Hanazaki N: Five Problems in Current Ethnobotanical Research-and Some Suggestions for Strengthening Them. Human Ecology. 2009, 37 (5): 653-661. 10.1007/s10745-009-9259-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. De Natale A, Pezzatti GB, Pollio A: Extending the temporal context of ethnobotanical databases: the case study of the Campania region (southern Italy). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2009, 5: 7-10.1186/1746-4269-5-7.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Skoczen S, Bussmann RW: ebDB - Filling the gap for an international Ethnobotany Database. 2006, 11 (2): 71-81. website Lyonia, [http://www.quantumimagery.com/software-ebDB.html]Google Scholar
  16. Klepacki P: Etnobotanika w Polsce - przeszłość i teraźniejszość. Analecta - Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Nauki. 2007, 16 (1-2): 191-245.Google Scholar
  17. Köhler P: Zielnik Seweryna Udzieli - dokumentacja pracy „Rośliny w wierzeniach ludu krakowskiego”. Lud. 1996, 80: 179-186.Google Scholar
  18. Radwańska-Paryska Z: Zielnik brata Cypriana z Czerwonego Klasztoru. 1991, Kraków: Instytut Botaniki PAN, [Polish Botanical Studies Guidebook Series vol. 5.]Google Scholar
  19. Łuczaj Ł: Problemy taksonomiczne w polskich badaniach etnobotanicznych. Lud. 2008, 92: 43-64.Google Scholar
  20. Bohdanowicz J: Pożywienie. Zbieractwo - pożywienie głodowe. Komentarze do Polskiego Atlasu Etnograficznego t. III. Pożywienie i sprzęty z nim związane. Edited by: Bohdanowicz J. 1996, Wrocław: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, 10-21.Google Scholar
  21. Chętnik A: Pożywienie Kurpiów. Jadło i napoje zwykłe, obrzędowe i głodowe. Prace Komisji Etnograficznej. 1936, 16: 1-134.Google Scholar
  22. Dekowski JP: Rośliny dziko rosnące w tradycyjnym pożywieniu chłopów kozienickich. Pożywienie ludności wiejskiej. Edited by: Kowalska-Lewicka A. 1973, Kraków: Muzeum Etnograficzne w Krakowie, 247-256.Google Scholar
  23. Dekowski JP: Z badań nad pożywieniem ludu łowickiego. Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria Etnograficzna. 1968, 12: 1-245.Google Scholar
  24. Dydowiczowa J: Zbieractwo. Kultura ludowa Wielkopolski Volume 2. Edited by: Burszta W. 1964, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 299-328.Google Scholar
  25. Eljasz-Radzikowski S: Polscy górale tatrzańscy. Lud. 1897, 3: 225-272.Google Scholar
  26. Gajkowa O: Kultura ludowa okolic Hor i Potylicza. Prace i Materiały Etnograficzne. 1947, 6: 38-76.Google Scholar
  27. Gawełek F: Przesądy, zabobony, środki lecznicze i wiara ludu w Radłowie, w pow. Brzeskim. Materyały Antropologiczno-A rcheologiczne i Etnograficzne. 1910, 11: 48-89.Google Scholar
  28. Gustawicz B: O korzeniach czarodziejskich w lecznictwie ludowem u nas i gdzie indziej. Lud. 1904, 10: 259-279.Google Scholar
  29. Henslowa M: Rośliny dziko rosnące w kulturze ludu polskiego. 1962, Wrocław: Polskie Towarzystwo LudoznawczeGoogle Scholar
  30. Janicka-Krzywda U: Podstawowe produkty używane do przygotowania pożywienia. Kalendarz 2004 - z informacjami co się dawniej jadło i piło i z czego się pod Babią Górą strawę robiło oraz z przepisami kulinarnymi dawnymi i nowszymi. Edited by: Kociołek J. 2004, Zawoja: Stowarzyszenie Gmin Babiogórskich, 10-14.Google Scholar
  31. Jostowa W: Pożywienie pasterzy, zbójników i myśliwych tatrzańskich. Wiedza i Życie. 1954, 21: 96-98.Google Scholar
  32. Kantor J: Czarny Dunajec: monografia etnograficzna. Materyały Antropologiczno-Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne. 1907, 9: 21-115.Google Scholar
