Author Topic: article about Marang - "A. odoratissimus as not one species, but two"  (Read 622 times)

brian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3312
    • Pennsylvania (zone 6) w/ heated greenhouse
    • View Profile
Not often you see tropical fruit in the news so I thought I'd share this link.  This might be common knowledge to people on this forum, I don't know a lot about marang.  I don't think I've seen the wild type discussed here.

https://www.inverse.com/science/indigenous-knowledge-botany-plant-species

article text:
Quote
Here’s the background — In the gardens of homes in Borneo and the Philippines, it’s not uncommon to find a cultivated sweet fruit tree with thick pulp that bears a strong resemblance to jackfruit and breadfruit. The official scientific name for this tropical plant is A. odoratissimus, though locals refer to the plant by more colloquial names like marang and tarap.

An eighteenth-century Spanish friar who researched botanical plants in the Philippines, Manuel Blanco, was the first person to formally describe A. odoratissimus. Nineteenth-century Italian botanist, Odoardo Beccari, also later described two mature fruit specimens that scientists associate with A. odoratissimus.

Botanists also knew a wild relative of this tree existed that was somewhat different from the domesticated variety, but scientists simply thought it was a variant of the same species. The wild relative contained smaller, less-sweet fruits with thinner pulp and longer hairs.

But unbeknownst to scientists, Indigenous communities in Borneo and the Philippines had long classified A. odoratissimus as not one species, but two clearly separate species, with each fruit tree clearly marked by distinct features.

The Iban people in Sarawak — a Malayasian state in Borneo — recognized the cultivated and wild varieties of the plant as two species: lumok (cultivated) and pingan (wild). The Dusun people of Sabah — another state in Borneo — similarly recognized these plants as separate species known as timadang (cultivated) and tonggom-onggom (wild).

“I think that scientists working on these plants were not aware of the Indigenous classification system, because scientists have not often engaged with that type of knowledge,” Gardner says.

What’s new — In this latest study, Gardner’s team set out to bridge the gap between scientific and Indigenous knowledge. Specifically, they sought to scientifically verify whether these two plants, were, indeed, two genetically distinct species.

Through their research, the scientists confirmed the traditional knowledge of the Dusun and the Iban: The wild pingan is genetically distinct from the domestically cultivated plant lumok.

“The plants have noticeably different fruits which were evident to Indigenous people who were constantly around the plants but were not evident to scientists working largely from preserved specimens,” Gardner says.

With this study, science now formally recognizes and validates pingan as its own separate species. Therefore, pingan needs a scientific name so it can fit with the Linnaean taxonomy, the standard of scientific classification which Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus established in the 1700s. Gardner’s team settled on A. mutabilis, a reference to the Italian botanist Beccari’s research on the plants in 1885.
Species tree figure from the study
A species “tree” showing the genetic distinction between and geographic origins of the two fruit species, known colloquially to Indigenous people as pingan and lumok. Gardner et al/Current Biology

How they made the discovery — In 2013, the researchers began their fieldwork in the Malaysian state of Sabah in Borneo before expanding to other areas. Gardner was intrigued by the unique plant, A. odoratissimus, especially for its delicious taste.

“We wondered whether there were any genetic differences between cultivated and wild plants,” Gardner says.

But the scientists really honed in on the Indigenous distinctions between the two plants in 2017, when they started collecting plant samples with two Iban field botanists, Jugah anak Tagi and Salang anak Nyegang, who are also co-authors on the study. Their collaborators from the state of Sabah in Borneo, field botanists Postar Miun and Jeisin Jumian, also confirmed that the Indigenous Dusun recognize the plants as two separate species.

“These findings led us to realize the importance of considering indigenous vernacular names in thinking about species limits,” Gardner says.

So, Gardner’s team used genetic sequencing to confirm the Indigenous classification of these two plants. Using field samples collected from Borneo, the scientists deployed a method known as target capture, which enriches DNA and allows researchers to efficiently sequence genes from the plant. This method allowed them to analyze the Italian botanist Beccari’s botanical samples from the 1800s, comparing them to modern plants.

