Cited by 110Banana Cultivation and ResearchPacific and Southeast Asian StudiesPlant Names and Ethnobotany

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Bananas and People in the Homeland of Genus Musa: Not just pretty fruit

Open access
Kennedy, Jean·2009·Ethnobotany Research and Applications

Abstract

Bananas, perhaps the most recognisable of fruits, are nowhere more genetically diverse than in the southwest Pacific, where parthenocarpic fruit originated according to recent biomolecular evidence. In the wider Indo-Malesian area, homeland of the genus Musa L., understanding the domestication of bananas must include consideration of a much greater range of Musa species than just the few implicated in the parentage of the modern cultivars with seedless fruit. Despite ethnobotanical evidence that the genus has been valued for many more products than the edible fruit, the role of other products in the process of domestication is seldom considered. As well as documenting the development and spread of seedless cultivars, we need to develop models of the fundamental Indo-Malesian practices through which the greater range of species and products, seeds and all, were managed in diverse socio-cultural and environmental circumstances.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Kennedy argues that research on banana domestication has overfocused on seedless edible fruit, while Indo-Malesian Musaceae were managed for many other products, including fiber, medicine, wrapping, shelter, and ritual. The paper synthesizes ethnobotanical and archaeobotanical evidence to recontextualize banana domestication within broader human–Musaceae interactions.

Key findings

  • The genus *Musa* has more than 50 species across the Indo-Malesian region; edible parthenocarpic forms arose in one or two subspecies of *Musa acuminata* in the southwest Pacific, at the eastern edge of the genus’s range, and then spread west into areas where other *Musa* species were already human-modified as “cultiwild.”
  • All parts of Musaceae are useful—seedy fruit, inflorescence, leaf, pseudostem, corm, and rhizome—furnishing food, fodder, medicine, domestic materials, shelter, and ritual/ceremonial significance; Table 1 is presented as exemplary, not comprehensive.
  • Fiber uses parallel fruiting-banana domestication: *Musa textilis* (abacá) in the Philippines, and bashōfu cloth from *Musa balbisiana* in Okinawa, where the finest kimono length commands more than US$20,000.
  • The author argues that equating seediness with wildness is misleading; parthenocarpy is key to fruit edibility, but other desirable traits could also have been vegetatively propagated, so new fruit cultivars may have been an addition to an existing repertoire rather than a replacement.

Methods

  • Narrative review and ethnobotanical synthesis, not a primary experimental or quantitative study.
  • Draws on published literature and examples across Indo-Malesia, including a table of miscellaneous uses other than seedless fruit; the author states the list is intended to be exemplary and makes no claim to be comprehensive.
  • Uses archaeological and ethnobotanical references to argue that human–*Musa* interaction began c. 60,000 years ago in forest-gap environments, but presents no new field data or formal analysis.

Limitations

  • The author states that Table 1 is not comprehensive in uses or references, and that African uses of Musaceae are excluded because *Ensete* is native there but *Musa* is not; Polynesia and Micronesia are included because of cultural connections.
  • Evident from the text: the argument is largely qualitative and example-based, relying on secondary literature and hypothetical encounters rather than systematic sampling or statistical testing.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17348/era.7.0.179-197

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

28 Own interpretation · 17 Not checked yet · 3 Own result · 3 No basis given

Verify all 27 references — free account

Show all 31 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 8
20 of 20
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The widespread documented uses of Musaceae are likely to reflect practices of ancient times.

    “Given that such uses are widespread and probably reflect ancient practices, it is likely that human selective pressures have affected other aspects of the plants besides the edibility of fruit.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Parthenocarpy is essential for making fruit edible.

    “While parthenocarpy is the key to edibility of fruit”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The examples given stand for the full range of non-fruit Musaceae uses in the Indo-Malesian region.

    “These examples show that Indo-Malesian uses of Musaceae other than edible fruit are neither minor, nor necessarily secondary to production of the fruit.”
3 of 3

