{"title":"摘还是不摘:摄影凭证标本作为民族植物学中植物采集的一种替代方法","authors":"Alexander M. Greene, I. Teixidor‐Toneu, G. Odonne","doi":"10.1177/02780771231162190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The identification of plants according to the Linnaean system of taxonomy is a cornerstone of ethnobotany, allowing the discipline to be a comparative science. To accomplish plant identification, ethnobotanists have long relied on the collection of voucher specimens and their deposition in herbaria. Here we critically analyze the role of botanical collecting in ethnobotany and bring attention to a range of issues that can complicate, and sometimes hamper, the practice. In lieu of traditional herbarium specimens, the collection of photographic vouchers and their deposition in digital repositories is proposed as an alternative method for ethnobotanical research. The ever-improving quality and ubiquity of smartphone cameras, photographic citizen science applications like Pl@ntnet and iNaturalist, and deep learning techniques of automated photo identification are discussed as elements that are contributing to a slow revolution in the role of digital data in the field sciences. Guidelines for when plant herbarium specimens versus photographic vouchers should be considered required are laid out. Although botanical collecting will doubtless and with good reason remain a foundational practice in ethnobotany, we present the use of photographic vouchers as a valid, scientifically rigorous and, in some situations, preferred method of identification.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"43 1","pages":"44 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Pick or Not to Pick: Photographic Voucher Specimens as an Alternative Method to Botanical Collecting in Ethnobotany\",\"authors\":\"Alexander M. Greene, I. Teixidor‐Toneu, G. Odonne\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02780771231162190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The identification of plants according to the Linnaean system of taxonomy is a cornerstone of ethnobotany, allowing the discipline to be a comparative science. To accomplish plant identification, ethnobotanists have long relied on the collection of voucher specimens and their deposition in herbaria. Here we critically analyze the role of botanical collecting in ethnobotany and bring attention to a range of issues that can complicate, and sometimes hamper, the practice. In lieu of traditional herbarium specimens, the collection of photographic vouchers and their deposition in digital repositories is proposed as an alternative method for ethnobotanical research. The ever-improving quality and ubiquity of smartphone cameras, photographic citizen science applications like Pl@ntnet and iNaturalist, and deep learning techniques of automated photo identification are discussed as elements that are contributing to a slow revolution in the role of digital data in the field sciences. Guidelines for when plant herbarium specimens versus photographic vouchers should be considered required are laid out. Although botanical collecting will doubtless and with good reason remain a foundational practice in ethnobotany, we present the use of photographic vouchers as a valid, scientifically rigorous and, in some situations, preferred method of identification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ethnobiology\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"44 - 56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ethnobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771231162190\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771231162190","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
To Pick or Not to Pick: Photographic Voucher Specimens as an Alternative Method to Botanical Collecting in Ethnobotany
The identification of plants according to the Linnaean system of taxonomy is a cornerstone of ethnobotany, allowing the discipline to be a comparative science. To accomplish plant identification, ethnobotanists have long relied on the collection of voucher specimens and their deposition in herbaria. Here we critically analyze the role of botanical collecting in ethnobotany and bring attention to a range of issues that can complicate, and sometimes hamper, the practice. In lieu of traditional herbarium specimens, the collection of photographic vouchers and their deposition in digital repositories is proposed as an alternative method for ethnobotanical research. The ever-improving quality and ubiquity of smartphone cameras, photographic citizen science applications like Pl@ntnet and iNaturalist, and deep learning techniques of automated photo identification are discussed as elements that are contributing to a slow revolution in the role of digital data in the field sciences. Guidelines for when plant herbarium specimens versus photographic vouchers should be considered required are laid out. Although botanical collecting will doubtless and with good reason remain a foundational practice in ethnobotany, we present the use of photographic vouchers as a valid, scientifically rigorous and, in some situations, preferred method of identification.
期刊介绍:
JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between.
Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology.
JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.