  33. Kolberg O: Krakowskie. Część III. Dzieła Wszystkie t. 7. 1962, Wrocław - Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, (1874)Google Scholar
  34. Kolberg O: W. Ks. Poznańskie. Część VII., Dzieła Wszystkie t. 15. 1962, Wrocław - Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, (1882)Google Scholar
  35. Kolberg O: Chełmskie. Część II.Dzieła Wszystkie t. 34. 1962, Wrocław - Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, (1891)Google Scholar
  36. Kolberg O: Sanockie-Krośnieńskie, Część III. Dzieła Wszystkie t. 51. 1973, Wrocław - Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo LudoznawczeGoogle Scholar
  37. Kolberg O: Pokucie. Część III. Dzieła Wszystkie t. 31. 1963, Wrocław - Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, (1888)Google Scholar
  38. Kolberg O: Góry i Podgórze. Część. II.Dzieła Wszystkie t. 45. 1968, Wrocław - Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo LudoznawczeGoogle Scholar
  39. Libera Z, Paluch A: Lasowiacki zielnik. Varia Kolbuszowskie 2. 1993, Kolbuszowa: Biblioteka Publiczna Miasta i Kminy w KolbuszowejGoogle Scholar
  40. Łęga W: Ziemia Chełmińska. Prace i Materiały Etnograficzne. 1961, 17: 1-494.Google Scholar
  41. Malicki Z: Zbieractwo roślin i produktów dzikich na Pomorzu. Litery. 1971, 9: 14-16.Google Scholar
  42. Ochrymowicz J: Pojęcia ludowe o niektórych ziołach. Wisła. 1900, 14: 332-338.Google Scholar
  43. Oczykowski R: Poszukiwania. Wisła. 1896, 10: 123-124.Google Scholar
  44. Orzeszkowa E: Ludzie i kwiaty nad Niemnem. Wisła. 1888, 2: 1-15.Google Scholar
  45. Orzeszkowa E: Ludzie i kwiaty nad Niemnem. Wisła. 1891, 5: 235-247.Google Scholar
  46. Paluch A: Świat roślin w tradycyjnych praktykach leczniczych wsi polskiej. 1984, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, [Staniszewska M (Series Editor): Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis vol 752.]Google Scholar
  47. Pietkiewicz C: Polesie Rzeczyckie. 1928, Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejętnościGoogle Scholar
  48. Plichta P: Przyczynki zebrane w Sokołowie pod Rzeszowem (w Galicji zachod.). Wisła. 1891, 5: 638-642.Google Scholar
  49. Ruszel K: Leksykon kultury ludowej w Rzeszowskiem. 2004, Rzeszów: Muzeum Okręgowe w RzeszowieGoogle Scholar
  50. Siarkowski W: Przyczynek do lecznictwa ludowego ze wsi Mstyczowa, pow. Jędrzejowskiego, gub. Kieleckiej. Wisła. 1890, 4: 879-880.Google Scholar
  51. Siarkowski W: Przyczynek do lecznictwa ludowego we wsi Korytnica, powiatu Jędrzejowskiego, gubernji Kieleckiej, pod miasteczkiem Sobkowem. Wisła. 1891, 5: 203-204.Google Scholar
  52. Sulisz J: Zapiski etnograficzne z Ropczyc. Lud. 1906, 12: 57-81.Google Scholar
  53. Sulisz J: Zwyczaje wielkanocne w Sanockiem. Lud. 1906, 12: 309-318.Google Scholar
  54. Szot-Radziszewska E: Sekrety ziół. Wiedza ludowa, magia, obrzędy, leczenie. 2005, Warszawa: TrioGoogle Scholar
  55. Szromba-Rysowa Z: Zbieranie i użytkowanie płodów naturalnych. Stare i Nowe Siołkowice. Część 2. Edited by: Gładysz M. 1966, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków: Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 147-159. [Dynowski W (Series Editor): Biblioteka Etnografii Polskiej, vol. 12.]Google Scholar
  56. Szukiewicz W: Wierzenia i praktyki ludowe (zabobony, wróżby, przesądy itd.) zebrane w gubernji Wileńskiej. Wisła. 1903, 17: 432-444.Google Scholar
  57. Szulczewski JW: Pieśń bez końca. Zbiór tekstów folklorystyczno-etnograficznych pod redakcją Wojciecha Łysiaka. 1996, Poznań: PSO, (1997).Google Scholar
