Biodiversity and Conservation (2006) 15:2565–2594
Springer 2006

DOI 10.1007/s10531-005-3874-6

-1

Medicinal plants of the Argentine Yungas plants of

the Las Yungas biosphere reserve, Northwest of
Argentina, used in health care

NORMA I. HILGERT1,2,* and GUILLERMO E. GIL1,3

1
Consejo Nacional de (Conicet), Casilla de Correo 8 (3370) Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina;
2
Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Me´xico; 3Ad-
ministración de Parques Nacionales, Argentina; *Author for correspondence (e-mail: normahilgert@
yahoo.com.ar; phone:+54-3757-423356)

Received 8 March 2004; accepted in revised form 8 March 2005

Key words: Argentina, Biodiversity use, Cloud forest, Health system, Medicinal plants, Relative
importance

Abstract. We have compared the species richness of medicinal plants and the differential patterns
of use amongst settlements in the Andean communities of Northwest Argentina which have dif-
fering levels of isolation. About 259 ethnoespecies, belonging to 74 plant families, were included,
representing between 70 and 80% of the total estimate. The results indicate that Coronopus didymus
is the most relevant and important species. The method of use of medicinal plants and the ailments
treated by rural doctors compared to those of the layperson is different. Native and exotic plants are
used differently according to the body system treated. There are some relationships between
internal and external use and body systems and recipes. The greater medicinal species richness
found in the less isolated locations is due to external enriching cultural influences.

Introduction

The main goal of early Ethnobotanical studies was the documentation of

endangered knowledge whilst today many projects collect data for biodiversity
conservation and community development, focusing on the ecological feasi-
bility of the indigenous management strategies (Frei et al. 2000). An implicit
assumption of these studies is that plants are economically, culturally and
ecologically important (Frei et al. 2000; Hersh-Martı́nez 2002). The recognition
of this human component of the traditional ecological knowledge and of forest
landscape management held by the resident cultures has led to a model of
‘community-based’ conservation (Gadgil et al. 1993). But it is important to
recognize that, in many cases, local people have developed behaviors which
have had a conservational impact without these initial aims; practices that, in
general, look for the best results in local economy. It is important to remember
that management of natural resources is foremost a question about social
relations, that is to say, about the social net who is regulating the access to
these resources (Kalland 2000).
2566

In the same sense, Ethnobotanical studies have become increasingly valuable

in the development of health care and conservation programs in different parts
of the world (Balick 1996). In each culture the importance of each medicinal
plant varies; some are hardly ever used, while others are important medicinal
resources. Even so, numerous papers have called attention to the lack of
information on the relative importance of medicinal plants (or other useful
plants) within a culture (Moerman 1996; Ankili et al. 1999).
Many rural populations throughout the tropics rely on medicinal plants
because of their effectiveness, the lack of modern alternatives and their cultural
preferences. However, the distribution and extent of local knowledge and the
use of medicinal plants in these societies are being altered by exposure to
modern culture, increased trade and access to modern conveniences (including
modern medicines). In fact, local knowledge cannot be treated as an insulated
domain, since the majorities are interacting with exogenous knowledge
(Osseweijer 2000).
On the other hand, forest conversion and land degradation can reduce the
availability of medicinal plants and can also affect local knowledge of interests
in medicinal plant use (Caniago and Siebert 1998).
In the present work the use of medicinal plants in populations residing
within the Argentine Yungas Biosphere Reserve is investigated. Within the
zone studied are the Baritú National Park and the National Reserve ‘El
Nogalar.’ Both reserves are of recent creation (in 2002 and 2003, respectively)
but the National Park dates back to 1974. According to Brown (1995) and
Brown et al. (2001), this region has the highest biodiversity levels and rural
population numbers in the Montane Cloud Forest of Argentina, but also it
represents one of the biomes within the national territory most threatened by
productive activities such as logging, grazing forest conversion into cropland.
Today, Pre-Columbian and Spanish colonial influences are still to be seen in
the area but modern influences are constantly altering the traditional medical
systems and the use of medicinal plants, as noted by Frei et al. (1998) with
respect to Mexican communities. Recently, several studies concerning the use
of medicinal plants have been undertaken in Northwestern Argentina
(Iharlegui and Hurrell 1992; Hurrell and de la Sota 1996; Lupo and Echenique
1997). The community health issue has also been investigated on a few occa-
sions from an anthropological viewpoint (Torres 1982; Palma 1994; Madrid de
Zito Fontan and Palma 1997). Some studies on ethnomedicine have been
undertaken in neighboring areas of the Salta province (Hurrell 1990, 1991;
Martinez and Pochettino 1992) but there is only one ethnopharmacological
study dealing specifically with the medicinal plants used within the Yungas
biogeographic province (Hilgert 2001).
Ellen and Harris (2000) have defined indigenous knowledge as local, orally
transmitted and constantly reinforced by experience; they have also expressed
the importance of not placing local knowledge outside culture. Taking into
account the above mentioned concept, the goals of the present paper are the
 2567

documentation of the usage of medicinal plants in rural communities of the

Yungas Biosphere Reserve of Northwest Argentina. Besides, the methods of
use, the parts of the plant used and the documentation of the cultural value of
the use of medicinal plants are analyzed. Finally, how this knowledge is dis-
tributed among the population and the comparison among communities with
different socio-economic features and environmental conservation status are
also treated.

Methods

Study site

The area is located on the eastern slope of the Cordillera Oriental in the north
of the Province of Salta, Argentina, close to the Bolivian border. The localities
studies were; Abra de Minas, Lipeo and Baritú, located at the limit and within
the Baritú National Park, and the neighboring areas of La Mamora (Bolivia),
El Condado, La Misión, Los Toldos and El Arazay (Figure 1). The climate is
tropical continental with hot and rainy summers and cold and dry winters.
Mean annual temperatures range from 14 to 26.5 C with orographic rains
(rains that occur by condensation of humid air rising up high mountain slopes)
concentrated between September and March and with an annual rainfall of
700–1400 mm (Bianchi and Yánez 1992; Hunzinger 1995).
From a biogeographic point of view the area corresponds to the Yungas
Province (Montane Cloud Forest) within the Amazonian Domain within
the Neotropical Region. This biome can be divided into three environmental
units: the Submontane Subtropical Forest, the Montane Moist Forest and
the Temperate Cloud Forest (which includes Fog Grasslands) (Cabrera
1976).
The communities under study are considered to be part of the Andean
cultural world. The inhabitants of these settlements are Andean with strong
Spanish influence. They speak only Spanish although many Quechuan
expressions are found in their speech. For the most part the inhabitants live
under marginal socio-economic conditions. A brief analysis of the regional
economy shows the coexistence of shifting agriculture, transhumance, har-
vesting, nomadic cattle-breeding, hunting and fishing and finally, access to paid
work in temporary or permanent jobs (Hilgert 2001).
In order to gain access to the area it is necessary to leave the country via the
frontier crossing, drive approximately 70 km on Bolivian roads, and then
re-enter Argentina. Up to 2001 and before the inauguration of an international
bridge, it was necessary to cross two river beds, which were impassable during
some or all of the rainy season. At the present time Abra de Minas, Lipeo and
Baritú only have communication by foot or horse for most of the year and
these settlements. Table 1 provides a comparing the key socio-economic and
environmental features of each study area.
2568

Figure 1. Baritu National Park.

Table 1. Socio-economic and environmental features of each study area.

NP settlements Neighbors settlements

Baritú Abra de Minas Lipeo Los Toldos La Misión El Condado La Mamora

MOSL 1500 1800 1100 1600 1100 900 1100

Vegetation type Temperate Montane moist Temperate cloud Montane moist Submontane Montane moist
Temperate cloud cloud forest and Submontane and Montane and Submontane subtropical and Submontane
and Montane subtropical forest moist forest subtropical forest forest subtropical forest
moist forest

Disturb level Low Low Low Medium Medium High High

# Families 16 2 21 124 102 101 no data
First degree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
school
Second degree No No No Yes No No No
school
Percentage 74 no data 65 42 57 66 no data
analphabet
mothers
Hospitals No No No Yes No No Yes
Health centers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Stores No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Telephone No No No Yes No No Yes
Electricity No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Car roads In dry season In dry season In dry season All year All year All year All year
Public means of No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
transportation
2569
2570

Data collection

During seven visits from 1994 to 2000 a total of 104 surveys were undertaken of
39 rural families interviewed using a semi structured questionnaire. For the
present article these families were considered as two groups. The first group
consisted of 19 families from Abra de Minas, Lipeo and Baritú, where a total
of 39 families live (i.e. the work was undertaken using 48% of the inhabitants
of or near to the Baritú National Park). The second group consisted of 18
families divided among the populations of El Condado, La Misión, Los Toldos
and El Arazay in Argentina and 2 families in La Mamora (Bolivia). So, in
Argentina the second group represents 5.5% of the total 327 families, we have
no data about this percentage for the Bolivian city. The individuals were asked
about the medicinal plants they used, the parts of the plant used, the methods
of preparation and administration, the dosage, the duration of the treatment
and the illness being treated. Plants were collected with the local help and were
pressed and dried at the Museo de Ciencias Naturales of the Universidad
Nacional de Salta, Argentina. The nomenclature used follows Zuloaga et al.
(1994) and Zuloaga and Morrone (1996, 1999).

