7/25/2019 CurrentIssues_3.7

1/5

Problems and Solutions in Documenting

Local Plant Names in the Philippines

Local Plant NamesDomingo A. MadulidNational Museum, Philippines

The Philippines is a mine of information on local plant names (represented bymore than 8,000 species of flowering plants and 7,000 species of lower plants andfungi) as spoken in more than 100 ethnolinguistic groups in the country. Local plantnames have many uses and applications such as in scientific studies (e.g. planttaxonomy, ethnobotany, phytogeography, anthropology, biology, pharmacology, etc.)and in the fields of linguistics, education, culture and historical studies (Madulid 1991).Other applications of vernacular names are the following: (1) Use in floristic andecological studies, and identification of plants (Merrill 192326); (2) Use inetymological studies of plants (Bartlett 1939; van Steenis 1950); (3) Use in tracingorigin of cultivated crops such as corn (Berket-Smith 1943), coconut (Merrill 1936),pandans (Stone 1963), and other crops (Quisumbing 1965; Heiser 1969; Haskell 1963);(4) Use in explaining cultural links between peoples during early civilization (Merrill1946); (5) Use in understanding the relationship of native peoples and their natural

environment (e.g. Fox 1953; Jocano 1973; Conklin 1954; Quisumbing 1951); (5) Use intracing origin and history of place names (Roces 1976; Chamberlain 1959; Gruezo1999); (6) Use in tracing migration route of people and prehistoric influences of foreigncultures in a country (Chowning 1963); (7) Use in documenting disappearing languages(Handricourt 1963; Camel 1701); (8) Use in understanding or reconstructing the systemof plant classification of indigenous people (Williams 1990); and many other uses(Martin 1995; Schopf 1976; Strother 1977).

Given the many uses of vernacular plant names they should be given duerecognition as an important information resource (Madulid 1991). Lexicographers,ethnobotanists and other researchers involved or interested in recording local plantnames and their scientific equivalents can get information from many sources:

1. Botanists, agriculturists, horticulturists, foresters, and other plant scientists.

2. Plant hobbyists, nursery men, and garden shop owners.

3. Local farmers, villagers, forest products gatherers, herbolarios, etc.

4. Indigenous people Many of these people, especially the forest dwellersor those who gather forest products often have extensive knowledge ofthe plants around them and are therefore rich source of data for localplant names.

5. Publications, reports, thesis, manuscripts, etc. Books and scientificarticles dealing with taxonomy, floristics, ethnobotany, ethnopharma-

cology, and related fields in the Philippines contain many local namesand scientific names of plants. Thesis and research reports are also richsource of plant names.

261

7/25/2019 CurrentIssues_3.7

2/5

6. Dictionaries and lexicons on plant names. Examples are: Madulids(2001)A Dictionary of Philippine Plant Names, Salvosas (1963)Lexicon ofPhilippine Trees,and Rojos (1999)Revised Lexicon of Philippine Trees.

7. Herbarium specimens Labels from herbarium specimens usuallycontain information about the plants including its scientific names, localnames and the dialects where the names originate.

8. Questionnaires, survey sheets, etc. Researchers may distributequestionnaires or survey sheets to resource persons to record local plantnames of a particular locality. Students and researchers in ethnobotany,ethnopharmacology, pharmacy, etc. usually do this kind of inquiry.

9. Computerized database through the internet Local plant names arenow compiled in electronic databases and made available to interestedusers around the world through the internet. Examples of these databasesare NAPRALERT (for medicinal plants around the world), Southeast Asia

Botanical Collections Information Network (for plants in the Malesianregion), and ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation (forsome plants in Southeast Asia). The Philippine National Herbarium,through its website (http://www.pnh.com.ph), will soon make availablein the internet the local names of Philippine plants.

Whether the local plant names are derived from primary or secondary sources ofinformation, it is important for researchers to exercise caution to minimize committingerrors in the recording, transcription and documentation processes (Steiner 1975).Among the common sources of error are the following:

1. Lack of taxonomic knowledge of plants Persons recording local plantnames are usually not taxonomists and identification of the plants canbecome a problem. A good practice is to prepare voucher specimens ofthe plants whose local names are being recorded so these can beidentified or verified by taxonomists.

2. Unfamiliarity with the dialects and languages of the locality In some casesthe persons recording local plant names are not native to the locality.Because of unfamiliarity with the language, the recorder can make mistakesespecially in the spelling of the local plant names. This was particularly trueduring the early colonial period in the Philippines when several Spanish andAmerican botanists and lexicographers tried to record the economic plants

of the archipelago. Fr. Manuel Blancos (1837)Flora de Filipinas, and MerrillsA Dictionary of the Native Plant Names of the Philippine Island(1903) andAnEnumeration of Philippine Flowering Plants (192326) contained severalmisspelled plant names and some words that are not actually plant namesmainly due to the recorders unfamiliarity to the local languages.

3. Unreliability of resource persons In some cases, informants from thelocality, when asked about local plant names, tend to invent or coin localnames for plants that are not familiar to them in order to create a goodimpression or to avoid reprimand. Invented names or coined names maynot be easy to detect and can be recorded in publications. Localinformants should, therefore, be asked to be honest and admit if they do

not know the names of the plants.

4. Failure in verifying authenticity of plant names In some cases, differentinformants give different names for the same species of plant and

262 DOMINGO A. MADULID

7/25/2019 CurrentIssues_3.7

3/5

recorders of plant names should be able to detect this early and applyremedial measures. A good practice in ethnobotanical survey is to ask twoor more informants and compare and analyze the names they provide.Varying names for a particular plant species should be regarded as

unreliable and subject to verification.5. Unfamiliarity with phonetic symbols of plant names recorded in reports,

herbarium labels, etc. Herbarium labels of some local plant names arewritten with phonetic symbols. This is the practice of some linguists andanthropologists who are particularly interested in the way words are spokenby the local people. Many of Harold Conklins herbarium labels from Mindoro(Conklin 1954) and Robert Foxs plants from Zambales (Fox 1953) forexample, are written with phonetic symbols. These names can be wronglytranscribed by recorders who are not familiar with phonetic symbols.

To avoid erroneous recording of plant names, the following are recommended:

1. Familiarize yourself with the plants being studied by referring topublications, herbarium specimens, guidebooks, etc. (Martin 1995)

2. Familiarize yourself with the language of the place where the plant namesare being recorded. A researcher will be able to get more reliable data ifhe is knowledgeable with the language that the people speak in the area(Barbosa 1995).

3. Get reliable resource persons. As much as possible one should get honestand reliable resource persons or informants in the locality. Ask the heador officials of the village, barangay or municipality to help recommendpeople who could be relied upon as informants for local plant names. Toverify the authenticity of local plant names, it is recommended thatseveral persons from the locality are interviewed.

4. Knowledge of phonetic symbols Plant names taken from labels ofherbarium specimens must be transcribed with caution as they may bewritten with phonetic symbols which are not easily understood by thelaymen. These phonetic symbols serve the purposes of linguists but theseshould be modified to conform to the standard spellings of common names.

5. Consult lexicons or dictionaries of local plant names. Several referencesprovide comprehensive data on local plant names (see above discussion)and these should be consulted by researchers for accuracy and

verification of both local and scientific names of plants.6. Compile local names in computerized database. It is now a common

practice of lexicographers and dictionary makers to record plant names incomputerized databases. This method of data entry provides easychecking of errors in spelling of botanical and local plant names andprovides a more systematic organization of data.

It is clear from the above that local plant names provide many uses and is a richinformation resource. Nevertheless, one should be very careful in recording thesenames as there could be many sources of errors. My experience in compiling ADictionary of Philippine Plant Namesfor more than twenty five years has made me realize

the need for a keen eye for spotting erroneous plant names derived from primary andsecondary sources and the ability to detect authentic versus invented local plant namesprovided by informants from various places in the country.

LOCAL PLANT NAMES 263

7/25/2019 CurrentIssues_3.7

4/5

References

Barbosa, Artemio C. 1995. Conducting research on ethnobotany in the Philippines: A guide.ASEAN-NZ Inter-Institutional Linkages Program. Manila: National Library.

Bartlett, Hartley Harris. 1939. The geographic distribution, migration and dialecticmutation of certain plant names in the Philippines and Netherlands.Proceedings ofthe 6th Pacific Science Congress4:48109.