“Because the target regions do not need to be on intact fragments, this method is suitable even for old samples with degraded DNA,” Gardner says.

Using these methods, the scientists were able to confirm there were “two distinct genetic clusters” for lumok and pingan.

Why it matters — The study’s publication is timely as scientists are collaborating more with Indigenous communities on projects ranging from gauging wildfire risk to sucking forever chemicals — chemicals known as “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” that linger in the environment for years — out of the ground. With this new study, we can add another area of scientific research where Indigenous knowledge will prove invaluable: species classification.

“People who live close to plants and see them on a daily basis have a different kind of knowledge about them that is different from and complements the way scientists think about plants,” Gardner says.
Tropical rainforest in Sabah, Borneo
The researchers conducted their fieldwork and collected plant samples from the Malaysian state of Sabah in Borneo. Getty

What’s next — To best protect a species, researchers must classify it scientifically within the Linnaean taxonomy. To conserve a species, scientists must name it, otherwise, it won’t appear on the IUCN Red List — the official list of plants and animals that conservation organizations use to classify endangered and threatened species.

But current scientific classification is lacking, and we can partner with Indigenous communities to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of species, the study argues.

“While Linnaean taxonomy offers a broad framework for global comparisons, it may lack the detailed local insights possessed by indigenous peoples,” the study authors write.

By marrying scientific knowledge with Indigenous classifications, we could potentially protect species from extinction. Due to manmade trends like global warming and deforestation, species are disappearing nearly every day. The UN reported in 2019 that one million animal and plant species faced extinction.

Gardner says that scientists are often already working with Indigenous guides when they conduct fieldwork, so it would be a natural next step for researchers and Indigenous communities to collaborate to classify species.

“This kind of collaboration can improve our understanding of biodiversity and can improve recognition of the contributions Indigenous people have been making to science all along,” Gardner says.

Finca La Isla

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
    • Costa Rica, Southern Caribbean coast
    • View Profile
    • finca la isla
We have Pingan and Marang in cultivation. But we use a different botanical name than the article for pingan. Artocarpus Sarawakensis is what we call it.
Peter

brian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3312
    • Pennsylvania (zone 6) w/ heated greenhouse
    • View Profile
Is the wild/pingan/sarawak type worthwhile?  There must be a reason one is known as the "cultivated type" and the other is not  :)

Finca La Isla

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
    • Costa Rica, Southern Caribbean coast
    • View Profile
    • finca la isla
I think that marang/terap is known over a much larger area than Pingan. Personally, I’ve never heard that pingan is not in cultivation. In any case many of the rare fruits we cherish tend to be grown in peoples yards or small commercial plantings.
Peter

Francis_Eric

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • 40 miles west of Chicago Aurora IL ZONE 5
    • View Profile
    • https://myspace.com/undisclosedforthetime/
I do not think I agree with this system of protecting plants

SEE quote

Quote
What’s next — To best protect a species, researchers must classify it scientifically within the Linnaean taxonomy. To conserve a species, scientists must name it, otherwise, it won’t appear on the IUCN Red List — the official list of plants and animals that conservation organizations use to classify endangered and threatened species.

But current scientific classification is lacking, and we can partner with Indigenous communities to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of species, the study argues.

“While Linnaean taxonomy offers a broad framework for global comparisons, it may lack the detailed local insights possessed by indigenous peoples,” the study authors write.

By marrying scientific knowledge with Indigenous classifications, we could potentially protect species from extinction. Due to manmade trends like global warming and deforestation, species are disappearing nearly every day. The UN reported in 2019 that one million animal and plant species faced extinction.

Gardner says that scientists are often already working with Indigenous guides when they conduct fieldwork, so it would be a natural next step for researchers and Indigenous communities to collaborate to classify species.

“This kind of collaboration can improve our understanding of biodiversity and can improve recognition of the contributions Indigenous people have been making to science all along,” Gardner says.


I disagree with that to save plants that are of a variation

So lets just destroy all cultivated tomatoes , and go back to the tiny wild ones

(I have a link of The science of different species chromosomes length as opposed to variation ..

Do we need to save a plant on a species rank ?