Data analysis

An ‘event’ is defined as the process of asking an individual on one day about

the uses they know for one species, according to methods proposed by Phillips
and Gentry (1993) and Phillips (1996).
The theoretical total of locally used medicinal plants was estimated in
addition to the percentage representation of the species mentioned in the
present study. Due to the distinct level of isolation and historical characteris-
tics, these calculations considered separately the locations at the limit of, or
within, the Baritú National Park (Abra de Minas, Lipeo and Baritú) and other
more distant neighboring places (La Mamora, El Condado, La Misión, Los
Toldos, El Arazay). Non-parametric estimators were used (Chao2, Jacknife1,
Jacknife2) taking each informant as a sampling unit and using the EstimateS
6.0b1 program (Colwell 2000). Based on the values of species for sample cal-
culated by EstimateS (an average of 50 simulations randomizing the observed
samples) the smoothing to the species accumulation functions (Clench equa-
tion, logarithmic and linear dependence models) was analyzed with the sta-
tistical software Statistica 98 Edition (StatSoft Inc. 1998). We consider that
Chao1 calculations are not applicable to this type of data as this estimator is
based on rare species which are represented by only one or two individuals (in
our case, verbal references) in a sample (informant) and the species that have
only one or two uses will be only referenced once. As such, this type of species
will deflect the calculations, resulting in overestimations of the total expected
species. For this case, the individuals (references) of a survey differ from those
of a natural population of a live species in which it is possible to record
 2571

numerous individuals of a species by sample (Moreno 2000). The relative

importance (RI) for each species was estimated, according to Bennet and
Prance (2000), based on the normalized number of pharmacological properties
attributed by each species and the normalized number of body systems affected
by each one. Spearman correlations were undertaken between the RI and the
methods of administration and the recipes. In order to analyze the differential
use of native and exotic species we classify its following Zuloaga et al. (1994)
and Zuloaga and Morrone (1996, 1999) adding data about natives endemics of
Argentina and naturalized adventitious (Table 2). The amounts of native/
exotic species used for body systems were compared using a Chi squared test.
The same operation was undertaken to compare the method of application and
the types of recipes used by the individuals known as ‘médicos rurales’ (rural
doctors) to those of the rest of the interviewed individuals, using the number of
events for each case. For these last two comparisons a discriminant analysis
was also undertaken using native/exotic and rural doctor/layperson respectively
as classificatory variables, using the frequency of the reference of each species
by body system for the first case and the method of use and the recipe for the
second case. All the statistical tests were undertaken using the SPSS software
application for Windows (SPSS Inc. 2000).

Results

Health system

The inhabitants of the region maintain traditional health practices and there-
fore the underlying notion of the origin of a disease is very important for
determining diagnosis and treatment. They recognize three origins for ailments;
natural, socio-cultural (i.e. when a food taboo is not respected), and super-
natural (i.e. witch-craft, air diseases). The last two types can be diagnosed and
treated only by a rural doctor. Diseases of natural origin, like cough, dyspepsia,
headache, postpartum pain are usually solved within the family and it is not
necessary to have formal training nor to carryout any ritual process.
The hot and cold theory holds an important place in the local medicine lore.
This is the theory as described by the inhabitants of the Zenta River Basin, near
to the present area, (Hilgert 2001) who consider a healthy body to have a
certain corporal temperature that can be altered by the influence of external
factors, i.e. sun, water, or an inadequate behavior. For example if some person
ate ‘cold’ food (like lettuce) in excess, this cold would cause a templary
imbalance and he or she would have digestive problems afterwards he or she is
considered to be suffering from ‘cold.’ The imbalance also could become from
an excessive exposure to cold and humidity, or heat and dryness these may
cause cold or hot.
Against ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ diseases, usually plants with an opposite condition
are used, however sometimes neutral condition’s beverages are prepared to
2572

Table 2. Relative importance value of medicinal plants.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Coronopus didymus (L.), quimpe, 11 1 30 1 100.0 NA

Brassicaceae (H 1987 MCNS) quimpy
Rosa sp., Rosaceae (H 2261 rosa, rosa 11 1 13 0.43 71.5 EX
MCNS) remedio
Citrus limon (L.) Burm., limón 9 0.81 17 0.56 68.5 EX
Rutaceae (H 1590 MCNS)
Sambucus nigra L. subsp. mololo 9 0.81 17 0.56 68.5 NA
peruviana (Kunth) R. Bolli,
Caprifoliaceae (H 2142 MCNS)
Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck, naranja, 10 0.91 13 0.43 67.0 EX
Rutaceae (H 2053 MCNS) naranja dulce
Malva parviflora L., Malvaceae malva 9 0.81 16 0.53 67.0 AD
(H 2503 MCNS)
Erythroxylum coca Lam. var. coca 8 0.72 18 0.60 66.0 EX
coca, Erythroxylaceae (H 2108
M-MCNS)
Nicotiana tabacum L., tabaco 9 0.81 13 0.43 62.0 EX
Solanaceae (H 2368 MCNS)
Acacia macracantha H. B. K., churqui, tusca 7 0.63 14 0.46 54.5 NA
Fabaceae (H 2581 MCNS)
Myroxylon peruiferum L.f., quina 8 0.72 11 0.36 54.0 NA
Fabaceae (H 2377 MCNS) colorada,
quina del
campo, quina
Ruta chalepensis L., Rutaceae ruda 7 0.63 13 0.43 53.0 EX
(H&A 1399 MCNS)
Plantago australis Lam., llantén 8 0.72 9 0.30 51.0 NA
Plantaginaceae (H 2534
MCNS)
Cinchona ledgeriana Monees., quina 8 0.72 8 0.26 49.0 EX
Rubiaceae (H 1631 M-MCNS) amarilla,
quina blanca,
quina castilla
Cortaderia selloana (Schult. et cortadera 8 0.72 8 0.26 49.0 NA
Schult. f) Asch. Et Graebn.,
Poaceae (H 1772 MCNS)
Verbena litoralis Kunth, verbena 8 0.72 8 0.26 49.0 NA
Verbenaceae (H 2499 MCNS)
Cinnamomum porphyrium laurel del 7 0.63 9 0.30 46.5 NA
(Griseb.) Kosterm, Lauraceae campo
(H 2022 M-MCNS)
Eucalyptus camaldulensis eucaliptus 7 0.63 9 0.30 46.5 EX
Dehnh., Myrtaceae (H 1845
MCNS)
Matricaria recutita L., manzanilla 7 0.63 9 0.30 46.5 AD
Asteraceae (H 2438 MCNS)
Solanum palitans C. V. Morton, ñusco 7 0.63 9 0.30 46.5 EN
Solanaceae (H 1618 MCNS)
 2573

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Acacia aroma Gill. ex Hook et tusca 7 0.63 8 0.26 44.5 NA

Arn., Fabaceae (H 2400
MCNS)
Allium sativum L., Liliaceae (N ajo 7 0.63 8 0.26 44.5 EX
1578 M-MCNS)
Linum usitatissimum L., linaza 7 0.63 8 0.26 44.5 EX
Linaceae (N 1621 M-MCNS)
Ocimun basilicum L., albahaca 7 0.63 8 0.26 44.5 EX
Lamiaceae (H 2058 MCNS)
Salvia gilliesii Benth., salvia 7 0.63 8 0.26 44.5 NA
Lamiaceae (H 2321 M-MCNS) gateadora,
salvia del
cerro
Schinus molle L., molle 7 0.63 8 0.26 44.5 AD
Anacardiaceae (H. 2540
MCNS)
Melissa officinalis L., toronjil 6 0.54 10 0.33 43.5 EX
Lamiaceae (H 1059 M-MCNS)
Xanthium catharticum HBK, espinillo 6 0.54 10 0.33 43.5 NA
Asteraceae (H 2167 MCNS)
Petiveria alliaceae L., calaschi 7 0.63 7 0.23 43.0 NA
Phytolaccaceae (H 2383
MCNS)
Zea mays L. var. ocho rayas, maı́z 7 0.63 7 0.23 43.0 EX
Poaceae (H 1563 MCNS)
Ageratum conyzoides L., borraja del 5 0.45 9 0.30 42.0 NA
Asteraceae (H&Lo 969 MCNS) campo,
borrajilla
Buddleja brasiliensis Jacq. ex san juan c‘ora 6 0.54 9 0.30 42.0 NA
Spreng., Buddlejaceae (H 2182
MCNS)
Maytenus cuezzoi Leg., lloque 6 0.54 9 0.30 42.0 EN
Celastraceae (H 2565
M-MCNS)
Citrus aurantium L., Rutaceae naranja agria 6 0.54 8 0.26 40.0 EX
(H 2051 MCNS)
Fagara coco (Gill.) Engler, sauco 6 0.54 8 0.26 40.0 NA
Rutaceae (H 2199 M-MCNS)
Rosa rubiginosa L., Rosaceae rosa, rosa 6 0.54 8 0.26 40.0 EX
(H&A 1445 MCNS) remedio
Rosmarinus officinalis L., romero 6 0.54 8 0.26 40.0 EX
Lamiaceae (H 2103 MCNS)
Taraxacum officinale Weber ex retama, 6 0.54 8 0.26 40.0 AD
F. H. Wigg., Asteraceae (H achicoria,
1436 MCNS) k’ana yuyo
Satureja boliviana (Benth.) muña 5 0.45 10 0.33 39.0 NA
Briquet, Lamiaceae (H 2528
MCNS)
2574