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Argent, G. 1979. New Guinea bananas -a problematic genetic resource. Pp. 57-70 in Biological Aspects of Plant Genetic Resource Conservation in South-East Asia. Trans- actions of the Fifth Aberdeen-Hull Symposium on Malesian Ecology. Edited by K. Jong. Miscellaneous Series 21, De- partment of Geography, University of Hull, and Institute for South-East Asian Biology, University of Aberdeen.
  2. Bailey, F.M. 1900. A New Guinea food plant. Queensland Agricultural Journal 7:442.
  3. Denner, A. 2006. Ephemeral art. Pp. 138-141 in New Ire- land: Art of the South Pacific. Edited by M. Gunn & P. Pel- tier. Musée du Quai Branly, Paris & 5 Continents Editions, Milan.
  4. Groube, L. 1989. The taming of the rainforest: A model for late Pleistocene forest exploitation in New Guinea. Pp. 292-304 in Foraging and Farming: The evolution of plant exploitation. Edited by D. Harris & G.C. Hillman. Unwin Hyman, London.
  5. Hamilton, R.W. 2007. Bast and leaf fibers in the Asia-Pa- cific region. Pp. 25-39 in Material Choices: Refashioning bast and leaf fibers in Asia and the Pacific. Edited by R.W. Hamilton & B.L. Milgram. Fowler Museum, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
  6. Jolly, M. 1992. Banana leaf bundles and skirts: A Pacif- ic Penelope's web? Pp. 38-64 in History and Tradition in Melanesian Anthropology. Edited by J.G. Carrier. Univer- sity of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford.
  7. Kham, L. 2004. Medicinal Plants of Cambodia: Habitat, chemical constituents and ethnobotanical uses. Bendigo Scientific Press, Bendigo, Australia.
  8. Mercader, J. 2003. Introduction: The Palaeolithic settle- ment of rain forests. Pp. 1-31 in Under the Canopy: The archaeology of tropical rain forests. Edited by J. Mercader. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
  9. Nakai, T. 1948. The kind of banana being wild or cultivated in west-Java, and their belongings. Bulletin of the Tokyo Science Museum 22:5-21
  10. Noweg, T., A.R. Abdullah & D. Nidang. 2003. Forest Plants as Vegetables for Communities Bordering the Crocker Range National Park. ASEAN Review of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation (ARBEC). www.arbec.com. my/pdf/art3janmar03.pdf
  11. Peltier, P. 2006. Lihir Islands. Pp. 156-157 in New Ireland: Art of the South Pacific. Edited by M. Gunn & P. Peltier. Musée du Quai Branly, Paris & 5 Continents Editions, Mi- lan.
  12. Perry, L.M. 1980. Medicinal Plants of East and Southeast Asia. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  13. Powell, J.M. 1976. Ethnobotany. Pp. 106-183 in New Guinea Vegetation. Edited by K. Paijmans. Australian Na- tional University Press, Canberra.
  14. Rubinstein, D. & S. Limol. 2007. Reviving the sacred machi: A chiefly weaving from Fais Island, Micronesia. Pp. 155-165 in Material Choices: Refashioning bast and leaf fibers in Asia and the Pacific. Edited by R.W. Hamilton & B.L. Milgram. Fowler Museum, UCLA, Los Angeles.
  15. Shigeta, M. 1996. Creating landrace diversity: The case of the Ari people and enset (Ensete ventricosum) in Ethio- pia. Pp. 233-268 in Redefining Nature: Ecology, culture and domestication. Edited by R. Ellen & K. Fukui. Berg, Oxford.
  16. Stinchecum, A.M. 2007. Bashōfu, the Mingei movement and the creation of a new Okinawa. Pp. 105-117 in Ma- terial Choices: Refashioning bast and leaf fibers in Asia and the Pacific. Edited by R.W. Hamilton & B.L. Milgram. Fowler Museum, UCLA, Los Angeles.
  17. Weiner, A. 1980. Stability in banana leaves: Colonization and women in Kiriwina, Trobriand Islands. Pp. 270-293 in Women and Colonization: Anthropological perspectives.
  18. Edited by M. Etienne & E. Leacock. J.F. Bergin, New York. Weiner, A. 1986. Forgotten wealth: Cloth and women's production in the Pacific. Pp. 96-110 in Women's Work: Development and the division of labour by gender. Ed- ited by E. Leacock, H.I. Safa. Bergin & Garvey, Massa- chusetts.
  19. Williams, F.E. 1930. Orokaiva Society. Oxford University Press, London.
  20. Wu, D & W.J. Kress. 2000. Musaceae. Pp. 297-313 in Flo- ra of China. Volume 24 (Flagellariaceae through Maran- taceae). Edited by Z.Y. Wu & P.H. Raven. Science Press, Beijing, & Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis.
  21. Yen, D.E. & H.G. Gutierrez. 1976. The ethnobotany of the Tasaday: I. The useful plants. Pp. 97-136 in Further Stud- ies on the Tasaday. Edited by D.E. Yen & J. Nance. Pana- min Foundation Research Series 2, Makati, Philippines.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 110

Metadata

Authors
Kennedy, J.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Kennedy, Jean
Venue
Ethnobotany Research and Applications
Published
2009-07-30
Volume
7
Pages
179
ISSN
1547-3465 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133542954
Cited by
110
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ethnobotany Research and Applications (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Banana Cultivation and Research
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Names and Ethnobotany
Keywords
Musa, parthenocarpy, seedless fruit, ethnobotany, Southwest Pacific

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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