Yunatov’s Records of Wild Edible Plant Used by the Mongols in Mongolia During 1940-1951: Ethnobotanical Arrangements and Discussions


 Background: Researchers have rarely studied traditional botanical knowledge in Mongolia over the past 60 years, and existing studies had been based on the theory and methodology of ethnobotany. However, Russian scientists who studied plants in Mongolia in the 1940s and 1950s collected valuable historical records of indigenous knowledge and information on Mongolian herdsmen utilizing local wild plants. One of the most comprehensive works is titled: "Forage plants on grazing land and mowing grassland in the People's Republic of Mongolia" (FPM) by A. A. Yunatov (1909-1967). Yunatov’s work focused on forage plants in Mongolia from 1940 to 1951, which was published in 1954 as his early research. Later, the original FPM was translated into Chinese and Cyrillic Mongolian in 1958 and 1968, respectively.Materials: In addition to morphological characteristics, distribution, habitat, phenology, palatability and nutrition of forage plants, Yunatov recorded the local names, the folk understanding and evaluation of the forage value, as well as other relevant cultural meanings and the use of local wild plants in FPM through interviews. The book contains the most precious records created in the 1940s and 1950s on folk knowledge of wild plants used by the Mongols in Mongolia. It is composed of 8 chapters, and 351 pages in total. The fifth chapter of FPM is titled “A systematic expounds of forage plants”, and has 272 pages, accounting for 77.49% of the total. The order and content of the book appeared to be oriented along profiles of specific plant. And author collected specific information of plants such as the local name, morphology, distribution, habitats, ecological characteristics, phenology, and he also discussed the palatability to livestock, particular forage use, other usages, and chemical composition.Methods: Through careful reading and understanding of all three versions of the book, the information of plants shown in the records regarding listed local edible use in FPM was sorted. The process is equivalent to ethnobotanical fieldwork. Edible plants listed in FPM were categorized based on purposes of use, and ethnobotanical inventories were made following the research methods of classical ethnobotany.Results: FPM listed records of 35 species that belong to 15 families and 25 genera of wild edible plants. Most species belong to Liliaceae and Allium. Wild grain and grain substitutes come from starch-rich parts such as seeds, bulbs, roots and rhizomes of 12 species, accounting for 34.28% of all species. Wild vegetables come from the parts of a young plant, tender leaves, young fruits, lower part of stems, and bulbs of 9 species, accounting for 25.71% of all species. There are only three species of wild fruits, accounting for 8.57% of all edible plant species. Tea substitutes come from the parts such as leaves, roots, follicle, and aboveground parts of 8 species of wild plants, accounting for 22.85% of all species. Wild seasonings come from the parts such as seeds, rhizomes, tender leaves of 7 species, accounting for 20.00% of all species.Conclusions: Six species of wild edible plants listed in FPM have been proven to be collected and consumed by Mongolian in the 12th century, which demonstrates significant cultural and heritage value. Seven species of plants mentioned in this book were closely correlated to processing of traditional dairy products, meat and milk food by the locals. Similarities and differences are noticeable in the utilization of wild edible plants between the Mongols in Mongolia and the Mongols in China. Yunatov was not an ethnobotanist, but he faithfully recorded data obtained from interviews and surveys about the Mongols in Mongolia collection and consumption of local wild plants during 1940-1951. His research mission meant to focus on forage grass, the feed plant that livestock would consume.Nevertheless, he also recorded the wild plants for human consumption. Although his records on the edible parts and intake methods of some plants are incomplete, it provided ethnobotanical materials aged more than 70 years, representing a living history of ethnobotany from the perspective of the history of science. Even by today`s standards, it will be challenging to obtain first-hand information of the richness and to the extent of Yunatov’s research.

