The plants of “Observaciones fitológicas…” of Gaspar Juárez and Filippo Gilii: Hidden diversity and some stumbles in the construction of botanical complexes
Background and aims: Interest in the Jesuit bibliography is currently growing as a source of ethnobiological information. One of the first steps to make available the valuable information contained in them is to taxonomically identify the plants involved and delimit the presence of plant complexes....
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Sociedad Argentina de Botánica
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/BSAB/article/view/36650 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Background and aims: Interest in the Jesuit bibliography is currently growing as a source of ethnobiological information. One of the first steps to make available the valuable information contained in them is to taxonomically identify the plants involved and delimit the presence of plant complexes. The objective of the present work is to identify the plants of the “Observaciones fitológicas sobre algunas plantas introducidas en Roma” by Gaspar Juárez and Filippo Gilii (18th century), discuss the identifications presented by the authors in relation to descriptions, distributions and local names presented, and compare with those of other Jesuit studies.
M&M: The framework of historical ethnobotany was employed to analyze the mentioned source. The plants were identified using various scientific publications (flora catalogs, ethnobotanical works, and systematics, among others).
Results: 30 ethnospecies were surveyed, corresponding to 44 botanical species and 5 genera that comprise various species (i.e., Psidium), included in 22 botanical families, being Fabacceae, Cucurbitaceae, Solanaceae and Asteraceae, the most represented. There have been recorded and identified other plants associated to those, that are considered a hidden diversity in the speech, as well as several mistaken associations in the constitution of botanical complex.
Conclusions: Identifications provided by the authors are consistent in most cases. However, in other cases the ethnospecies presented correspond to plant complexes made up of various species and even some of them do not correspond to the species described and identified. |
|---|