Sesotho names for exotic and indigenous edible plants in southern Africa

Abstract

A comprehensive checklist of Sesotho names of both indigenous and exotic food plants is presented, based on a literature survey and the first author's experience. The list includes the scientific names. English common names and parts of the plant that are used. Where possible, the origin or meaning of the Sesotho names is given. Exotic edible plants for which the English common names are in general use have been excluded. The list includes 164 indigenous and 39 names of exotic species.

Spatial patterns, availability and cultural preferences for edible plants in southern Africa

“…Recent studies (e.g. Magwede et al, ; Moffett, ; Moteetee & Van Wyk, ) have shown that food plant species have not yet been comprehensively recorded. Furthermore, Williams and Crouch () suggested that available distribution data based on herbarium specimens are not always representative and therefore not considered to be completely accurate.…”

“…Sorensen Index was also used to produce a distance matrix ( S6 in Appendix S1) of the edible plants utilized by 13 cultural groups with adequate ethnobotanical data [Herero (Malan & Owen Smith, 1974), the Kwangali and Manyo (Roodt, 1992(Roodt, , 1998, the Northern Sotho (Quin, 1959), the Southern Sotho (Moteetee & Van Wyk, 2006), the Swati (Dlamini, ), the Tsonga (Liengme, 1981), the Venda (Magwede et al, 2018), the Wambo (Rodin, 1985), the Xhosa (Dold & Cocks, 2000), the Zulu (Gerstner, 1938(Gerstner, , 1939(Gerstner, , 1941, the Ju│'hoan (Leffers, 2003) and the Cape Khoekhoe (Archer, 1982(Archer, , 1994]. To calculate the Pearson product-moment coefficient (r) along with the significance values (p), six correlations between the distance matrices were done (culture versus geography, available taxa versus edible taxa, geography versus available taxa, geography versus edible taxa, culture versus available edible taxa and edible taxa versus utilized taxa).…”

“…Using the "COUNTIF" formulae, the number of taxa available for each family in the distribution ranges of all biomes and all 19 cultural groups for the FSA region as a whole, as well as each individual FSA country, were counted. Only 13 cultural groups had adequate data available for further comparisons based on what they actually use, namely the Herero (Malan & Owen Smith, 1974), the Kwangali and Manyo (Roodt, 1992(Roodt, , 1998, the Northern Sotho (Quin, 1959), the Southern Sotho (Moteetee & Van Wyk, 2006), the Swati (Dlamini, ), the Tsonga (Liengme, 1981), the Venda (Magwede et al, 2018), the Wambo (Rodin, 1985), the Xhosa (Dold & Cocks, 2000), the Zulu (Gerstner, 1938(Gerstner, , 1939(Gerstner, , 1941, the Ju│'hoan (Leffers, 2003) and the Cape Khoekhoe (Archer, 1982(Archer, , 1994.…”

“…The ethnobotanical reviews by Liengme (1983) and Van Wyk (2002) as well as the work done by Van Wyk et al (2011) summarized the available ethnobotanical information on each of these cultural groups as well as the gaps in our knowledge. Many of the cultural groups have been well documented, such F I G U R E 1 Historical and/or contemporary distribution ranges of the Bantu and Khoesaan cultural groups in the Flora of southern Africa region, based on the language maps provided by Van Wyk et al (2011) as the Herero (Malan & Owen Smith, 1974), the Kwangali and Manyo (Roodt, 1992(Roodt, , 1998, the Northern Sotho (Quin, 1959), the Southern Sotho (Moteetee & Van Wyk, 2006), the Swati (Dlamini, 1981), the Tsonga (Liengme, 1981), the Venda (Magwede, Van Wyk, & Van Wyk, 2018), the Wambo (Rodin, 1985), the Xhosa (Dold & Cocks, 2000), the Zulu (Gerstner, 1938(Gerstner, , 1939(Gerstner, , 1941, the Ju│'hoan (Leffers, 2003) and the Cape Khoekhoe (Archer, 1982(Archer, , 1994. Despite the available ethnobotanical information, there have been no broad-scale comparisons amongst these groups to determine the patterns of plant use across cultures and how these patterns of use relate to the availability of, as well as the preferences for, certain plants.…”

Boscia Albitrunca: Review of Its Botany, Medicinal Uses, Phytochemistry, and Biological Activities

“…is a medium-sized evergreen tree belonging to the Capparaceae or caper family. B. albitrunca is regarded as a multipurpose tree species in Southern Africa [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] used as coffee or tea substitute, source of dye or tannin, fodder, ethnoveterinary medicine, herbal medicine, famine food, food additive, and shade. The leaves of B. albitrunca are browsed by livestock and game, especially at the time of flowering and toward the end of the dry season [20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”