Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Comparative phylogenetic methods and the cultural evolution of medicinal plant use

Abstract

Human life depends on plant biodiversity and the ways in which plants are used are culturally determined. Whilst anthropologists have used phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs) to gain an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the evolution of political, religious, social and material culture, plant use has been almost entirely neglected. Medicinal plants are of special interest because of their role in maintaining people’s health across the world. PCMs in particular, and cultural evolutionary theory in general, provide a framework in which to study the diversity of medicinal plant applications cross-culturally, and to infer changes in plant use over time. These methods can be applied to single medicinal plants as well as the entire set of plants used by a culture for medicine, and they account for the non-independence of data when testing for floristic, cultural or other drivers of plant use. With cultural, biological and linguistic diversity under threat, gaining a deeper and broader understanding of the variation of medicinal plant use through time and space is pressing.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The medicinal use of a plant species by several linguistically related societies.

References

  1. 1.

    WHO traditional medicine strategy: 2014–2023 (World Health Organisation, 2013).

  2. 2.

    De Boer, H. J. & Lamxay, V. Plants used during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum healthcare in Lao PDR: A comparative study of the Brou, Saek and Kry ethnic groups. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 5, 25 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Menendez-Baceta, G. et al. The importance of cultural factors in the distribution of medicinal plant knowledge: A case study in four Basque regions. J. Ethnopharmacol. 161, 116–127 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Quave, C. L. & Pieroni, A. A reservoir of ethnobotanical knowledge informs resilient food security and health strategies in the Balkans. Nat. Plants 1, 14021 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Saslis-Lagoudakis, C. H. et al. The evolution of traditional knowledge: Environment shapes medicinal plant use in Nepal. P. R. Soc. B. 281, 20132768 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Shepard, G. H. Sensory ecology of medicinal plant therapy in two Amazonian societies. Am. Anthropol. 106, 252–266 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Maffi, L. Linguistic cultural and biological diversity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 29, 599–617 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Begossi, A., Hanazaki, N. & Tamashiro, J. Y. Medicinal plants in the Atlantic forest (Brazil): Knowledge, use, and conservation. Hum. Ecol. 30, 281–299 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Geck, M. S., Reyes García, A. J., Casu, L. & Leonti, M. Acculturation and ethnomedicine: A regional comparison of medicinal plant knowledge among the Zoque of southern Mexico. J. Ethnopharmacol. 187, 146–159 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Vandebroek, I., Reyes-García, V., Albuquerque, U. P., Bussmann, R. & Pieroni, A. Local knowledge: Who cares? J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 7, 35 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kirby, K. R. et al. D-PLACE: a global database of cultural, linguistic and environmental diversity. PLoS ONE 11, e0158391 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Garamszegi, L. Z. (ed.). Modern phylogenetic comparative methods: Concepts and practice. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Felsenstein, J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125, 1–15 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Blute, M. & Jordan, F. M. in The Oxford handbook of evolution, biology, and society (ed. Hopcroft, R. J.) 621–642 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2018).

  15. 15.

    Cornwell, W. & Nakagawa, S. Phylogenetic comparative methods. Curr. Biol. 27, R333–R336 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gray, R. D., Greenhill, S. J. & Ross, R. M. The pleasures and perils of Darwinizing culture (with phylogenies). Biol. Theory 2, 360–375 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mace, R. & Holden, C. J. A phylogenetic approach to cultural evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 116–121 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tylor, E. B. On a method of investigating the development of institutions applied to the laws of marriage and descent. J. Roy. Anthropol. Inst. 18, 245–272 (1889).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mace, R. & Pagel, M. The comparative method in anthropology. Curr. Anthropol. 35, 549–564 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gray, R. D. & Watts, J. Cultural macroevolution matters. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7846–7852 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Botero, C. A. et al. The ecology of religious beliefs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16784–16789 (2014).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Currie, T. E. Cultural evolution branches out: The phylogenetic approach in cross-cultural research. Cross Cult. Res. 47, 102–130 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Jordan F. M. in Kinship systems: Change and reconstruction (eds McConvell, P. et al.) 43–58 (Univ. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, 2013).

  24. 24.

    Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. D. Tools from evolutionary biology shed new light on the diversification of languages. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 167–173 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Mace, R. & Jordan, F. M. Macro-evolutionary studies of cultural diversity: A review of empirical studies of cultural transmission and cultural adaptation. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B. 366, 402–411 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Currie, T. E. & Mace, R. Evolution of cultural traits occurs at similar relative rates in different world regions. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141622 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Voeks, R. A. Disturbance pharmacopoeias: MEdicina and myth from the humid tropics. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94, 868–888 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Reznick, D. A. & Ricklefs, R. E. Darwin’s bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature 457, 837–842 (2009).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Medeiros, P. M. et al. The use of medicinal plants by migrant people: Adaptation, maintenance, and replacement. Evid.-Based Compl. Alt. 2012, 807452 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Pieroni, A. & Vandebroek, I. Travelling cultures and plants: The ethnobiology and ethnopharmacy of migrations. (Berghahn Books, New York, NY, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Van Andel, T. et al. In search of the perfect aphrodisiac: Parallel use of bitter tonics in West Africa and the Caribbean. J. Ethnopharmacol. 143, 840–850 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Volpato, G., Godínez, D. & Beyra, A. Migration and ethnobotanical practices: the case of tifey among Haitian immigrants in Cuba. Hum. Ecol. 37, 43–53 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Vossen, T., Towns, A., Ruysschaert, S., Quiroz, D. & van Andel, T. Consequences of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade on medicinal plant selection: Plant use for cultural bound syndromes affecting children in Suriname and Western Africa. PLoS ONE 9, e112345 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Touwaide, A. & Appetiti, E. Knowledge of Eastern material medica (Indian and Chinese) in pre-modern Mediterranean medical traditions: A study in comparative historical ethnopharmacology. J. Ethnopharmacol. 148, 361–378 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Leonti, M., Staub, P. O., Cabras, S., Castellanos, M. E. & Casu, L. From cumulative cultural transmission to evidence-based medicine: evolution of medicinal plant knowledge in Southern Italy. Front. Pharmacol. 6, 207 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Leonti, M. The future is written: Impact of scripts on the cognition, selection, knowledge and transmission of medicinal plant use and its implications for ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology. J. Ethnopharmacol. 134, 542–555 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Reyes-García, V. et al. Cultural transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge and skills: an empirical analysis from an Amerindian society. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30, 274–285 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kendal, R. L. et al. Social learning strategies: bridge-building between fields. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 651–665 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Henrich, J. & Broesch, J. On the nature of cultural transmission networks: Evidence from Fijian villages for adaptive learning biases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc B 366, 1139–1148 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Albuquerque, U. P. & Júnior, W. S. F. What do we study in evolutionary ethnobiology? Defining the theoretical basis for a research program. Evol. Biol. 44, 206–215 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Moerman, D. E., Pemberton, R. W., Kiefer, D. & Berlin, B. A comparative analysis of five medicinal floras J. Ethnobiol. 19, 49–67 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hawkins, J. A. & Teixidor-Toneu, I. Defining ‘ethnobotanical convergence’. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 639–640 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Patterson, C. in Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction (eds Joysey, K. A. & Friday, A. E.) 21–74 (Academic Press, London, 1982).

  44. 44.

    Nunn, C. L. The comparative approach in evolutionary anthropology and biology. (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 2011).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bowern, C. et al. Loan and inheritance patterns in hunter-gatherer ethnobiological systems. J. Ethnobiol. 34, 195–227 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    O’Brien, M. J., & Lyman, R. L. Applying evolutionary archaeology: A systematic approach. (Springer, NewYork, NY, 2000).

  47. 47.

    Steward, J. H. Diffusion and independent invention: A critique of logic. Am. Anthropol. 31, 491–495 (1929).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Patterson, C. Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5, 603–625 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    De Pinna, M. G. G. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7, 367–394 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Hawkins, J. A. & Hughes, C. E. & Scotland, R. W. Primary homology assessment, characters and character states. Cladistics 13, 275–283 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Nunn, C. L. & Towner, M. C. Cultural macroevolution and the transmission of traits. Evol. Anthr. 15, 52–64 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Bostoen, K., Grollemund, R. & Muluwa, J. K. Climate-induced vegetation dynamics and the Bantu expansion: evidence from Bantu names for pioneer trees (Elaeis guineensis, Canarium schweinfurthii, and Musanga cecropioides). C. R. Geosci. 345, 336–349 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Perrier, X. et al. Multidisciplinary perspectives on banana (Musa spp.) domestication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11311–11318 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Fuller, D. Q. & Madella, M. Banana cultivation in South Asia and East Asia: a review of the evidence from archaeology and linguistics. ERA 7, 333–351 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Fuller, D. Q., Boivin, N., Hoogervorst, T. & Allaby, R. Across the indian ocean: The prehistoric movement of plants and animals. Antiquity 85, 544–558 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Fuller, R. J. M. Using historical linguistics to describe Polynesian ethnomycology. Econ. Bot. 63, 388–396 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Rangan, H. et al. New genetic and linguistic analyses show ancient human influence on Baobab evolution and distribution in Australia. PLoS ONE 10, e0119758 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Dixon, R. M. W. Australian languages: their nature and development. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    McMahon, A. & McMahon, R. in Time Depth in Historical Linguistics Vol. 1 (eds McMahon, A. et al.) 59–73 (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, 2000).