If you think so go back to ignoring the  wild plants , and screw wanting to see variations / subspecies  across the USA

SHIT IS GOING EXTICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-------------------

Quote
Botanists also knew a wild relative of this tree existed that was somewhat different from the domesticated variety, but scientists simply thought it was a variant of the same species. The wild relative contained smaller, less-sweet fruits with thinner pulp and longer hairs.

Francis_Eric

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • 40 miles west of Chicago Aurora IL ZONE 5
    • View Profile
    • https://myspace.com/undisclosedforthetime/
I have the info for the science stuff

It is cannabis

Old  news to me never knew   that is how species are defined
O( ( but interesting )


Hey bovine
By the way I like what you say
arent you the kink of cannabis

a old neighbor stole some stuff slipped on ice
with a glass jar of hope
but yes sir bleeding to death
No charges pressed
fat of the land
 land of cannabis
A call of warning to A mother
and he is still trying to get his sense of self back in line
Movement of the hand is dire
I hope this man can find peace within ..
God Bless

https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/46700/list/13/


Some botanists prefer to recognize C. sativa L. and C. indica Lam. at the rank of species (Hillig 2005a, Clarke and Merlin 2013). Debates over taxonomic rank are notoriously arbitrary. Molecular studies using DNA sequences can make the question of rank less arbitrary. Mandolino et al. (2002) quantified DNA polymorphisms in ten drug- and fiber-type varieties. They found more variability between individuals within a variety than between varieties – data that confirmed “the existence of a single, widely shared gene pool.” In a worldwide collection of Cannabis, Gilmore et al. (2007) found a low rate of sequence variation (approximately 1 polymorphism per 1 kb sequenced cpDNA) – consistent with a single species.

McPartland (2018) used DNA barcodes as a metric to place the Cannabis question of rank in context with other plants. He examined five plant barcodes (rbcL, matK, trnH-psbA, trnL-trnF, and ITS1), and calculated a mean divergence (barcode gap) of 0.41% between C. sativa and C. indica. This nearly equaled the mean divergence of 0.43% between five pairs of plants considered different varieties or subspecies (e.g., Camellia sinensis var. sinensis and C. sinensis var. assamica). In contrast, a 3.0% barcode gap separated five pairs of plants considered different species (e.g., Humulus lupulus and H. japonicus). Hebert et al. (2004) proposed a 2.7% difference between two COI sequences (the “barcode gap”) as the threshold for flagging genetically divergent specimens as distinct animal species.

Sawler et al. (2015) calculated a mean fixation index (FST) of 0.156 between populations of fiber- and drug-type plants (n = 43 and 81, respectively). FST values range from 0 to 1; a zero value indicates the two groups freely interbreed; a 1 value indicates the groups are completely isolated from one another. A mean FST of 0.156 is similar to the degree of genetic differentiation between human populations in Europe and East Asia, which belong to a single species.

Lynch et al. (2016) calculated FST = 0.099 between fiber- and drug-type groups (n = 22 and 173, respectively). Grassa et al. (2018) calculated FST = 0.229 between fiber-type accessions and “marijuana,” by concatenating data from Sawler, Lynch, and their own sequencing. Hey and Pinho (2012) proposed FST = 0.35 as a conservative threshold measure for species differentiation; pairs with greater values are identified as separate species, pairs with lesser values are identified as subspecies populations. Clearly, C. sativa L. and C. indica Lam. are best differentiated at a subspecies rank.

In the 1980s, drug-type plants came to be divided into two categories, widely known by the ubiquitous labels “Indica” and “Sativa”. This vernacular taxonomy became widespread after Anderson (1980) published a line drawing of the plants (Fig. 1). He differentiated “Indica” and “Sativa” by morphology and geographical provenance. As summarized by de Meijer and van Soest (1992), “Indica” applied to plants with broad leaflets, short and compact habit, and early maturation, and there is evidence that landrace ancestors of such plants came from Central Asia (primarily Afghanistan). “Sativa” applied to plants with narrow leaflets, tall and diffuse habit, and late maturation, and there is evidence that landrace ancestors of such plants came originally from South Asia (primarily India), with early historical distribution to Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Americas.