Cited by 116Ethnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesLinguistic and Cultural StudiesBotany and Plant Ecology Studies

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

Open access
Łuczaj, Łukasz J·2010·Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1746-4269-6-36

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bye RA Jr Voucher specimens in ethnobiological studies and publications Journal of Ethnobiology 1986 6 1 1 8
  2. Szromba-Rysowa Z Gładysz M Zbieranie i użytkowanie płodów naturalnych Stare i Nowe Siołkowice. Część 2 1966 Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków: Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk 147 159 [Dynowski W (Series Editor): Biblioteka Etnografii Polskiej, vol. 12.]
  3. Moszyński K O sposobach badania kultury materialnej Prasłowian 1962 Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich [Dynowski S (Series Editor): Biblioteka Etnografii Polskiej vol. 6.]
  4. Pirożnikow E Stolična R, Drożdż A Tradycja użytkowania roślin dziko rosnących na Podlasiu - poszukiwanie smaków, zdrowia i zaspokojenia głodu Historie kuchenne: Rola i znaczenie pożywienia w kulturze 2010 Cieszyn-Katowice-Brno: Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach 188 200 [Kłodnicki Z, Langer J (Series Editors): Bibliotheca Ethnologiae Europae Centralis vol. 2.]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Łuczaj, Ł. J.
Corresponding author
Łuczaj, Łukasz J
Venue
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
Published
2010-12
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
36-36
ISSN
1746-4269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072669442
Cited by
116
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Ethnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Linguistic and Cultural Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Botany and Plant Ecology Studies
Keywords
ethnobotany, voucher specimens, wild edible plants, thymus, dock, Rubus, herbarium collections
MeSH terms
Humans, Plants, Poland, Publications, Ethnobotany, History, 19th Century, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review