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Pavonia sepium St. Hil., abrojo 6 0.54 7 0.23 38.5 NA

Malvaceae (H 1099 MCNS)
Prunus amygdalus Batsch., almendras 6 0.54 7 0.23 38.5 EX
Rosaceae
Senencio crepidifolius DC., arnica 6 0.54 6 0.20 37.0 NA
Asteraceae (H 2500 MCNS)
Anthemis cotula L., Asteraceae manzanilla 5 0.45 8 0.26 35.5 AD
(H&A 1410 MCNS)
Satureja parvifolia (Phil.) muña 5 0.45 8 0.26 35.5 NA
Epling, Lamiaceae (H 2269
M-MCNS)
Peperomia alata Ruiz et Pav., anı́s del 6 0.54 5 0.16 35.0 NA
Piperaceae (H&G 2391 MCNS) monte
Achyrocline alata (Kunth) DC, amaicha 5 0.45 7 0.23 34.0 NA
Asteraceae (H 2481 MCNS) blanca, vila
vila
Jacaranda mimosifolia D. Don, tarco 5 0.45 7 0.23 34.0 NA
Bignoniaceae (H&G 2397
MCNS)
Piper anduncum L. var. matico 5 0.45 7 0.23 34.0 NA
anduncum, Piperaceae (H&G
2336 MCNS)
Plantago myosurus Lam., llantén 5 0.45 7 0.23 34.0 NA
Plantaginaceae (H 2222
MCNS)
Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. ajenco, a. 5 0.45 7 0.23 34.0 EX
Bip, Asteraceae (H&A 1479 amarillo
M-MCNS)
Peperomia fiebrigii C. DC., siemprevida 4 0.36 9 0.30 33.0 NA
Pieraceae (H&G 2345 MCNS)
Equisetum bogotense H. B. K., cola de 5 0.45 6 0.20 32.5 NA
Equisetaceae (H&A 1394 caballo chica
MCNS)
Tagetes campanulata Griseb., rosa amarilla, 5 0.45 6 0.20 32.5 NA
Asteraceae (H&A 1478 MCNS) rosa pascua
Artemisia absinthium L., ajenco, a. 4 0.36 8 0.26 31.0 EX
Asteraceae (H 2433 MCNS) blanco
Lepechinia vesiculosa (Benth.) salvia grande, 4 0.36 8 0.26 31.0 NA
Epling., Lamiaceae (H 1899 salvia blanca
MCNS)
Amaranthus hypochondriacus L. aroma 5 0.45 5 0.16 30.5 NA
var. powellii (S. Watson) Ped.,
Amaranthaceae (H 1976
MCNS)
Dahlia sp., Asteraceae (H 1975 dalia 5 0.45 5 0.16 30.5 EX
MCNS)
Dianthus caryophyllus L., clavel de 5 0.45 5 0.16 30.5 EX
Caryophyllaceae (H 2468 huerta
MCNS)
 2575

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Equisetum giganteum L., cola de 5 0.45 5 0.16 30.5 NA

Equisetaceae (H&L 1617 caballo
MCNS) grande
Eugenia uniflora L., Myrtaceae arrayán, a. 5 0.45 5 0.16 30.5 NA
(H 2057 MCNS) colorado
Ilex paraguariensis A. St. Hill., yerba 5 0.45 5 0.16 30.5 EX
Aquifoliaceae (H 1565
M-MCNS)
Tagetes sp., Asteraceae comadrita 5 0.45 5 0.16 30.5 NA
Arundo donax L., Poaceae (H caña hueca 4 0.36 7 0.23 29.5 AD
2577 MCNS)
Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) lima 4 0.36 7 0.23 29.5 EX
Sw., Rutaceae (H&G 2388
MCNS)
Macfadyena unguis-cati (L.) A. garra de gato 5 0.45 4 0.13 29.0 NA
H. Gentry, Bignoniaceae (H
2192 MCNS)
Helianthus annuus L., mirasol 5 0.45 4 0.13 29.0 EX
Asteraceae (H 1327 MCNS)
Opuntia ficus indica (L.) Mill., penca, tuna 5 0.45 4 0.13 29.0 AD
Cactaceae (H&L 1859 M-
MCNS)
Baccharis trimera (Less.) DC., carqueja 4 0.36 5 0.16 26.0 NA
Asteraceae (H 2501 MCNS)
Cajophora lateritia (Hook.) itapalla 4 0.36 5 0.16 26.0 NA
Koltzch, Loasaceae (H 2225
MCNS)
Duranta serratifolia (Griseb.) espinillo 4 0.36 5 0.16 26.0 NA
Kuntze, Verbenaceae (H 2147
MCNS)
Not identified livi livi 4 0.36 5 0.16 26.0
Origanum x appli (Domin) orégano 4 0.36 5 0.16 26.0 EX
Boros, Lamiaceae (H 2242
MCNS)
Stachytarpheta cayennensis verbena 4 0.36 5 0.16 26.0 NA
(Rich) M. Vahl. f., Verbenaceae
(H&A 2387 MCNS)
Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. lapacho 4 0.36 5 0.16 26.0 NA
ex DC.) Standl., Bignoniaceae morado
(Krap. 26581 CTES)
Urera caracasana (Jacq.) Gris., itapalla, 4 0.36 5 0.16 26.0 NA
Urticaceae (H&G 2394 MCNS) orteguilla
Amaranthus quitensis Kunth., aroma 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 NA
Amaranthaceae (H&G 2393
MCNS)
Anredera cordifolia (Ten.) papa santa, 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 NA
Steenis, Basellaceae (H 2256 hierba santa
MCNS)
2576

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Canna indica L., Cannaceae achera 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 NA

(H 1972 MCNS)
Cucurbita ficifolia Bouché, cayote 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 EX
Cucurbitaceae (H 1571
M-MCNS)
Cydonia oblonga Mill., membrillo 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 EX
Rosaceae (H&A 1456
M-MCNS)
Prunus persica (L.) Batsch., durazno 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 EX
Rosaceae (H 2049 MCNS)
Rhipsalis lorentziana Griseb., huasca 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 NA
Cactaceae (H&A 1462 MCNS) huasca,
peinquillita
Roripa nasturtium-aquaticum berro 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 AD
(L.) Hayek, Brassicaceae (H&G
2404 MCNS)
Saccharum officinarum L., azúcar, caña 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 EX
Poaceae (H 1583 M-MCNS) dulce
Scoparia dulcis L., yerba de 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 NA
Scrophulariaceae (H 2162 vı́bora
MCNS)
Solanum trichoneuron Lillo, hediondilla 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 EN
Solanaceae (H 2161 MCNS)
Tillandsia usneoides (L.) L., sacha blanca 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 NA
Bromeliaceae (H 2187 MCNS)
Tournefortia paniculata Cham., alcanflor 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 NA
Boraginaceae (H 1088 MCNS)
Trichocereus arboricola cardón, c. 4 0.36 4 0.13 24.5 NA
Kimnach, Cactaceae (H&G blanco
2399 M-MCNS)
Pluchea sagittalis (Lam.) cuatro cantos 3 0.27 6 0.20 23.5 NA
Cabrera, Asteraceae (H 2392
MCNS)
Punica granatum L., Punicaceae granada 3 0.27 6 0.20 23.5 EX
(H 1643 M-MCNS) castilla
Aloe vera (L.) Burm. F., penca aloe 4 0.36 3 0.10 23.0 EX
Liliaceae vera, sabila
Cynodon dactylon L., Poaceae brama blanca 4 0.36 3 0.10 23.0 AD
(H 2164 MCNS)
Adiantum lorentzii Hieron., culandrillo 3 0.27 5 0.16 21.5 NA
Pteridaceae (H&A 1457
MCNS)
Aloysia polystachya (Griseb.) burrito 3 0.27 5 0.16 21.5 NA
Mold., Lamiaceae (H 2409
M-MCNS)
Apium graveolens L., Apiaceae apio 3 0.27 5 0.16 21.5 AD
(H&A 1447 MCNS)
 2577