  60. 60.

    Heinri, hM. et al. Best practice in research: consensus statement on ethnopharmacological field studies — ConSEFS. J. Ethnopharmacol. 211, 329–339 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Teixidor-Toneu, I. et al. An ethnomedicinal survey of a Tashelhit-speaking community in the High Atlas, Morocco. J. Ethnopharmacol. 188, 96–110 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Lacuna-Richman, C. The use of non-wood forest products by migrants in a new settlement: Experiences of a Visayan community in Palawan, Philippines. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2, 36 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Beheim, B. A. & Bell, A. V. Inheritance, ecology and the evolution of canoes of east Oceania. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 3089–3095 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Leonti, M., Sticher, O. & Heinrich, M. Antiquity of medicinal plant usage in two Macro-Mayan ethnic groups (México). J. Ethnopharmacol. 88, 119–124 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Chirkova, K., Huber, F. K., Weckerle, C. S., Daudey, H. & Pincuo, G. Plant names as traces of the past in Shuiluo valley, China. J. Ethnobiol. 36, 192–214 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Bowern, C. in Verba Docenti: Studies in Historical and Indo-European Linguistics (ed. Nussbaum, A.) 39–53 (Beech Stave Press, Ann Arbor, NY, 2007).

  67. 67.

    Haspelmath, M. in Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook (eds Haspelmath, M. & Tadmor, U.) 35–54 (De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, 2009).

  68. 68.

    Boyd, R., Borgerhoff-Mulder, M., Durham, W. H. & Richerson, P. J. in Human by nature: Between biology and the social sciences (eds Mitchell, S. D. et al.) 355–386 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1997).

  69. 69.

    Greenhill, S. J., Currie, T. E. & Gray, R. D. Does horizontal transmission invalidate cultural phylogenies? Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 2299–2306 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Nunn, C. L., Mulder, M. B. & Langley, S. Comparative methods for studying cultural trait evolution: a simulation study. Cross-Cult. Res. 40, 177–209 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Foster, G. M. Disease etiologies in non-western medical systems. Med.l Anthropol. 78, 773–782 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Hsu, E. & Harris, S. (eds) Plants, health and healing: On the interface of ethnobotany and medical anthropology (Berhahn Books, Oxford, 2010).

  73. 73.

