Precious Polygonaceae: Insight into the Historical Collection and Therapeutic Uses of Polygonum, Eriogonum, and Rumex Genera
“All of the plants presented in these analyses fall under the same family - Polygonaceae - giving them a meaningful commonality that can serve as a basis for their comparison. Polygonaceae has been important to…” Discuss how this fits into the context of materia medica - notes/references from someone.
While materia medica highlights the utility of plants and how humans can rely on nature, it is also important to consider the processes that led to these plants being documented in this manner. The value of these entries in part lies in their collection processes, especially in the sense of knowing their collection details. Such information often includes the collector, collection location, and collection date, alongside detailing the collected specimen itself. An example of this is seen in the materia medica entry of Polygonum lapathifolium, which was made by William Dickes and Anne Pratt in 1855. Even over a century ago, there was clear importance to this information, and this value has stood the test of time. This is especially true in terms of herbaria, or collections of preserved plants. There are about 3.100 herbaria worldwide, with 390 million specimens contained in them. Though impressive, these specimens only hold value if they detail what was collected, where it was collected, when it was collected, and who collected it. This process has become pretty standardized in herbaria, as exemplified on the physical specimen sheet of Eriogonum umbellatum var. umbellatum Torr. All specimens in the UCLA Herbarium contain a similar label, which lists the aforementioned collection details. There may even be additional information, such as the elevation or location coordinates. Having this information gives these specimens ecological and evolutionary value, which can certainly complement their medicinal value. In this way, it allows viewers to make comparisons, whether in terms of the collected information itself or the broader context of the plant.
Such comparisons are what inspire the individual content pages of this section. Each author pair analyzed three specimens: one from the UCLA Herbarium, one from the Mildred E. Mathias Botanical Garden, and one from their choice of materia medica. In order, these pages considered Polygonum lapathifolium and Eriogonum grande var. Rubescens; Eriogonum umbellatum var. umbellatum torr. and Eriogonum giganteum var. Compactum; and Rumex acetosella and Eriogonum cinereum. While all of these specimens fall under the Polygonaceae family, there are clear differences in their form - dried, alive, and illustrated, respectively - and perhaps more nuanced differences in their representation. The analyses generally compare the collection information and morphological details of the plants and go on to situate these comparisons in a historical context. Specifically, it was of interest to consider why such differences may exist. For example, between the P. lapathifolium herbarium specimen and materia medica entry there were differences in flower structure. Using the collection information, one can consider how this discrepancy may relate to their collection locations or even their nativity.
Comparisons like these can also be drawn between this whole collection of plants.