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Mimosa polycarpa Kunth. var celosita chica 3 0.27 5 0.16 21.5 NA

subandina Barneby, Fabaceae
(H 2220 MCNS)
Solanum sisymbriifolium vila vila 3 0.27 5 0.16 21.5 NA
Lam.var. sisymbriifolium,
Solanaceae (H 2637 MCNS)
Oreopanax kuntzei Harms, higuerilla 4 0.36 2 0.06 21.0 NA
Araliaceae (H 1375 MCNS)
Borago officinalis L., borraja 3 0.27 4 0.13 20.0 AD
Boraginaceae (H 2462 castilla, b. de
M-MCNS) huerta
Chrysanthemum sp., Asteraceae papa de 3 0.27 4 0.13 20.0 EX
(H 2255 MCNS) margarita,
margarita
Mentha x piperita L. var. citrata menta 3 0.27 4 0.13 20.0 EX
(Ehrh.) Briq., Lamiaceae (H
1640 MCNS)
Microgramma squamulosa pori pori, poli 3 0.27 4 0.13 20.0 NA
(Kaulf.) de la Sota, poli,
Polypodiaceae (H&G 2346 canchalagua
MCNS)
Persea americana Mill., palta anisada 3 0.27 4 0.13 20.0 AD
Lauraceae (H 2074 MCNS)
Rhipsalis floccosa Pfeiff. subsp. huasca 3 0.27 4 0.13 20.0 NA
tucumanensis (Web.) Barth., huasca,
Cactaceae(H 2024 MCNS) calaguala
Smilax campestris Griseb., zarzaparilla 3 0.27 4 0.13 20.0 NA
Smilacaceae (H 2320 M-
MCNS)
Acaulimalva nubigena (Walp.) altea 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Krapov., Malvaceae (H 2465
M-MCNS)
Achyrocline flaccida (Weinm) amaicha, vila 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
DC, Asteraceae (H 2435 vila
MCNS)
Amburana cearensis (Allemao) roble 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
A. C. Sm., Fabaceae (H 1620
M-MCNS)
Bocconia integrifolia Humb. y mil hombres, 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Bonpl., Papaveraceae (H 2541 palo amarillo
MCNS)
Capsicum annuum L., ajı́ 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
Solanaceae (H 1894 MCNS)
Cedrella lilloi DC, Meliaceae cedro 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
(H 2634 MCNS)
Cinnamomum zeylanicum canela 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
Blume, Lauraceae (H 2330
M-MCNS)
2578

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Cucurbita maxima Duchesne zapallo 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX

var . maxima, Cucurbitaceae (H
1961 MCNS)
Dodonaea viscosa Jacq., chacatea 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Sapindaceae (H 1012 MCNS)
Eupatorium bupleurifolium DC., prementina 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Asteraceae (H&Lo 950 MCNS)
Fagara naranjillo (Griseb.) naranjillo 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Engl., Rutaceae (Jörg. 2585 SI)
Gochnatia palosanto Cab., palo santo 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Asteraceae (H 1619 M-MCNS)
Hordeum vulgare L., Poaceae cebada 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
(H 1581 M-MCNS)
Lactuca sativa L., Asteraceae lechuga 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
(H 1569 M-MCNS)
Laurus nobilis L., Lauraceae (N laurel 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
1576 M-MCNS)
Lavandula sp., Lamiaceae alhucema 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
Myristica fragans Houtt., nuez moscada 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
Myristicaceae (H 2104
M-MCNS)
Phoradendron tucumanense suelda con 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Urb., Viscaceae (H 1347 suelda
MCNS)
Plantago major L., llantén 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
Plantaginaceae (H 2439
MCNS)
Schinus meyeri Barkley, chirimolle 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Anacardiaceae (H. 2149
MCNS)
Schkuhria pinnata (Lam.) hallapichana 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Kuntze, Asteraceae (H 2507
MCNS)
Solanum sp., Solanaceae yerba del 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
golpe
Solanum tuberosum L., papa 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Solanaceae (H 1907 MCNS)
Syzygium aromaticum (L.) clavo de olor 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
Merr. et Perry, Myrtaceae (H
1580 M-MCNS)
Tournefortia lilloi M. Johnston, alcanflor 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 NA
Boraginaceae (H&A 1428
MCNS)
Triticum aestivum L., Poaceae trigo 3 0.27 3 0.10 18.5 EX
(H 1584 M-MCNS)
Chaptalia nutans (L.) Polak., pelodilla, 2 0.18 5 0.16 17.0 NA
Asteraceae (H 2521 MCNS) marancel,
rejón
 2579

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Chenopodium ambrosioides L., paico 2 0.18 5 0.16 17.0 NA

Chenopodiaceae (H 1978
MCNS)
Tripodanthus acutifolius (Ruiz corpo 2 0.18 5 0.16 17.0 NA
et Pav.) Tiegh, Loranthaceae
(H 1096, 2248 MCNS)
Blumembachia sp., Loasaceae itapalla del 3 0.27 2 0.06 16.5 NA
(H 2599 M-MCNS) cerro
Acantholippia salsoloides rica rica 2 0.18 4 0.13 15.5 NA
Griseb., Verbenaceae (H 1612
M-MCNS)
Citrus medica L., Rutaceae (H sidra, cidra 2 0.18 4 0.13 15.5 EX
2328 M-MCNS)
Tagetes filifolia Lag., anı́s del 2 0.18 4 0.13 15.5 NA
Asteraceae (H 2180 MCNS) campo
Tecoma stans (L.) Juss., guaran guay 3 0.27 1 0.03 15.0 NA
Bignoniaceae (H 2532 MCNS)
Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) cebil 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Bernan var. cebil (Griseb.) Alts,
Fabaceae (H&G 2398 MCNS)
Apium sp., Apiaceae apio del 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
campo
Bidens pilosa L. var. minor (Bl.) saitilla 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Sherff., Asteraceae (H&Lo 990 blanca, saitilla
MCNS)
Buddleja tucumanensis Griseb., san juan c‘ora 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Buddlejaceae (H 2570 MCNS)
Coffea arabica L., Rubiaceae café 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 EX
(H 1641 M-MCNS)
Cuminum cyminum L., comino 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 EX
Apiaceae (H 1593 M-MCNS)
Fagara rhoifolia (Lam.) Engl., sauco 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Rutaceae (H&Lo 982 MCNS) hediondo,
sauquillo
Mentha x rotundifolia (L.) yerba buena 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 AD
Huds., Lamiaceae (H 1639
M-MCNS)
Not identified oreja de perro 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0
Not identified (H 2267 MCNS) alcanflor 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0
Not identified (H 2484 MCNS) oreja de palo 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0
Ocotea puberula (Rich.) Nees, laurel 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Lauraceae (N 2197 M-MCNS)
Peperomia arifolia Miq., anı́s del 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Piperaceae (H 2036b MCNS) monte
Peperomia tetraphylla (G. siemprevida 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Forst) Hook et Arn., chica
Piperaceae (H 1426 MCNS)
Peperomia theodori Trelease, siempreviva 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Piperaceae (H 1105 MCNS)
2580

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Senecio cremeiflorus Mattf., lampazo 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 EN

Asteraceae (H&A 1442 MCNS)
Vassobia breviflora (Sendtn.) pucancho, 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 NA
Hunziker, Solanaceae (H 2411 uchucho
MCNS)
Viola sp. L., Violaceae (H 2455 violeta 2 0.18 3 0.10 14.0 EX
M-MCNS)
Achyrocline hyperchlora Blake, amaicha 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Asteraceae (H&Lo 974 MCNS)
Argenome subfusiformis cardo santo 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Ownbey, Papaveraceae (H&L
1834 MCNS)
Baccharis coridifolia DC, romerillo 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Asteraceae (H 2157 MCNS)
Baccharis grisebachii Hieron, quinchamal 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Asteraceae (H 2460 M-MCNS)
Campyloneurum aglaolepis pori pori, poli 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
(Alston) de la Sota, poli,
Polypodiaceae (H&A 1427 canchalagua
MCNS)
Canavalia sp., Fabaceae habilla 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Diatenopteryx sorbifolia suiquillo 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Radlk., Sapindaceae (H 2376
MCNS)
Eupatorium hookerianum hediondilla 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Griseb., Asteraceae (H&Lo 995 negra
MCNS)
Euphorbia sp., Euphorbiaceae piedrita 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0
(H 2455 MCNS)
Gunnera apiculata Schindl., querusilla 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Gunneraceae (H&L 1745 colorada,
MCNS) quirusilla
Malus sylvestris Mill., Rosaceae manzana 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 EX
(H&A 1409 MCNS)
Manihot esculenta Crantz., mandioca 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 EX
Euphorbiaceae (H&L 1616
M-MCNS)
Mimosa debilis H. B. K. ex. celosita 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Willd., Fabaceae (H&Lo 947 grande
MCNS)
Not identified muela 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0
hedionda
Not identified (H 2041 MCNS) polvillo 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0
Not identified (H 2509 MCNS) violeta del 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0
campo
Oncidium bifolium Sims, banderilla, 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Orchidiaceae (H 2276 MCNS) pajarilla
 2581