Nevertheless, he also recorded the wild plants for human consumption. Although his records on the edible parts and intake methods of some plants are incomplete, it provided ethnobotanical materials aged more than 70 years, representing a living history of ethnobotany from the perspective of the history of science.
Even by today`s standards, it will be challenging to obtain rst-hand information of the richness and to Ethnobotanical studies on uncultivated edible plants in the Mongolian Plateau were based on the theory and methodology of ethnobotany. Moreover, it had been carried out on the edible plants of given areas [1][2][3][4], wild edible fruits [5][6][7][8], wild vegetables [9,10], tea substitute plants [11,12], and ethnobotany of speci c plant taxa related to food in some aspects [13][14][15][16] [19]. A recently published article on textual research on the Mongol names of Gramineous forage in the book "Advice to the People on How to Manage Animal Husbandry", belongs to an arrangement of ethnobotanical information in the classical literature [20]. Jamsrangiin Sambuu (1895-1972) compiled the book, and the grazing experience of herdsmen in Mongolia was summarized in the form of advisement [21].
Alexander Afanasievich Yunatov (Александр Афанасьевич Юнатов, 1909-1967) was a famous botanist in the former Soviet Union, and he was known for being a geobotanist, phylogeographer, plant researcher of Central Asia, and later complemented as an organizer of science (Fig,1[22]). He was born in Materials FPM also recorded local names, folk understanding and evaluation of the forage value, as well as other relevant cultural meanings and uses of local uncultivated plants. It had been valuable information apart from conventional expounds, such as morphological characteristics, distribution, habitat, phenology, palatability and nutrition of forage plants. From the introduction of the book, the author's view on folk plant knowledge is entirely consistent with the theory of ethnobotany. The interviewing method adopted by the author in his eldwork was precisely the same as the critical informant interview method of classical ethnobotany (Fig. 5-6). In the analysis and evaluation of folk nomenclature and classi cation, Russian adjective этноботанической was used in a sense similar word of ethnobotany in English. Therefore, it could be inferred that the author possessed the knowledge and concept of ethnobotany while composing the book. According to the current data, this is the book that has the most abundant records of folk knowledge of wild plants used by the Mongolian herdsman in Mongolia during the 1940s-1950 s. Therefore, it is necessary to arrange, inventory, analyze and evaluate the ethnobotanical information recorded in the book. The fth chapter of FPM was called "A systematic expounds of forage plants", and it was the crucial chapter of the book. The fth chapter has 272 pages, accounting for 77.49% of the entire book. It elaborated on plant families, genera, and species in order of Pteridophyta (2 families, two genera, three species), Gymnospermae (2 families, two genera, ve species), and Angiospermae (62 families,187 genera, 546 species). In the Angiosperm, Monocotyledoneae had been listed in the front of Dicotyledoneae. In Dicotyledoneae, the Salicaceae was arranged at rst. Such ordering proved that the families of Angiosperm in FPM were arranged according to Engler and Parantl's early system of classi cation. The order and content of elaboration were speci ed to a speci c plant, including pro les of local Mongol names, morphology, distribution, habitats, ecological characteristics, phenology, palatability to livestock, particular forage use, usage for local people themselves, and chemical composition. Among The local names of plants and the knowledge of grazing use (indirect method) will be studied and written about separately.

Data arrangement
The records of plants with local edible use in FPM were sorted out through careful reading and understanding among three versions of the book. This step is equivalent to ethnobotanical eldwork, and fortunately, it had been completed by Yunatov as early as 70 years ago.

Revision of scienti c names
Some of the scienti c names used by the author in FPM were synonyms complied to current taxonomy. According to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), some plants' popular names were found and adopted.

Categorization and Ethnobotanical inventories
The categorization of Edible plants in FPM was based on purposes of use. Ethnobotanical catalogues were made following the methods of classical ethnobotany [27][28][29][30]. Scienti c names alphabetically list entries in all tables.

Results
Taxonomic features of wild edible plants A total of 35 species of wild edible plants were recorded in FPM, which belong to 15 families and 25 genera. On the level of family, ten species of Liliaceae were reported as very prominent. Also, six species of Rosaceae, three species of Chenopodiaceae, two species of Poaceae, Polygonaceae, Ranunculaceae, and Brassicaceae were reported, and each of the other eight families contained only one species. On the level of genus, it has recorded eight species of Allium with prominence. Moreover, it has reported two species of Lilium, Potentilla and Paeonia, and it showed each of the other 21 genera with only one species.

