Most of the so named wild species have medicinal applications based on their compositions. Using the term "wild", may not be appropriate rather "non-edible" may be better suited.
Sorry, not sure which is accurately your question, you rise many points.
"Wild" is often opposed to "domesticated". To define domestication is not easy, but there are criteria. Even gatherers-hunters (i.e. peoples not cultivating domesticated plants) may have an impact on wild plants, for example selecting smooth vs spiny sagu palm, or replanting the best wild yams, or disseminating preferentially the seeds of the best Durian or Karite trees.
regards
I support the opinions expressed by Dr Marc. So please ask a direct question with clarity.
with kind regards
GMNRao
I think the question is "Using the term "wild", may not be appropriate rather "non-edible" may be better suited".
I am of the opinion that wild means, which are not cultivated. But we cannot designate all the wild growing species as non-edible. So wild is the right term when we have to compare it with the cultivated ones.
Wild and cultivars are different. Your question should be clear.Tubers and rhizomes of both wild and cultivated species are being used at many places for many purposes with or without edible nature.
Let us not miss the crux of the discuss, the original query was about wild specie or domesticated with respect to edibility. So I only tried to make the researcher understand that some plants at particular locations may be termed wild while same plant at another location may be domesticated. For instance the jack fruit to some Indians maybe wild because of end use purpose while the same Jack fruit in Bangladish is domesticated. So what I tried pointing out is classification based on edibility/consumption.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Plant Sciences
- Ethnobotany