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. poroto 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA

vulgaris, Fabaceae (H 1930 amarillo, p.
MCNS) blanco, p.
negro, p. negro
guillador
Polygonum sp., Polygonaceae picantilla 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0
(H&Lo 996 MCNS)
Solanum sp., Solanaceae (H yerba mora 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0
2519 MCNS)
Theobroma cacao L., chocolate 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 EX
Sterculiaceae
Tipuana tipu (Benth.) Kuntze, tipa 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Fabaceae (H 2109 MCNS)
Tunilla soherensii (Britton et airampo 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Rose) Hunt& Illiff var.
soherensii, Cactaceae (H 1637
M-MCNS)
Ullucus tuberosus Lozano, papa verde 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
Basellaceae (H 1305 M-MCNS)
Vriesea friburgensis Mez var. payo 2 0.18 2 0.06 12.0 NA
tucumanensis (Mez.) L. B. Sm.,
Bromeliaceae (H 2290 MCNS)
Petroselimun crispum (Mill.) A. perejil 1 0.09 3 0.10 9.5 EX
W. Hill, Apiaceae (H 1959
MCNS)
Aechmea distichantha Lem. var. taraca 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 NA
distichanta, Bromeliaceae
(H&A 1517 MCNS)
Aloysia citriodora Palau, cedrón 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 NA
Verbenaceae (H 2574 MCNS)
Celtis iguanaea (Jac.) Sarg., tala 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 NA
Celtidaceae (H 2148 MCNS)
Citrus reticulata Blanco, mandarina 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 EX
Rutaceae
Commelina erecta L., santa lucı́a 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 NA
Commelinaceae (H&A 1496
M-MCNS)
Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) porongo 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 AD
Standl., Cucurbitaceae (H 1343
MCNS)
Minthostachys mollis Griseb., toronjil 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 NA
Lamiaceae (H 2489 MCNS) cerreño
Not identified (H 2464 MCNS) flor de tierra, 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5
huaji
Not identified (H 2473 siete vueltas 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5
M-MCNS)
Psidium aff guineense Swartz, arazay 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 NA
Myrtaceae (H 2639 MCNS)
2582

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Tabebuia lapacho (Schum.) lapacho 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 NA

Sandw., Bignoniaceae (H 2003 amarillo
MCNS)
Tillandsia australis Mez, payo 1 0.09 2 0.06 7.5 NA
Bromeliaceae (H&A 1523
MCNS)
Adiantopsis chlorophylla (Sw.) ala de cuervo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Fée, Pteridaceae (H 2448
MCNS)
Allium cepa L., Liliaceae (N cebolla 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
1577 M-MCNS)
Anethum graveolens L., eneldo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Apiaceae (H 2538 MCNS)
Asclepias flava Lillo, leche tres 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Asclepiadaceae (H 1052
MCNS)
Azorella compacta Phil., yareta 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Apiaceae (H&G 1044 MCNS)
Bougainvillea stipitata Griseb., huancar 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Nyctaginaceae (H 1015 MCNS)
Brassica sp., Brassicaceae mostaza 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, té 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Teaceae
Capsicum frutescens L., ajı́ amarillo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Solanaceae (H 1373 MCNS)
Senna spectabilis (DC.) H. S. carnaval 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Irwin & Barneby, Fabaceae (H
2102 MCNS)
Senna crassiramea (Benth) H. sumalagua 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
S. Irwin & Barneby, Fabaceae
(H 2466 M-MCNS)
Chenopodium quinoa Willd., quiuna, 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Chenopodiaceae (H 1893 quinoa
M-MCNS)
Chrysophyllum gonocarpum (M. aguaı́ 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
& E.) Engler, Sapotaceae (H
2638 MCNS)
Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. ajenco 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 AD
Bip., Asteraceae (H 2482
M-MCNS)
Cissampelos pareira L., nı́spero 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Menispermaceae
Citrus paradisi Macf., Rutaceae pomelo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
(H 2105 MCNS)
Cucurbita maxima Duchesne, guinea 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Cucurbitaceae (H 1573 MCNS)
Cyclanthera pedata (L.) achoscha 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Schrad., Cucurbitaceae (H 1338
MCNS)
 2583

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Cymbopogon citratus (DC) cedrón paja 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX

Stapf., Poaceae (H 2043
M-MCNS)
Cynara scolymus L., Asteraceae alcachofa 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
(H 2470 M-MCNS)
Datura feroz L., Solanaceae (H chamico 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
2285 MCNS)
Erythrina falcata Benth., ceiba 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Fabaceae (H 1795 MCNS)
Escallonia resinosa (Ruiz et chachacoma 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Pav.) Pers., Saxifragaceae
(HG&M 1212 MCNS)
Eupatorium sp., Asteraceae (H borrajilla 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0
2498 MCNS)
Gorgonidium vermicidum papa de 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
(Speg.) Bogner & Nicolson, vı́bora
Araceae (H 1924 MCNS)
Gunnera schindleri L. E. Mora, querusilla 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Gunneraceae blanca
Hypolepis repens (L.) C. Presl., ala de cuervo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Dennstaedtiaceae (H&Lo 960
MCNS)
Hyptis mutabilis (Rich.) Briq., salvia mora 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Lamiaceae (H 2520 MCNS)
Illicium verum Hook. f., anı́s 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Illiciaceas estrellado
Inga sp., Fabaceae pacay 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0
Juglans australis Griseb., nogal 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Juglandaceae (H 1107a MCNS)
Juglans regia L., Juglandaceae nogal castillo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Krameria lappacea (Dombey) chipichape 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Burdet et Simpson,
Krameriaceae (H 2300
M-MCNS)
Leonurus sibiricus L., papa de 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 AD
Lamiaceae (H 2573 MCNS) paloma
Lepidium meyenii Walp., papa macaia, 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Brassicaceae (GS 165 SI) macaia
Lippia alba (Mil.) N. E. Br., cedrón árbol 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Verbenaceae (H 2632 MCNS)
Malva sp., Malvaceae (H&A malva loca 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0
1483 M-MCNS)
Not identified carallanta 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0
Not identified c’uru 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0
Not identified yurito malva 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0
Not identified zacatera 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0
Oryza sativa L., Poaceae (H arroz 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
1582 M-MCNS)
2584

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Passiflora tenuifila Killip, granadilla 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA

Passifloraceae (H&A 1515
MCNS)
Peumus boldus (Molina), boldo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Monimiaceae
Pimpinella anisum L., Apiaceae anı́s castillo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
(H 1624 M-MCNS)
Piper aduncum L., Piperaceae matico 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
(H 2564 MCNS)
Pisum sativum L., Fabaceae (H arveja 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
1450 M-MCNS)
Pleopeltis macrocarpa (Bory ex pori pori, poli 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Willd) Kaulf., Polypodiaceae poli,
(H 2451 MCNS) canchalagua
Polylepis australis Bitter, queñua 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EN
Rosaceae
Smallanthus macrosyphus pucunillo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
(Baker) A. Grau, Asteraceae (H
1250a MCNS)
Prosopis nigra (Griseb.) algarroba 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Hieron., Fabaceae (H&G 1038
MCNS)
Ricinus communis L., tártago 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 E
Euphorbiaceae
Salix humboldtiana Willd., sauce 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Salicaceae (Zul. 2782 SI)
Scoparia plebeja Cham. Et. yerba de 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Schltdl., Scrophulariaceae (H vı́bora
1067 MCNS)
Senecio bomanii R. E. Fries, cosillo 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Asteraceae (H 2009 MCNS)
Sida poeppigiana (K. Schum.) afata 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Frytell, Malvaceae (H 1982
MCNS)
Sida rhombifolia L., Malvaceae afata 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
(H 2505 MCNS)
Smallanthus sonchifolia (Popp. yacón 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Et Endl.) Robinson, Asteraceae
(H 1903 M-MCNS)
Solanum tucumanense Griseb., hediondilla 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Solanaceae (H&G 2406
MCNS)
Tagetes terniflora H. B. K., suico 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 NA
Asteraceae (H&L 1689)
Tanacetum vulgare L., santa marı́a 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 AD
Asteraceae (H 2260 MCNS)
Valeriana officinalis L., valeriana 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
Valerianaceae
 2585

Table 2. Continued.

Species, family (Herbarium Vernacular #BS Rel BS #PH Rel RI Status

number according to collector) name PH

Vanilla mexicana Mill., vainilla 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX

Orchidiaceae
Vicia faba L., Fabaceae (H haba 1 0.09 1 0.03 6.0 EX
2263 MCNS)

BS – number of body systems treated; Rel BS – relative number of body systems treated (nor-
malized to maximum value of 1); PH – number of pharmacological properties; Rel PH – relative
number of pharmacological properties (normalized to maximum value of 1); RI – relative
importance (Rel PH + Rel BS) 2 · 100(CTES) – Herbario del Instituto de Botánica del Nordeste,
Corrientes; (MCNS) – Herbario del Museo de Ciencias Naturales Salta, Universidad Nacional de
Salta; (M-MCNS) – Herbario del Museo de Ciencias Naturales Salta, Universidad Nacional de
Salta. Sample section; (SI) – Herbario del Instituto Darwinion, San Isidro; GS – Gómez Sosa, E.
V.; H&A – Hilgert, N. I. & Arenas, P.; H&G – Hilgert, N. I. & Gil, G. E.; H & L – Hilgert, N. I. &
Lamas, M. L.; H&Lo – Hilgert, N. I. & Lomáscolo S.; H – Hilgert, N. I.; HG&M – Hilgert, N. I.,
Gil, G. E. & Marino, G.; Jörg. – Jörgensen, P.; Krap. – Krapovickas, A.; Zul. – Zuloaga, F. O.; NA
– native; EN – endemic; EX – exotic; AD – naturalized adventitious.

avoid the shock of any remedy of opposite condition. These affections are
considered to be of natural origin and they can promote other diseases. In these
situation usually the rural doctor should help the patient.