Food categories
According to the original records, the author created ve categories of food use based on the mode of use by the folk for classi cation of wild plant edibles. The groups included wild grain and grain substitutes, wild vegetables, wild fruits, tea substitutes, and seasonings sourced from wild (Table 1). Among them, Allium lineare L. was reported to be used as both vegetable and seasoning, Paeonia lacti ora Pall. Furthermore, Paeonia anomala L. used as both grain substitutes and tea substitutes, and Polygonum viviparum L. were recorded as for the use of both grain substitutes and seasoning. Original records, ethnobotanical inventory and discussion

Wild Grain and Grain Substitutes
The original records of wild grain and grain substitutes in FPM were translated as follows:  (l) Rheum nanum Siev. ex Pall.: The roots were dried and ground into our for making pancakes by herdsmen.
Wild grain and grain substitutes are sourced from the starch-rich parts, such as seeds, bulbs, roots and rhizomes, comprising 12 species of wild plants which account for 34.28% of all edible plant species. The current paper listed the plant species, containing seeds used as grain as wild grain and the plant species whose underground parts of bulbs, roots and rhizomes were used as grain substitutes (Table 2).
A large portion of wild grain and grain substitute plants might correlate to the underdevelopment of grain production in Mongolia at the time. The nomadic Mongolian herdsmen could not guarantee food supply at a particular time since the nomadic Mongolians had not developed agriculture and food production in the past. However, they select and collected wild grain and grain substitutes from viable plants to meet the demand for starch in their dietary structure.
Among wild grain and plants with grain substitute, intake method of bulbs of Lilium pumilum was carefully combined with traditional local dairy products. The collection method for Polygonum viviparum (common name: alpine bistort) rhizomes involved a process of plundering the food of mice. Local Mongols referred to a gathering of rhizomes stored by mice as "opening the alpine bistort palace (mine)" [31]. It demonstrated the special ecological relationship among people, plants, and animals.

Wild vegetables
The original records of wild vegetables in FPM were translated as follows: (e) Allium senescens L.: It is considered a very resourceful plant by the locals. For example, the bulbs, the lower part of the stems and the tender leaves could all used for food. Harvested fresh plant could be purchased and stored for later use in winter. It is required to processing through fermentation, drying or crushing before storage. Sometimes it could be mixed with goat cheese (aaruul) and baked into pancakes.
(f) Allium victorialis L.: The tender leaves can be consumed in fresh or salted state. It is sold in large quantities in the local markets of Ulaanbaatar and Altanbulag.   Mongols have a long history of using Allium ramosum, Allium senescens and Allium victorialis in diets, and the record of dietary application can be traced back to the 12th century [18]. It is reported that nine species of Allium were used as vegetables, non-staple food and seasonings by the Inner Mongolians [15]. Among them, Allium ramosum had been very special in terms of use [14]. The Mongols in Arhorchin Banner also used Allium ramosum, Allium senescens, Allium victorialis, Cynanchum thesioides, Ulmus pumila as wild vegetables [1]. In addition to using Cynanchum thesioides and Ulmus pumila as vegetables, Mongols in Arhorchin Banner also included young fruits of the above species as fruits in their dietary structure [5]. Tender leaves, as well as in orescens of Allium ramosum and Allium senescens, and young fruits of Cynanchum thesioides were consumed as vegetables by the Mongols in Daqinggou of Inner Mongolia, China [10]. The Mongols in Alashan Left Banner of Alashan League used young fruits of Cynanchum thesioides as edible fruits [6]. Mongols in Xilingol League also used Allium ramosum, Allium senescens, Cynanchum thesioides as wild vegetables [4]. The Mongols in the Ordos plateau also used Cynanchum thesioides, Pugionium dolabratum, Ulmus pumila as wild vegetables. In addition to Pugionium dolabratum, Pugionium cornutum (L.) Gaertn was also eaten as vegetable [3]. Instead of using Pugionium dolabratum, the Mongols in Ejina Banner of Alashan League used another species of Pugionium cornutum (L.) Gaertn. as vegetables [2].