  58. Szychowska-Boebel B: Tradycyjne lecznictwo ludowe na Kujawach. 1972, Toruń: Muzeum Etnograficzne w ToruniuGoogle Scholar
  59. Szychowska-Boebel B: Tradycyjne lecznictwo ludowe Wiela i okolicznych wsi. Rocznik Muzeum Etnograficznego w Toruniu. 1978, 1: 75-126.Google Scholar
  60. Tylkowa D: Medycyna ludowa w kulturze wsi Karpat Polskich. 1988, Wrocław: OssolineumGoogle Scholar
  61. Udziela S: Rośliny w wierzeniach ludu krakowskiego. Lud. 1931, 30: 36-75.Google Scholar
  62. Wawrzeniecki M: Nieco o roślinach, z których wite są wianki, święcone na Boże Ciało. Wisła. 1916, 20 (1): 19-23.Google Scholar
  63. Weryho W: Z medycyny ludowej. Wisła. 1888, 2: 604-607.Google Scholar
  64. Wysłouchowa M: Przyczynki do opisu wsi Wisły w Cieszyńskiem. Lud. 1896, 2: 126-141.Google Scholar
  65. Łuczaj Ł, Szymański WM: Wild vascular plants gathered for consumption in the Polish countryside: a review. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2007, 3: 17-[http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/3/1/17]PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Maurizio A: Pożywienie roślinne w rozwoju dziejowym. 1926, Warszawa: Kasa MianowskiegoGoogle Scholar
  67. Moszyński K: Kultura ludowa słowian. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1929-1939.Google Scholar
  68. Moszyński K: O sposobach badania kultury materialnej Prasłowian. 1962, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, [Dynowski S (Series Editor): Biblioteka Etnografii Polskiej vol. 6.]Google Scholar
  69. Rostafiński J: Zielnik czarodziejski to jest zbiór przesądów o roślinach. Zbiór Wiadomości do Antropologii Krajowej. 1895, 18 (2): 1-191.Google Scholar
  70. Duszeńko-Król E, Libera Z: Rośliny lecznicze (nazwy występujące w układzie gniazdowym). Układ gniazdowy terminów i słownik słów kluczowych wybranych kategorii kultury. Medycyna ludowa. Edited by: Robotycki C, Babik W. 2005, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 121-135.Google Scholar
  71. Penkala-Gawęcka D: Medycyna. Słownik. Układ słów kluczowych dla bazy danych o źródłach etnografi cznych (kultura ludowa Karpat polskich). Edited by: Rybotycki C. 2005, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, s. 107-138.Google Scholar
  72. Tardío J, Pardo-de-Santayana M: Cultural Importance Indices: A Comparative Analysis Based on the Useful Wild Plants of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Economic Botany. 2008, 62: 24-39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Leonti M, Cabras S, Weckerle C, Solinas MN, Casu L: The causal dependence of present plant knowledge on herbals-Contemporary medicinal plant use in Campania (Italy) compared to Matthioli (1568). Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2010, 130: 379-391. 10.1016/j.jep.2010.05.021.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Tardío J, Pardo de Santayana M, Morales R: Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants in Spain. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 2006, 152 (1): 27-72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Zając A, Zając M, (Eds): Atlas rozmieszczenia roślin naczyniowych w Polsce. 2001, Kraków: Uniwersytet JagiellońskiGoogle Scholar
  76. Matuszkiewicz JM: Krajobrazy roślinne i regiony geobotaniczne Polski. Prace Geograficzne. 1993, 158: 5-107.Google Scholar
  77. Kielak AM: O kresowym zielniku Elizy Orzeszkowej. 2005, Warszawa-Lida: Retro-ArtGoogle Scholar