Species diversity and relative importance

To estimate the theoretical total number of species used medicinally in the

locations of the National Park the curve of species accumulation that best fits
the Clench Model (R = 0.999) gives an asymptotic value of 266, that is to say
the amount found (188) represents 71% of the stated total, whereas the esti-
mators yield the following results: Chao2: 227, Jacknife1: 240, Jacknife2: 257,
i.e. the observed species are between 73 and 83% of the estimated totals. For
the neighboring villages the Clench model (R = 0.998) was also smoothed,
giving an asymptote in 290. Consequently, the 230 observed species correspond
to 79% of this total. The estimators gave the following values: Chao2: 288,
Jacknife1: 295, Jacknife2: 323, consequently, the resultant percentage was
found to be between 71 and 80% of these calculations.
The neighboring populations to the Baritú National Park (that is to say, those
with a lower grade of isolation) resulted in having a greater species richness of
medicinally used plants than Abra de Minas, Lipeo and Baritú, as also predicted
by the estimators and species accumulation curves. The difference found repre-
sents 18.3% whilst the final estimates are between 9.3 and 21.2%.
According to the present results all local populations use at least 259 eth-
nospecies for medicines, comprising of 230 plants and 2 mushrooms (in
addition to 16 species which have been identified by Genera, 4 by Family and 7
2586

unidentified species purchased as fragments). The known species include 69

families of flowering plants and 5 Pteridophyta families. Ten families (Aster-
aceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae, Rutaceae, Solanaceae, Poaceae, Malvaceae,
Apiaceae, Piperaceae and Verbenaceae) comprise nearly half of the total. These
medicinal plants encompass 53 pharmacological properties; analgesic agents,
antibiotic agents, gastrointestinal agents and respiratory agents are especially
common. One species has been assigned 30 pharmacological properties (Cor-
onopus didymus), 5 species (Erythroxylum coca var. coca, Citrus limon, Sam-
bucus nigra subsp. peruviana, Malva parviflora, Acacia macracantha) have 14 or
more properties and 65 species have only one pharmacological property (Table 2).
The values of RI vary between 6 and 100, being highest for Coronopus
didymus (Table 2). No correlations were found between the RI and the
methods of administration or the recipes.

Methods of use

In Table 3 can be seen how many species were cited for known illnesses in the
11 body systems or the systemic affections (BS) considered in the area, how
many references were reported, and the method of administration. At the same
time is shown the amount of possible affections in each body system (BS). It
can be seen that the hot and cold syndrome, digestive and reproductive BS’s
contribute to more than half (55.6%) of the total reported affections and that
these represent the treatments which involve the greatest diversity of species.
In relation to the method of administration, there is practically no difference
in the reported totals, 50.2% are for external use and 49.8% for internal use.
For external administration the use of combined species is predominant
(53.5%) followed by the use of individual species (36.5%). For internal
administration the use of one species only (63.8%) for recipes predominates,
followed by the use of combinations of plants (29.3%). In both cases, mixtures
with minerals, excrements or other elements are given in lower proportions
(10% and 6.9% respectively). The method for internal administration was
correlated with recipes of an individual species (Coef.: 0.654, Sig.< 0.001),
although this type of recipe also correlates with the method of external ad-
ministration (Coef.: 0.364, Sig.< 0.001). In any case, the predominance of each
type of use changes according to the affection being treated. In both types of
application the parts of the plant ‘above ground’ represent the parts most used,
followed by the reproductive organs. For external use, and in third place, is the
use of bark and wood, and for internal use are roots (Table 3).
The comparison between the administration methods and the recipes of the
rural doctors with the rest of the informants gave significantly different results
(v2 = 10.36, DF = 4, a = 0.05). In this case the rural doctors apply more
external and less internal recipes than expected and more recipes of combined
species and less of individual species than expected (Table 4). Discriminant
analysis, based on the type of informant, correctly classified 91.9% of the
Table 3. Number of genera, families and medicinal species referred to and the method of administration for each body system or systemic affection (BS).

Body systems Number Number Number Number Number Use

or systemic of of of of of event
affections illnesses family genera species External Internal

T #1 #2 #3 #A #B #C #D #E #F T #1 #2 #3 #A #B #C #D #E #F

Hot and cold 3 54 110 144 743 536 176 341 19 40 47 66 344 38 1 207 150 43 14 14 8 67 110 7 1
syndrome
Digestive 10 48 110 134 553 35 13 19 3 4 1 6 24 0 0 518 367 124 27 52 24 126 291 18 7
Reproductive 16 49 87 97 391 115 47 62 6 8 13 12 73 8 1 276 164 76 36 32 13 52 149 29 1
Skeletal- 11 40 71 81 237 219 61 136 22 16 29 24 139 9 2 18 16 2 0 3 3 2 6 4 0
muscular
system
Respiratory 8 25 45 54 210 72 12 43 17 7 8 23 34 0 0 138 69 60 9 8 0 49 76 3 2
Socio-cultural 7 33 61 67 203 117 50 55 12 9 3 15 81 5 4 86 49 32 5 1 1 26 50 5 3
or supernatural
Nervous system 12 35 62 73 201 164 100 51 13 18 5 55 74 5 7 37 17 17 3 1 1 10 24 1 0
Urinary 3 37 63 69 185 45 11 22 7 2 6 11 20 5 1 140 73 65 2 34 6 28 69 3 0
Dermatological 6 25 38 44 159 149 63 49 37 5 33 17 80 10 4 10 9 0 1 1 3 2 3 1 0
Infections 10 19 25 26 67 51 16 26 9 8 18 7 14 3 1 16 13 0 3 0 4 5 5 0 2
Cardiovascular 5 17 19 20 47 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 45 33 11 1 7 6 11 18 2 1
Fiber 1 12 20 22 35 17 6 11 0 1 1 12 1 0 2 18 3 13 2 2 1 3 10 1 1
Total 3031 1522 557 815 145 118 165 248 885 83 23 1509 963 443 103 155 70 381 811 74 18
Internal – Inhalations, enemas, smoke, ingestion, aromatherapy; External – vapors, bathing, oral, local application, compresses y vapors, gargling, lavages,
‘limpias,’ ‘compostura,’ magic, tourniquets; T – total; 1 – plants used alone; 2 – plants combined with other species; 3 – plants combined with resins, ashes, salt,
oil, human urine, bicarbonate, alcohol, sugar, human milk, human or chicken excrement, pig fat, kerosene, alum or earth; A – roots, rhizomes, bulbs, tubers,
pseudo bulbs, and their derivatives, ashes o starch; B – bark and woods; C – reproductive organs and derivatives (fruits, flowers, nectar, petals, placenta, juice,
spores); D – aerial parts (leaves and shoots and their modifications); E – complete plant; F – others (gum, oil, water accumulated in bracts, sap, etc.).
2587
2588

registered cases according to the frequency of use of the species by the method
of administration and the type of recipe.
On the other hand, no relation was noted between the specializations of the
individuals who apply medicinal plants and the body systems or systemic
affections most mentioned, or that more species were involved in their cures.
This includes not only sicknesses treated exclusively by consultation and par-
ticipation of the rural doctor (the hot and cold syndrome) but also those as-
sisted by domestic methods or with the help of an herbal doctor (digestive and
reproductive diseases).
The medicinal plants include 8 life forms with herbs predominating (48.2%)
followed by trees (26.6%), shrubs (14.3%), epiphytes (6.5%), vines (1.3%),
saprophytes (0.8%) and hemi parasitic (0.4%). Of all the medicinal species
found, 91 species are exotic, 17 of which are naturalized adventitious, and 146
are native, 5 of which are endemics of Argentina. On comparing the use of
native and exotic species significance differences were found (v2 = 11,
DF = 11, a = 0.05). A greater than expected use of native species was
recorded in the treatment for the hot and cold syndrome, the skeletal-muscular
system and for dermatological disorders, meanwhile exotic species were used at
a higher than anticipated level for the treatment of the respiratory and digestive
systems (Table 5). Discriminant analysis based on the origin of the species
correctly classifies 67.14% of the observed cases according to the frequency of
use of the species per body system.

Discussion

The practices observed in the area coincide in the main with those described for
Northwest Argentina by Palma (1978) and Hilgert (2001). With respect to
medicine practiced within the family context, no evidence was seen of the

Table 4. Comparison between the use of species for distinct body systems between rural doctors
and the remainder of the informants.

Number of Number of Number of Number of Totals

events observed events expected events observed events expected
in rural doctors in rural doctors in common people in common people

Internal 111 129.91 1186 1167.09 1297

External 142 123.10 1087 1105.90 1229
1 112 126.30 1149 1134.70 1261
2 121 106.27 940 954.73 1061
3 20 20.43 184 183.57 204
Totals 506 506.00 4546 4546.00 5052
Contingency table for the Chi squared test.
1 – Plants used alone; 2 – plants combined with other species; 3 – plants combined with resins,
ashes, salt, oil, human urine, bicarbonate, alcohol, sugar, human milk, human or chicken excre-
ment, pig fat, kerosene, alum or earth.
 2589

Table 5. Comparison of the use of native and exotic medicinal plants and exotic in the distinct
body systems.

