Data on medicinal plants in the records of Latvian folk medicine from the 19th century

Abstract

The data presented in this article is in support of the research paper “Medicinal plants and their uses recorded in the Archives of Latvian Folklore from the 19th century” [1]. This article provides the list of plant species and disorders treated with medicinal plants mentioned in the records of Latvian folk medicine and used by indigenous people of Latvia in the 19th century. In total, the data include 211 genera belonging to 71 plant families. The accepted scientific names of plant species, plant parts used, dosage forms of herbal medicines, and routes of administration are reported in the table. Plant uses are grouped into one of the 17 categories based on the body systems and psychological and social problems. The frequency of citations is indicated for each use of medicinal plant.

The Cultivation of Chelidonium majus L. Increased the Total Alkaloid Content and Cytotoxic Activity Compared with Those of Wild-Grown Plants

“…Fresh latex from plants has been used externally for the treatment of warts, corns, fungal infections, eczema, and tumours of the skin [ 4 , 5 ]. In Latvian folklore materials, fresh latex and tea made from C. majus were reported to be used for treating diarrhoea, eye problems, and skin diseases such as lichen and warts [ 6 ]. The treatment of ophthalmological problems and gastrointestinal and skin disorders are mentioned among many other ethnobotanical studies across Europe [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].…”

Traditional Latvian herbal medicinal plants used to treat parasite infections of small ruminants: A review

“…According to these records, 211 plant genera representing 71 families were used by indigenous Latvian people during the 19 th Century. Possible therapeutic uses of local plants and their components, including individual dosages and descriptions of routes of administration, are described in this research [ 46 , 47 ].…”

The Appeal of Ethnobotanical Folklore Records: Medicinal Plant Use in Setomaa, Räpina and Vastseliina Parishes, Estonia (1888–1996)

“…This primarily concerns unexplored archives in former socialist countries with large folklore collections; e.g., in Lithuania, the folk plant use data stored in archives have not yet been thoroughly studied [ 12 ]. However, Estonian (e.g., [ 13 ]) and Latvian [ 14 , 15 ] pharmacists have already published articles based on archival data without a prior thorough critical analysis of the sources. When processing archival data, there should be a strong emphasis on metadata, which pharmacologists, however, do not know how to process.…”

“…It is also important to describe in the Section 4 , how the qualitative data, which could have been collected at different times and with different methods, were quantified and how the categorization took place. However, researchers with a pharmaceutical background do not provide such information (e.g., [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]). There are also no references in these above-mentioned articles revealing in which archive collections the original data are located.…”