Wild fruits
The original records of wild vegetables in FPM were translated as follows: There are only three species of wild fruits recorded, accounting for 8.57% of all edible plant species (Table  4). It is reported that Malus baccata have been consumed as a fruit by Mongols for a long time. Malus baccata was used as wild fruit in Arhorchin Banner and Xilingol League [1,4,5]. Also, there are records of using Nitraria sibirica as wild fruit in the Ordos plateau, in the Ejina Banner and in the Alshan Left Banner of Alashan League. Apart from that, Nitraria sibirica, Nitraria tangutorum Bobr were also used; furthermore, Nitraria roborowskii Kom. were also consumed as wild fruits [2,3,6].

Tea substitutes
The original records of tea substitutes in FPM were translated as follows: (a) Bergenia crassifolia (L.) Fritsch: Used as tea substitutes.  (Table 5). Drinking milk tea had become one of the characteristics of the Mongolian diet and culture. Mongols have been drinking brick tea (a type of compressed tea) for a long time. The habit of drinking tea can be seen as the direct driving force of choosing and using tea substitutes from local wild plants by Mongol people. The tea substitutes sourced from the wild can relieve the shortage of tea when the brick tea may be unavailable for purchase in a period.  [1,12]. Also, Sanguisorba o cinalis L. roots stems were reported as preferred tea substitutes by Mongols in Xilingol League. However, they tended not to use Potentilla fruticos, but, instead, an alternative species of Potentilla anserina L. (leaves) [4].

Wild seasonings
The original records of wild seasonings in FPM were translated as follows: (a) Allium lineare L.: Seasoning in soups and meats when fresh and dry.
(b) Allium mongolicum Regel: Gobi herders especially like to use fresh or dried (crushed) Allium mongolicum as meat seasoning. In this regard, herders prefer Allium mongolicum to Allium polyrhizum.  (Table 6). The tender leaves of Allium polyrhizum were consumed as vegetables or in orescens as seasonings by Mongols in Arhorchin Banner [1]. However, in Xilingol League, Mongols used tender leaves of Allium mongolicum and Allium polyrhizum as vegetables and seasonings [4]. In contrast, Mongols from Ordos plateau tended to use the leaves of Allium mongolicum as vegetables and seasonings, and in orescens of Allium polyrhizum for seasonings [3]. Ejina Banner were reported to use tender leaves and in orescens of Allium mongolicum as vegetables, and in orescens of Allium polyrhizum as seasonings [2].
It has been seen as early as in the 12th century when Lilium pumilum, Allium ramosum, Allium senescens, Allium victorialis, Malus baccata, Sanguisorba o cinalis have been collected and used for food by Mongols. It demonstrates that the knowledge of the application of these plants by Mongolians has a long history, from the Genghis Khan era to the present day, thereby representing signi cant cultural and historical value.
Meat and milk are the main elements in the traditional diet structure of Mongol herdsmen. The consumption of Lilium pumilum, Allium senescens, Allium lineare, Nepeta annua, Polygonum viviparum, Saposhnikovia divaricata is tightly integrated with the meat and dairy intake of the locals.
There are many differences in the selection and utilization of wild plants among the same ethnic groups in different regions. In the categories of wild grain and grain substitutes, Agriophyllum squarrosum, Psammochloa villosa, Rheum nanum and Lilium pumilum shown a signi cant level of similarities among Mongols in the two countries. Mongols used Corispermum, Kalidium and Lilium genera in both countries, but there had been differences in terms of the exact species. In the categories of wild vegetables, Mongols in both countries used Allium ramosum, Allium senescens, Allium victorialis, Cynanchum thesioides, Pugionium dolabratum and Ulmus pumila for vegetables. Still, sometimes there was a slight difference in intake methods. Corispermum, Kalidium and Lilium were evident in the dietary structure of the Mongols in both countries; however, there were differences in the selected species. In the categories of there being incomplete information on the edible parts and eating methods of some plants, it should be borne in mind that the content was written more than 70 years ago. As a result, FPM is an invaluable source of historical ethnobotanical information. Even with present-day facilities, it will be challenging to carry out interviews and investigation to such an extent and obtain such rich and varied rst-hand information.  Figure 1 Yunatov A. A. , Source: [24]