Number of Number of Number of Number of Totals

native species native species exotics species exotics species
observed expected observed expected

Socio-cultural or 47 46 29 29 76
supernatural
Hot and cold 97 9 57 5 154
syndrome
Respiratory 31 4 36 25 67
Cardiovascular 19 18 11 11 30
Digestive 86 8 60 5 146
Fiber 11 11 8 7 19
Nervous system 50 52 36 3 86
Skeletal-muscular 61 53 27 3 88
system
Reproductive 64 6 41 40 105
Urinary 50 47 28 78
Infections 19 18 11 11 30
Dermatological 39 34 18 2 57
Totals 574 5 362 3 936
Contingency table for the Chi squared test.

inseparable relation between the use of prayer and the use of wild plants, in
difference to the proposal of Hurrel (1995). On the other hand, this relation is
evident in treatments applied by rural doctors where prayer and the
magic-religious factor is the principal agent for curing, using the plant only as a
vehicle; concurring with Pérez de Nucci (1988). The hot and cold theory
involves similar concepts to those described for the inhabitants of the Zenta
River Basin situated to the south (Hilgert 2001).
The estimation of the total of medicinal species for each group of localities
(villages of the National Park and neighbors of the same) is restricted to the
spatial scale of the samples and is not open to extrapolation (Moreno 2000).
Consequently, in the case of Abra de Minas, Lipeo and Baritú, it can be con-
sidered that the total number of medicinal species used would be very close to the
value found in this present work; as to the rest, even though we have a better
number of surveyed individuals this is not representative of the total of these
populations. The difference between the medicinal species detected in the loca-
tions within the Baritú National Park and the total estimated may in part result
from the addition of new species from the surveys of the neighboring villages (85).
No positive relation was found between the level of isolation and the species
richness, in agreement with the statements of Levy et al. (1997). The neigh-
boring localities (less isolated) resulted in having greater species richness. This
is probably due to the better possibilities of access by these villagers to con-
sultation with Bolivian rural doctors and the herbal markets of the country,
within which the villages maintain a strong hereditary herbal tradition of the
Kallawayas (Madrid de Zito Fontan and Palma 1997).
2590

Of the 10 botanical families with the most widely used species, 8 coincide
with references by Hilgert (2001) for rural populations which inhabit the
Yungas area to the south of the area studied. Additionally, 6 families show as
pointers in a ranking carried out by Moerman (1996) to analyze the botanical
families in relation to the therapeutic categories in which the native flora of
North America are used and also in an analysis of the botanical families most
used for medicinal purposes in distinct regions of the world (Moerman et al.
1999).
Phillips and Gentry (1993) proposed an index of value of use (UV) for the
species. The UV assists in the consensus of the informants in function of the
proportion of individuals who independently make reference to a determinate
use of a certain form. On the other hand, the RI used in this work reflects the total
usages and does not attempt to quantify the relative importance of each use
(Phillips 1996). The UV and RI indexes do not respond in a similar way for the
same species with the same base data due to the fact that they are based on and
correspond to distinct variables, belonging to two differing approximations. It is
considered that the RI better reflects the importance of use of the species as it
coincides to a greater part with the order in which the informants mention the
species. This order, according to the proposal of some sampling techniques,
reflects the value that each species has for the informant (Bernard 2000).
The order of importance found in the present study does not coincide with
that found previously by Hilgert (2001) in which digestive and reproductive
illnesses were the most important.
The correlation found between recipes of an individual species and the
internal method of use, which is higher than external use, could be an indicator
of a common understanding based on traditional practice and observation.
Considering that hardly any herbs have been found to be useful in ways
which had not already been recognized by traditional phytotherapists (Barsh
1997), the differential use of the same species for distinct sicknesses (high RI,
Table 2) is valuable data for those interested in finding new active substances.
The proportions found between external and internal use do not coincide
with that cited for medicinal plants of North America, where species for
internal use predominate (Moerman 1996). We suppose that these differences
are based on cultural aspects that define the perception of the sickness and,
with this, the way to treat it, or, as proposed by Ososki et al. (2002), they
could be based on the preferences of rural doctors. Nevertheless, as with the
references made by Ososki et al. (2002) there is an agreement between the
method of administration of the treatments and the relative location of the
affected BS. For example, for ‘external’ problems (skeletal-muscular system,
dermatological) there are external uses and for ‘internal’ sicknesses (urinary
or respiratory system) the uses are internal. Although it is possible to dem-
onstrate that the majority of ailments considered within the nervous system
are treated by external means, coincidently the greater parts of these are
considered as a consequence of complications of socio-cultural or supernatural
illnesses.
 2591

On comparing the use of medicinal plants by the layperson and by rural

doctors differences were found in the method of administration and the type of
recipes. This could be explained by the specialization in treating sicknesses that
require ‘limpias’ (ritual cleansing), ‘composturas’ (ritual accommodation of
organs, bones, etc), bathing, or a whole range of therapeutic treatment, that
involve the use of ointments and potions of complex preparation. The use of
the same species for distinct affections, combined with distinct plants, occa-
sionally is due to increase in or canceling out of a certain bioactive substance
according to the mixtures used. In consequence, we can assume that the rural
doctor prepares remedies in ways which isolate their most bioactive compounds
or remove toxic ones, combining plants in ways they create medically signifi-
cant synergistic effects, as proposed by Barsh (1997).
On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that in the cures effected by
rural doctors, the vegetable element provides the medium to create the suitable
conditions, but the rituals and prayers are considered the true elements that make
possible the cure, in agreement with the statements by Pérez de Nucci (1988).
In agreement with Bennet and Prance (2000), some exotic species such as
Saccharum officinarum or Cymbopogon citratus are included as flavoring;
however, these in turn possess bioactive substances.
In the local populations, the unique distinction that is made between the
exotic species and native ones is that the major part of the first ones are
‘castillas’ (home-grown) which according to explications only survive after
having been cultivated locally and do not really allude in the majority of cases
to their introduction by Spaniards.
According to Voeks (1996) the predominance in the use of herbs and the
none differential use between exotic species and native ones can be interpreted
a result of the cultural adaptation to the use of those species with a greater
availability in peridomestic surroundings, frequently in disturbed areas.
According to the same author, this can also reflect the difficulty in finding areas
of pristine vegetation or is a product of cultural changes and in the long term,
the destruction of basic knowledge about the medicinal properties of the pri-
mary forests. Given the good conditions of environment conservation in the
study area it is considered that an acceptable explication for the region can be
found in the first conclusion. On the other hand, Myroxylon peruiferum is very
rare in the region and Cinchona ledgeriana does not grow at all there, despite
which, both possesses an elevated RI.

Conclusion

The populations studied live in an Argentine region of great botanical diversity

that can be a source of many phytotherapeutic elements. Although the pop-
ulation has access to health centers and some industrial medicines the use of
traditional alternative medicines is very common. The species registered rep-
resent a high percentage (between 70–80%, according our calculations) of the
2592

estimated total of herbalist medicines of the area studied. The species with the
greater RI are Coronopus didymus, Rosa sp., Citrus limon, Sambucus nigra L.
subsp. peruviana, Citrus sinensis, Malva parviflora y Erythroxylum coca Lam.
var. coca, all of which are readily accessible within the region as they grow
wild, they are cultivated, are ruderal or they are bought in markets or stores.
Taking into account Cox’s (1990) proposal, which states that a group that
has lived a long time in an environment and has a conservative ‘medical tra-
dition’, it could be an interesting site to look for new drugs, the RI value and
the method of use of the species are important tools for the selection of plants
to be studied more exhaustively. In our study, the results can be interpreted as
a reflex of the cultural syncretism, because it is possible to find both native and
exotic species sharing the high scores of RI.
Native species and exotic species are used differently according to the body
system to which they are applied. It could be interesting to investigate the
origin of the introduction of the exotic species, as mentioned by Bennet and
Prance (2000) it is very probable that some have been introduced as foodstuffs,
others as ornaments and only some as therapeutics.
The rural doctors use different administration methods and recipes com-
pared to the rest of the population, although this does not necessarily signify a
greater understanding of the medicinal properties of the plants, rather a dif-
ferent role in the traditional medical system.
There remains the future task of evaluating the differences in the local herbalist
knowledge, with deeper investigation of the capabilities of the population to
recognize useful species and their application. Upon deeper investigation of those
aspects that are considered in choosing the plant to be used (the state of the plant,
the suitable phenological moment for harvesting, the quality of the environment
where the plant grows, etc.) the quality and the depth of the herbal knowledge of
all the population may be estimated since errors in the selection or the prepara-
tion can result in a non effective or a lethal potion.

Acknowledgements

We wish to dedicate this paper to the inhabitants of the settlements under study
in recognition of their valuable cooperation, patience, and goodwill. We thank
CONICET and PROYUNGAS for their financial support of Norma Hilgert.
Our special thanks go to the National Parks Administration and especially to
the park rangers of the Baritú National Park, Fernando Dobrotinich and his
wife Ximena Garibaldi and to the principals and teachers of the schools we
visited for all the support received during our field work.