    Waldstein, A. & Adams, C. The interface between medical anthropology and medical ethnobiology. J. Roy. Anthropol. Inst. 12, 95–118 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Greenwood, B. Cold or spirits? Choice and ambiguity in Morocco’s pluralistic medical system. Soc. Sci. Med. 15, 219–235 (1981).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Obermeyer, C. M. Pluralism and pragmatism: knowledge and practice of birth in Morocco. Med. Anthropol. Q. 14, 180–201 (2000).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Teixidor-Toneu, I., Martin, G. J., Puri, R. K., Ouhammou, A. & Hawkins, J. A. Treating infants with frigg: Linking disease aetiologies, medicinal plant use and care-seeking behaviour in southern Morocco. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 13, 4 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Thomas, E., Vandebroek, I., Van Damme, P., Semo, L. & Noza, Z. Susto etiology and treatment according to Bolivian Trinitario people: a “masters of the animal species” phenomenon. Med. Anthropol. Q. 23, 298–319 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Ellen, R. & Puri, R. K. Conceptualising ‘core’ medicinal floras: A comparative and methodological study of phytomedical resources in related Indonesian populations. Conserv. Soc. 14, 345–358 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Shennan, S. Canoes and cultural evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 3175–3176 (2008).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Gairola, S., Sharma, J. & Bedi, Y. S. A cross-cultural analysis of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (India) medicinal plant use. J. Ethnopharmacol. 155, 925–986 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Molares, S. & Ladio, A. Ethnobotanical review of the Mapuche medicinal flora: Use patterns on a regional scale. J. Ethnopharmacol. 122, 251–260 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Collins, S., Martins, X., Mitchell, A., Teshome, A. & Arnason, J. T. Quantitative ethnobotany of two East Timorse cultures. Econ. Bot. 60, 347–361 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Heinrich, M., Ankli, A., Frei, B., Weimann, C. & Sticher, O. Medicinal plants in Mexico: healers’ consensus and cultural importance. Soc. Sci. Med. 47, 1859–1871 (1998).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Leporatti, M. L. & Ivancheva, S. Preliminary comparative analysis of medicinal plants used in the traditional medicine of Bulgaria and Italy. J. Ethnopharmacol. 87, 123–142 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Saslis-Lagoudakis, C. H. et al. The use of phylogeny to interpret cross-cultural patterns in plant use and guide medicinal plant discovery: an example from Pterocarpus. PLoS ONE 6, e22275 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Saslis-Lagoudakis, C. H. et al. Phylogenies reveal predictive power of traditional medicine in bioprospecting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 15835–15840 (2012).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Yessoufou, K., Daru, B. H. & Muasya, A. M. Phylogenetic exploration of commonly used medicinal plants in South Africa.Mol. Ecol. Res. 15, 405–413 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Rønsted, N., Savolainen, V., Mølgaard, P. & Jäger, A. K. Phylogenetic selection of Narcissus species for drug discovery. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 36, 417–422 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Zhu, F. et al. Clustered patterns of species origins of nature-derived drugs and clues for future bioprospecting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12943–12948 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Souza, E. N. F., Williamson, E. M. & Hawkins, J. A. Which plants used in ethnomedicine are characterized? phylogenetic patterns in traditional use related to research effort. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 834 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Berlin, B. Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 4, 259–271 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Teixidor-Toneu, I. The evolution of medicinal floras: Insights from Moroccan medicinal plant knowledge transmission. Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading (2017).

  93. 93.

    Hammarström, H., Forkel, R., Haspelmath, M. & Bank, S. Glottolog 2.7 (Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, 2016); http://glottolog.org

  94. 94.

    Turchin, P. et al. Seshat: the global history databank Cliodynamics 6, 77–107 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Cross-Linguistic Linked Data (Max Planck Society, 2018); http://clld.org/datasets.html.

  96. 96.

    Albuquerque, U. P. et al. The current status of ethnobiological research in Latin America: gaps and perspectives. J Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 9, 72 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Cámara-Leret, R., Paniagua-Zambrana, N., Balslev, H. & Macía, M. J. Ethnobotanical knowledge is vastly under-documented in northwestern South America. PLoS ONE 9, e85794 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Bennett, B. C. & Balick, M. J. Does the name really matter? The importance of botanical nomenclature and plant taxonomy in biomedical research. J. Ethnopharmacol. 152, 387–392 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Rivera, D. et al. What is in a name? the need for accurate scientific nomenclature for plants. J. Ethnopharmacol. 152, 393–402 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Heinrich, M., Edwards, S., Moerman, D. E. & Leonti, M. Ethnopharmacological field studies: a critical assessment of their conceptual basis and methods. J.Ethnopharmacol. 124, 1–17 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Souza, E. N. F. & Hawkins, J. A. Comparison of herbarium label data and published medicinal use: Herbaria as an underutilized source of ethnobotanical information. Econ. Bot. 71, 1–12 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Leonti, M. & Verpoorte, R. Traditional Mediterranean and European herbal medicines. J. Ethnopharmacol. 199, 161–167 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Anneleen Kool for helpful discussions during the preparation of this manuscript. I.T.-T. and J.A.H received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under the Grant agreement no. 606895. F.M.J was supported by the European Research Council’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Starting Grant no. 639291.

Author’s contributions

I.T.-T., F.M.J and J.A.H conceived the ideas. J.A.H. led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to writing and gave their final approval for publication.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie A. Hawkins.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teixidor-Toneu, I., Jordan, F.M. & Hawkins, J.A. Comparative phylogenetic methods and the cultural evolution of medicinal plant use. Nature Plants 4, 754–761 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0226-6

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing