Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27729074›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2016

Folk knowledge of invertebrates in Central Europe - folk taxonomy, nomenclature, medicinal and other uses, folklore, and nature conservation.

Viktor Ulicsni, Ingvar Svanberg, Zsolt Molnár

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Folk nomenclature of plants inPlant diversity · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Folk taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Viktor UlicsniDepartment of Ecology, Faculty of Science and Informatics of the University of Szeged, Közép fasor 52, 6726, Szeged, Hungary. Ulicsni.Viktor@stud.u-szeged.hu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3549-7972
Ingvar SvanbergUppsala Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala Univerisity, Box 514, 751 20, Uppsala, Sweden.
Zsolt MolnárMTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, 2163, Vácrátót, Hungary.
Institute of Ecology and Botany · HUUniversity of Szeged · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is scarce information about European folk knowledge of wild invertebrate fauna. We have documented such folk knowledge in three regions, in Romania, Slovakia and Croatia. We provide a list of folk taxa, and discuss folk biological classification and nomenclature, salient features, uses, related proverbs and sayings, and conservation.

methodsWe collected data among Hungarian-speaking people practising small-scale, traditional agriculture. We studied "all" invertebrate species (species groups) potentially occurring in the vicinity of the settlements. We used photos, held semi-structured interviews, and conducted picture sorting.

resultsWe documented 208 invertebrate folk taxa. Many species were known which have, to our knowledge, no economic significance. 36 % of the species were known to at least half of the informants. Knowledge reliability was high, although informants were sometimes prone to exaggeration. 93 % of folk taxa had their own individual names, and 90 % of the taxa were embedded in the folk taxonomy. Twenty four species were of direct use to humans (4 medicinal, 5 consumed, 11 as bait, 2 as playthings). Completely new was the discovery that the honey stomachs of black-coloured carpenter bees (Xylocopa violacea, X. valga) were consumed. 30 taxa were associated with a proverb or used for weather forecasting, or predicting harvests. Conscious ideas about conserving invertebrates only occurred with a few taxa, but informants would generally refrain from harming firebugs (Pyrrhocoris apterus), field crickets (Gryllus campestris) and most butterflies. We did not find any mythical creatures among invertebrate folk taxa. Almost every invertebrate species was regarded as basically harmful. Where possible, they were destroyed or at least regarded as worth eradicating. However, we could find no evidence to suggest any invertebrate species had suffered population loss as a result of conscious destruction. Sometimes knowledge pertaining to the taxa could have more general relevance, and be regarded as folk wisdom concerning the functioning of nature as a whole.

conclusionsThe high number of known invertebrate folk taxa suggests that it would be worth conducting further investigations in other areas of Europe.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesFolkloreKnowledgeMedicine, TraditionalAnimalsEuropeHumansInvertebratesTerminology as TopicEdible insectsEthnomedicineEthnozoologyEuropeInvertebrate faunaNature protection

Identifiers

PMID27729074
PMCPMC5057442
OpenAlexW2531106616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.