Jacek Drobnik1, Adam Stebel2. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, ul. Ostrogórska 30, PL-41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. Electronic address: drobnik@onet.pl. 2. Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, ul. Ostrogórska 30, PL-41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. Electronic address: astebel@sum.edu.pl.
Abstract
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The paper presents information about the earliest botanical work from Poland, Warsavia physice illustrata which takes bryophytes into account. It was elaborated by a German physician Christian Heinrich Erndtel and issued in 1730 in Dresden. That time understanding of bryophytes was imprecise and in many cases they were confused with lichens and club mosses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bryophyte taxa polynomials (18 names) were identified using pre- and post-Linnaean botanical monographs from years 1590 to 1801. Their current names and pharmacological value are provided, as well as the old ethnobotanical data about bryophytes (cited from 18th-century sources). RESULTS: Altogether 18 bryophyte species were identified from the vicinity of Warsaw (17 mosses and 1 liverwort). Some of them are still abundant in this area (for example Climacium dendroides, Plagiomnium undulatum and Polytrichum juniperinum) while some other are rare or extinct (for example Neckera crispa and Rhodobryum roseum). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the technical ability to observe specific microscopic differences among bryophytes, physicians of 18th century were hardly interested in using any of them as medicinal stock. It may be concluded that the competences in pre-Linnaean bryology did not put into practice using moss-derived materia medica of 18th century (the only exceptions were Fontinalis antipyretica and Polytrichum spp.).
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The paper presents information about the earliest botanical work from Poland, Warsavia physice illustrata which takes bryophytes into account. It was elaborated by a German physician Christian Heinrich Erndtel and issued in 1730 in Dresden. That time understanding of bryophytes was imprecise and in many cases they were confused with lichens and clubmosses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bryophyte taxa polynomials (18 names) were identified using pre- and post-Linnaean botanical monographs from years 1590 to 1801. Their current names and pharmacological value are provided, as well as the old ethnobotanical data about bryophytes (cited from 18th-century sources). RESULTS: Altogether 18 bryophyte species were identified from the vicinity of Warsaw (17 mosses and 1 liverwort). Some of them are still abundant in this area (for example Climacium dendroides, Plagiomnium undulatum and Polytrichum juniperinum) while some other are rare or extinct (for example Neckera crispa and Rhodobryum roseum). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the technical ability to observe specific microscopic differences among bryophytes, physicians of 18th century were hardly interested in using any of them as medicinal stock. It may be concluded that the competences in pre-Linnaean bryology did not put into practice using moss-derived materia medica of 18th century (the only exceptions were Fontinalis antipyretica and Polytrichum spp.).