The Experts below are selected from a list of 23520 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yulia Litvinava - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Use of Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies for human and animal home-medication in Liubań district, Belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:BackgroundTo use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups.MethodsDuring field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liubań district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories.ResultsIn the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants.ConclusionsDifferences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
-
use of Cultivated Plants and non Plant remedies for human and animal home medication in liuban district belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:To use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups. During field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liuban district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories. In the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants. Differences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
-
Use of Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies for human and animal home-medication in Liubań district, Belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:To use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups. During field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liuban district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories. In the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants. Differences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
Renata Sõukand - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Use of Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies for human and animal home-medication in Liubań district, Belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:BackgroundTo use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups.MethodsDuring field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liubań district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories.ResultsIn the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants.ConclusionsDifferences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
-
use of Cultivated Plants and non Plant remedies for human and animal home medication in liuban district belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:To use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups. During field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liuban district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories. In the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants. Differences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
-
Use of Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies for human and animal home-medication in Liubań district, Belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:To use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups. During field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liuban district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories. In the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants. Differences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
John Sivinski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
hymenopterous larval pupal and pupal parasitoids of anastrepha flies diptera tephritidae in mexico
Biological Control, 1999Co-Authors: Maurilio Lopez, Martin Aluja, John SivinskiAbstract:We surveyed 15 wild and Cultivated Plant species in search of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) parasitoids during 4 years (1993‐1996) in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. The following species were infested by Anastrepha larvae: Spondias purpurea L., S. mombin L., Tapirira mexicana Marchand, Mangifera indica L. (all Anacardiaceae), Ximenia americana L. (Olacaceae), Citrus sinensis L. and Casimiroa edulis Llave & Lex. (Rutaceae), Psidium guajava L., P. sartorianum (Berg.), P. guineense Sw., Syzygium jambos L., Myrciaria floribunda (West) O. Berg. (all Myrtaceae), Chrysophyllum mexicanum (Brandegce) ex. Standley and Calocarpum mammosum L. (Sapotaceae), and Passiflora foetida L. (Passifloraceae). Of these, only C. mexicanum, C. edulis, and P. foetida did not harbor parasitoids. We identified 10 native and exotic larval‐pupal parasitoid species (all Hymenoptera): Doryctobracon areolatus
W.a. Brandenburg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An annotated history of the principles of Cultivated Plant classification.
Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 1996Co-Authors: Wilbert L. A. Hetterscheid, R.g. Van Den Berg, W.a. BrandenburgAbstract:Important episodes in the history of the classification of Cultivated Plants are highlighted and commented upon in the light of recent developments in the systematics of Cultivated Plants. It is shown that throughout history, a division between classifying Cultivated Plants and Plants as found in nature has existed in the minds of most taxonomists, but the slow development of systematic thought in Cultivated Plant taxonomy has slowed down progress in this field and left ample opportunity for too strong an influence of the taxon concept. As a result, the nomenclature of Cultivated Plants has always leaned heavily on the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
-
culton versus taxon conceptual issues in Cultivated Plant systematics
Taxon, 1995Co-Authors: W L A Hetterscheid, W.a. BrandenburgAbstract:Summary The systematics of Cultivated Plants need to be divorced from a number of confusing ties with the systematics of Plants found in nature. These ties have been developed in time because systematic groups of Cultivated Plants have often been looked upon as proper taxa and treated accordingly in classifications and nomenclature. It is shown that Cultivated Plants and their special purpose taxonomy are part of a different context (human society) than the context of taxonomy of Plants in nature (evolution). A general concept of systematic groups of Cultivated Plants, termed "culton", is here proposed to end this confusion. The most important ranks of culta, viz. the cultivar and the cultivar group, are discussed and their definitions purified from imprecise elements. It is shown that the culton/taxon confusion has led to systematic/taxonomic misnomers and a far too complicated nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.
-
Botanical Files. A study of the real chances for spontaneous gene flow from Cultivated Plants to the wild flora of the Netherlands
1992Co-Authors: F.t. De Vries, R. Van Der Meijden, W.a. BrandenburgAbstract:Separate ‘Botanical files’ have been made for 42 species of Cultivated Plants. Each file gives information about the Cultivated Plant itself (use, origin, etc.), its wild relatives in the Netherlands, a report on actual hybridization and/or crossing (indicating gene flow by pollen), and observations on escapes from the field to nature (indicating gene flow by diaspores); the information is summarized to a conclusion and a numerical code, indicating the possible ecological effects of the Cultivated Plant on the wild flora of the Netherlands. This study was especially undertaken for questions regarding biosafety research on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). The sources are the herbarium collections of the State Herbarium at Leiden, floristic archives and botanical literature, as well as expert judgment on the flora of the Netherlands and crop Plants. An important consideration is that the absence of certain hybrids in the State Herbarium can be interpreted as a decisive indication that such a hybrid does not occur in the wild in the Netherlands. The botanical files show that in c. 50% of the cases no gene flow is expected; in c. 15% of the cases small, often local-scale effects are expected; in c. 25% of the cases considerable gene flow to the wild is expected; in c. 10% of the cases further research should be done before a definite conclusion can be drawn (most of the cases need further taxonomic research).
Yana Knureva - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Use of Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies for human and animal home-medication in Liubań district, Belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:BackgroundTo use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups.MethodsDuring field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liubań district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories.ResultsIn the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants.ConclusionsDifferences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
-
use of Cultivated Plants and non Plant remedies for human and animal home medication in liuban district belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:To use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups. During field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liuban district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories. In the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants. Differences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
-
Use of Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies for human and animal home-medication in Liubań district, Belarus
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2017Co-Authors: Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Julia Prakofjewa, Tatsiana Valodzina, Iryna Vasilyeva, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksandra Shrubok, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia LitvinavaAbstract:To use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild Plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-Plant remedies and Cultivated Plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups. During field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liuban district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories. In the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for Cultivated Plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-Plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild Plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 Cultivated Plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-Plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of Cultivated Plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild Plants. Differences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine Cultivated Plants and non-Plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-Plant remedies are almost equally important as wild Plants, while Cultivated Plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild Plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.