  78. Kłodnicki Z, Drożdż A: Dzikie rośliny jadalne - materiały, mapy i opracowania tekstowe Pracowni Polskiego Atlasu Etnograficznego. Dzikie rośliny jadalne: zapomniany potencjał przyrody. Mat. konf. Przemyśl - Bolestraszyce 13 września 2007. Edited by: Łuczaj Ł. 2008, Bolestraszyce: Arboretum i Zakład Fizjografii, Bolestraszyce, 109-124.Google Scholar
  79. Łuczaj Ł: Archival data on wild food plants eaten in Poland in 1948. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2008, 4: 4-[http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/4/1/4]PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Łuczaj Ł: Dziko rosnące rośliny jadalne w ankiecie Józefa Rostafińskiego z roku 1883. Wiadomości Botaniczne. 2008, 52 (1/2): 39-50.Google Scholar
  81. Łuczaj Ł: Changes in the utilization of wild green vegetables in Poland since the 19th century: a comparison of four ethnobotanical surveys. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2010, 128: 395-404.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Pirożnikow E: Tradycyjne użytkowania dziko rosnących roślin leczniczych i pokarmowych we wschodniej części Podlasia. Park krajobrazowy Puszczy Knyszyńskiej w systemie ochrony przyrody i edukacji środowiskowej. Materiały konferencji „Parki krajobrazowe w I połowie XXI wieku - edukacja ekologiczna wczoraj i dziś na przykładzie Parku Krajobrazowego Puszczy Knyszyńskiej" 27-28 maja 2008 r. Edited by: Górniak A, Poskrobko B. 2008, Supraśl: Park Krajobrazowy Puszczy Knyszyńskiej, 64-79.Google Scholar
  83. Pirożnikow E: Tradycja użytkowania roślin dziko rosnących na Podlasiu - poszukiwanie smaków, zdrowia i zaspokojenia głodu. Historie kuchenne: Rola i znaczenie pożywienia w kulturze. Edited by: Stolična R, Drożdż A. 2010, Cieszyn-Katowice-Brno: Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, 188-200. [Kłodnicki Z, Langer J (Series Editors): Bibliotheca Ethnologiae Europae Centralis vol. 2.]Google Scholar
  84. Oklejewicz K: Distribution patterns of the Rubus species (Rosaceae) in the eastern part of the Polish Carpathians. Polish Botanical Studies. 2006, 21: 1-98.Google Scholar
  85. Łuczaj Ł: Zapomniane dzikie rośliny pokarmowe południa Polski - czyściec błotny, paprotka zwyczajna, bluszczyk kurdybanek i ostrożeń łąkowy. Dzikie rośliny jadalne: zapomniany potencjał przyrody. Mat. konf. Przemyśl - Bolestraszyce 13 września 2007. Edited by: Łuczaj Ł. 2008, Bolestraszyce: Arboretum i Zakład Fizjografii, Bolestraszyce, 183-199.Google Scholar
  86. Thomas E, Vandebroek I, Van Damme P: What Works in the Field? A Comparison of Different Interviewing Methods in Ethnobotany with Special Reference to the Use of Photographs. Economic Botany. 2007, 61 (4): 376-384. 10.1663/0013-0001(2007)61[376:WWITFA]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Łuczaj Ł: Herbal bouquets blessed on Assumption Day in south-eastern Poland: freelisting versus photographic inventory. Ethnobotany Research and Applications.Google Scholar
  88. Picó B, Nuez F: Minor crops of Mesoamerica in early sources (I). Leafy vegetables. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 2000, 47: 527-540.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Picó B, Nuez F: Minor crops of Mesoamerica in early sources (II). Herbs used as condiments. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 2000, 47: 541-552.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Łuczaj; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

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.