Berket-Smith, K. 1943. The origin of maize cultivation.K. Vldensk. Selsk29:159.

Blanco, Manuel. 1837.Flora de Filipinas (Segun el Systema Sexual de Linneo). Manila:Imprenta de Santo Tomas.

Camel, Joseph George. 1701.Descriptiones Fruticum & Arboreum Luzonisa Revdo. PaterGeorgio Josepho Camello, S.J. ad Jacobum Petiverum: Pharmac. Londinens.Missae Anno 1701. London.

Chamberlain, A. P. 1959. Place names derived from plant names. Notes on thePhilippines from the American Antiquarium. Philippine Studies Journal of EastAsiatic Studies8(34):5457.

Chowning, A. 1963. Proto-Melanesian plant names. Plant and migrations of Pacificpeoples.Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Science Congress.

Conklin, Harold C. 1954. The relation of Hanunoo culture to the plant world.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven.

Fox, Robert. 1953. The Pinatubo Negritos: Their useful plant and material culture.Philippine Journal of Science81(34):123144.

Gruezo, William Smith. 1999. Of Philippine plants and places: An ethnobioloigcalmemoir.Asia Life Sciences8(1):1548.

Handricourt, A. G. 1963. Vernacular plant names in Melanesia, some examples fromnorthern Caledonia.Plants and migrations of Pacific peoples, A symposium, ed. byJacques Barrau. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Haskell, G. 1963. New light on the origins of horticultural plants. Vistas in botany, Vol.

2, ed. by William B. Turrill. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Heiser, Charles B. 1969. Systematics and the origin of cultivated plants. Taxon

18:3645.

Jocano, Felipe Landa. 1973.Folk medicine in a Philippine municipality: An analysis of twosystems of folk healing in Bay, Laguna and its implication for the introduction of modernmedicine. Manila: National Museum.

Madulid, Domingo A. 1991. On the significance of local plant names. Association ofSystematic Biologists of the Philippines Communication3:4856.

Madulid, Domingo A. 2001. A dictionary of Philippine plant names. 2 vols. Manila:

Bookmark, Inc.

Martin, Gary J. 1995.Ethnobotany: A methods manual. London: Chapman & Hall.

264 DOMINGO A. MADULID

7/25/2019 CurrentIssues_3.7

5/5

Merrill, Elmer D. 1903.A dictionary of the native plant names of the Philippines. Manila:Bureau of Printing.

Merrill, Elmer D. 192326. An enumeration of Philippine flowering plants.4 vols. Manila:

Bureau of Printing.Merrill, Elmer D. 1936. Scuttling and Mu. The American Scholar9:142146.

Merrill, Elmer D. 1946.Plant life of the Pacific world. New York: MacMillan Co.

Quisumbing, Eduardo. 1951. Medicinal plants of the Philippines. Manila: Bureau ofPrinting.

Quisumbing, Eduardo. 1965. Peoples of the Philippines: Plants introduced by them.Araneta Journal of Agriculture12(1):4777.

Roces, Alejandro. 1976. Blancos flora: A vellum splendor. Orientation1:2437.

Rojo, Justo P. 1999. A revised lexicon of Philippine trees. Laguna: Forest ProductsResearch and Development Institute.

Salvosa, Felipe M. 1963.Lexicon of Philippine trees. Forest Products Research InstituteBulletin, No. 1. Laguna: Forest Products Research Institute.

Schopf, J. M. 1976. Dual usage of scientific names. Taxon25 (3):562.

Steiner, Mona Lisa. 1975. The problem of vernacular plants in the Pacific and itssolution.Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Science Congress4:1820.

Stone, Benjamin. 1963. The role of Pandanus in the culture of the Marshall Islands.Plants and migrations of Pacific peoples, A symposium, ed. by Jacques Barrau.

Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Strother, John L. 1977. Dual usage of scientific names. Taxon26 (4):398.

van Steenis, Cornelius G.G.J.S. 1950. The etymological use of vernacular names forMalaysian plants. Flora Malesiana I. Bogor: Noordhoff-Kolfe N.V.

Williams, D. E. 1990. A review of sources for the study of Nahuatl plant classification.Advances in Economic Botany8:249270.

LOCAL PLANT NAMES 265