The Wild Garden, Pietrusza Wola, Poland.
J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010 Dec 17;6:36. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-6-36.
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.
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.
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.
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.
本文旨在估计在植物使用的民族志研究中错误鉴定类群的比例，并为历史民族植物学文献中鉴定可信度的记录提出一种编码方法。
分析了波兰语民族植物学文献的样本（1874 年至 2005 年出版的 45 种来源）和四个凭证标本集（1894 年至 1975 年）。通过将数据与植物名称分布和物种范围的现有知识进行比较，在出版物中发现错误。重新检查了凭证标本。根据鉴定来源，为从历史或民族志来源汇编的物种名录中快速识别数据的可信度，发明了一个单字母代码：凭证标本、拉丁二名法、植物专家、明显的广布名、民间名、使用方式、范围、形态描述或照片。为了测试代码的使用，制作了一份波兰野生食用植物的最新清单。
在凭证标本集和没有标本记录的研究之间，发现错误率有显著差异。出版物中至少有 2.3%的类群被错误鉴定（平均每个出版物错误率为 6.2%），其中一半甚至连属名都不正确。多达 10.0%的凭证标本（平均每个标本集 9.2%）最初被错误鉴定，但四分之三的鉴定错误仍在属内。迷迭香属、酸模属和悬钩子属的物种最容易在属内混淆。并非所有发明的可信度代码都在野生食用植物清单中使用，但它们可能对其他研究人员有用。最常用的代码是表示凭证标本、植物专家和全国通用的俗名鉴定的代码。
尽管该研究的结果支持在民族植物学中严格使用凭证标本，但也揭示了所研究标本中错误鉴定类群的比例相对较高。发明的可信度编码系统可能成为历史民族植物学家之间交流的有用工具，特别是在创建更大的数据库时。
