Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42634467›Full record

ArticleBerichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte2026

Understanding Plant Parasitism: Hydnora Africana and European Scientific Practice in the Early Nineteenth Century*.

Katherine Arnold

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Katherine ArnoldSchool of Histories, Languages and Cultures, University of Liverpool, 8-12 Abercromby Square, Liverpool, L69 7WZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9055-7029

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article will analyze the uncertainties around collecting and classifying Hydnora africana in the first half of the nineteenth century. Emerging from the distinctive dryland ecologies of South Africa, Hydnora was interpreted as strange and cryptic by Europeans primarily because it is a root parasite-a complex floral trait that was little understood. Its unique timescale, dramatic structural change in drying, and resistance to travel made collection extremely difficult,and an inability to collect such plants informed debates on how naturalists could make classifications without seeing them in situ and what characteristics should be prioritized when ordering flowering plants. Attempts at understanding parasitism, therefore, became possible only through global comparisons to other parasitic plants in places like Sumatra, Spain, and the Mediterranean. This created anxieties around authority between the lab and the field, and amateur and professional, testing European scientific methods at the crucial moment in which natural history was fragmenting into disciplines and Linnaean taxonomy became increasingly ineffective. This article thus uses Hydnora africana as a boundary object between shifting geographies, institutions, and epistemologies, demonstrating how the parasitism debate embodied all sorts of questions related to control-over people, places, the natural world-but especially the limits of European knowledge systems.

Indexed as

BotanyNatural HistoryEuropeHistory, 19th CenturySouth Africaboundary objectnineteenth centuryparasitismplantsprofessionalizationscientific practicesouthern Africataxonomy

Identifiers

PMID42634467
PMCPMC13613074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.