References

Ankili A., Sticher O. and Heinrich M. 1999. Medical ethnobotany of the Yucatec Maya: heal-
ers‘consensus as quantitative criterion. Economic Botany 53: 144–160.
 2593

Balick M.J. 1996. Transforming ethnobotany for the new millennium. Annals of the Missouri
Botanical Garden 83: 58–66.
Barsh R. 1997. The epistemology of traditional healing systems. Human Organizations 56: 28–37.
Bennet B.C. and Prance G.T. 2000. Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeia of
Northern South America. Economic Botany 54: 90–102.
Bernard H.R. 2000. Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, SAGE.
Bianchi A.R. and Yánez C.E. 1992. Las precipitaciones del noroeste argentino. Instituto Nacional
de Tecnologı́a Agropecuaria, Salta, Argentina.
Brown A.D. 1995. Las selvas de montaña del noroeste de Argentina: problemas ambientales
e importancia de su conservación. In: Brown A.D. and Grau H.R. (eds), Investigación,
Conservación y Desarrollo en Selvas Subtropicales de Montaña. Proyecto de Desarrollo
Agroforestal, LIEY, pp. 9–18.
Brown A.D., Grau H.R., Malizia L.R. and Grau A. 2001. Argentina. In: Kappelle M. and Brown
A.D. (eds), Bosques nublados del neotrópico. INBio, Costa Rica,pp. 623–659.
Cabrera A.L. 1976. Regiones fitogeográficas argentinas. Enciclopedia Agricultura y Jardinerı́a 2,
Editorial ACME, S.A. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Caniago I. and Siebert S.F. 1998. Medicinal plant ecology, knowledge and conservation in Kali-
mantan, Indonesia. Economic Botany 52: 229–250.
Colwell R.K. 2000. EstimateS. Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from
Samples. Version 6.0b1. University of Connecticut. http://viceroy.eeb.econn.edu/estimates.
Cox P.A. 1990. Ethnopharmacology and the search for new drugs. In: Chadwick D.J. and Marsh J.
(eds), Bioactive Compounds from Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 40–47.
Ellen R. and Harris H. 2000. Introduction. In: Ellen R., Parkes P. and Bicker A. (eds), Indigenous
Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations. Critical Anthropological Perspectives.
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp. 1–29.
Frei B., Balisberger M., Sticher O and Heinrich M. 1998. Medical ethnobotany of the Zapotecs of
the Isthmus-Sierra (Oaxaca, México): documentation and assessment of indigenous uses. Journal
of Ethnopharmacology 62: 149–165.
Frei B., Sticher O. and Heinrich M. 2000. Zapotec and mixe use of tropical habitats for securing
medicinal plants in Mexico. Economic Botany 54: 73–81.
Gadgil M., Brekes F. and Folke C. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.
Ambio 22: 151–156.
Hersh-Martı́nez P. 2002. La doble subordinación de la Etnobotánica Latinoamericana en el des-
cubrimiento y desarrollo de medicamentos: algunas perspectivas. Etnobiologı́a 2: 103–119.
Hilgert N.I. 2001. Plants used in home medicine in the Zenta River basin, Northwest Argentina.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology 76: 11–34.
Hunzinger H. 1995. La precipitación horizontal: su importancia para el bosque a nivel de cuencas
en la Sierra de San Javier, Tucumán, Argentina. In: Brown A.D. and Grau H.R. (eds), Inves-
tigación, Conservación y Desarrollo en Selvas Subtropicales de Montaña. Proyecto de Desa-
rrollo Agroforestal, LIEY, pp. 53–58.
Hurrell J.A. 1990. Interpretaciones de Relaciones en Ecologı́a a partir de la Noción de Sistema, para el
referente empı́rico Santa Victoria e Iruya (Salta, Argentina). Tesis Doctoral 548, Tomo III. Museo
de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hurrel J.A. 1991. Etnomedicina: Enfermedad y Adaptación en Iruya y Santa Victoria (Salta,
Argentina). Revista del Museo de La Plata Antropologı́a 9: 111–124.
Hurrel J.A. 1995. Ecologı́a biocultural: etnomedicina y adaptación en Santa Victoria e Iruya (Salta,
Argentina. In: Brown A.D. and Grau H.R. (eds), Investigación, Conservación y Desarrollo en
Selvas Subtropicales de Montaña. Proyecto de Desarrollo Agroforestal, LIEY, pp. 223–230.
Hurrell J.A. and de la Sota E.R. 1996. Etnobotánica de las Pteridófitas de los pastizales de altura de
Santa Victoria (Salta, Argentina). Revista del Museo de La Plata Botánica XIV: 353–364.
Iharlegui L. and Hurrell J.A. 1992. Asteraceae de Interés Etnobotánico de los Departamentos
Santa Victoria e Iruya (Salta, Argentina). Ecognicion 3: 3–18.
2594

Kalland A. 2000. Indigenous knowledge: prospects and limitations. In: Ellen R., Parkes P. and
Bicker A. (eds), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations Critical Anthro-
pological Perspectives. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp. 319–335.
Levy A., Brown A.D., Grau H.R. and Grau A. 1997. Local knowledge and the use of plants in
rural communities in the montane forests of Northwestern Argentina. Mountain Research an
Development 17: 263–271.
Lupo C. and Echenique M.R. 1997. Etnobotánica en la comunidad puneña de Yavi, Jujuy,
Argentina. Parte I. Parodiana 10: 9–34.
Madrid de Zito Fontan L. and Palma N.H. 1997. La imagen reflejada: una ida y vuelta de la
medicina cientı́fica a la medicina tradicional (a propósito de la Medicina Kallawaya). Kallawaya
(n.s.) 4: 31–48.
Martinez M.R. and Pochettino M.I. 1992. The ‘‘Farmacia Casera’’ (Household pharmacy): a
source of ethnopharmacobotanical information. Fitoterapia 63: 209–216.
Moerman D.E. 1996. An analysis of the food plants and drug plant of native North America.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology 52: 1–22.
Moerman D.E., Pemberton R.W., Kiefer D. and Berlin B. 1999. A comparative analysis of five
medicinal floras. Journal of Ethnobiology 19: 49–67.
Moreno C.E. 2000. Manual de métodos para medir la biodiversidad. Textos Universitarios. Uni-
versidad Veracruzana. Xalapa, Veracruz, México.
Osseweijer M. 2000. ‘‘We wander in our ancestor’s yard’’: sea cucumber gathering in Aru, Eastern
Indonesia. In: Ellen R., Parkes P. and Bicker A. (eds), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge
and its Transformations Critical Anthropological Perspectives. Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group, London and New York, pp. 55–76.
Ososki A.L., Lohr P., Reiff M., Balick M.J., Kronenberg F., Fugh-Berman A. and O’Connor B.
2002. Ethnobotanical literature survey of medicinal plants in the Dominican Republic used for
women’s health conditions. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 79: 285–298.
Palma N.H. 1978. La medicina popular del noroeste argentino (sus implicancias médico-sanitarias).
Editorial Huemul, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Palma N.H. 1994. La medicina y el hombre que los médicos deben conocer. Kallawaya (n.s.) 1: 21–49.
Pérez de Nucci A.M. 1988. La Medicina Tradicional del Noroeste Argentino. Historia y Presente.
Serie Antropológica. Ediciones del Sol, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Phillips O.L. 1996. Some quantitative methods for analyzing ethnobotanical knowledge. In:
Alexiades M.N. and Wood Sheldon J. (eds), Selected Guidelines for Ethnobotanical Research: A
Field Manual. Bronx, The New York Botanical Garden, pp. 171–197.
Phillips O. and Gentry A.H. 1993. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional hypothesis
testing in quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47: 33–43.
SPSS Inc. 2000. SPSS Windows. Versión 10.1.4 (16 March 2001).
StatSoft Inc. 1998. STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program manual]. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft,
Inc., 2300 East 14th Street, Tulsa, OK 74104, phone: (918) 749–1119, fax: (918) 749–2217, email:
[email protected], WEB: http://www.statsoft.com.
Torres G. 1982. Curanderismo y Brujerı́a en el área de la selva Tucumano-Oranense. Programa de
Investigaciones sobre Epidemiologı́a Psiquiátrica (PEPSI-CONICET) Buenos Aires, Argentina
Documenta Laboris 2: 1–38.
Voeks R.A. 1996. Tropical forest healers and habitat preference. Economic Botany 50: 381–400.
Zuloaga F.O. and Morrone O. (eds), 1996. Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de la República
Argentina. I. Pteridophyta, Gymnospermae y Angiospermae (Monocotyledoneae). Monograph
in Systematic Botany Missouri Botanical Garden 60: 1–323.
Zuloaga F.O. and Morrone O. (eds), 1999. Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de la República
Argentina. II. Angiospermae (Dicotyledoneae). Monograph in Systematic Botany Missouri
Botanical Garden 74: 1–1269.
Zuloaga F.O., Nicora E.G., de Agrasar Z.E., Morrone O., Pensiero J. and Cialdella A.M. 1994.
Catálogo de la familia Poaceae en la República Argentina. Monograph in Systematic Botany
Missouri Botanical Garden 47: 1–178.