Neglected and underutilized species of plants(NUS)have been identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization as valuable resources for fighting poverty,hunger and malnutrition as they can help make agricultural pro...Neglected and underutilized species of plants(NUS)have been identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization as valuable resources for fighting poverty,hunger and malnutrition as they can help make agricultural production systems more sustainable and resilient.Adaptation of NUS to changing environments over several millennia has rendered most of these plants resistant to pests and climate change.In this paper,we explore the potential values of some of the Mayan fruit trees justifying conservation efforts in their native habitats.Our research was primarily based on a scoping review using Google Scholar.We considered articles published in English,Spanish and Portuguese.Our review rendered two sets of articles including those focusing on the nutritional and medicinal properties of NUS and their products,and those focusing on their uses in traditional medicine.Both sets of papers strongly support arguments for conservation of NUS.Additionally,our scoping review expands and includes a case study on the conservation of NUS,highlighting the critical role of civil society on how it can spearhead rescue efforts of botanical resources through the creation of what is possibly the first arboretum of its kind in the Americas.Among the project's key selling points was not only the rescue of an important component of Yucatan's cultural heritage but its nutritional value as well as its potential medicinal properties.Our paper is not prescriptive on how to preserve or even commercially exploit NUS.It is intended as a thought-provoking piece on the potential of a One Health approach as a multi-sectoral platform to support conservation efforts,while stimulating greater interest in the subject and encouraging more action from the academic and pharmaceutical sectors as well as civil society.展开更多
The author centers on writing seen both as a human ability and a transcription of oral language,and yet she very heavily refuses there to be any continuity from oral to written language,though once or twice what she s...The author centers on writing seen both as a human ability and a transcription of oral language,and yet she very heavily refuses there to be any continuity from oral to written language,though once or twice what she says,like in her fifth step about“assigning sounds to signs”,is exactly the reverse of what Homo Sapiens did when he developed writing:he assigned signs to sounds.No matter what way it works for a decipherer,and for Homo Sapiens when he developed some writing system for his/her/their language,and his/her/their language alone in 6-8,000 BCE,the connection between an oral language and its written version is connected,but flexible so that it can be easily replaced by another written code for the very same oral utterances,like the Phoenicians developing the first real consonantal alphabet to replace,for Semitic languages,the Cuneiform writing of the Sumerians(Indo-Iranian)and Akkadians(Semitic),and later on the Greeks adding the vowels of Indo-European languages to the Phoenician alphabet that only had“alep”and only when it was the initial sound or letter of a word.She alludes to signs in painted caves,hence going back to 45,000 BCE,and all over the world,but she does not exploit it.She acknowledges there were six cradles in the world and does not give them in chronological order,hence does not link them to the general evolution of the concerned human groups,and she neglects the fact that Egyptian writing and Sumerian writing developed at the same time or so but with a strong link between them:the Akkadians were the scribes of the Sumerians and they were Semitic like the Egyptians,whereas the Sumerians were Indo-Iranian coming down from the Iranian Plateau and settling in Mesopotamia before moving on.She mistakenly declares them Turkic,or speaking Turkish,an agglutinative language.Mutations selected naturally transformed the foot,the larynx,the respiratory system,the articulatory system,the subglottal zone,and its innervation of the pre-Sapiens Hominins concerned to enable Homo Sapiens to become w展开更多
文摘Neglected and underutilized species of plants(NUS)have been identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization as valuable resources for fighting poverty,hunger and malnutrition as they can help make agricultural production systems more sustainable and resilient.Adaptation of NUS to changing environments over several millennia has rendered most of these plants resistant to pests and climate change.In this paper,we explore the potential values of some of the Mayan fruit trees justifying conservation efforts in their native habitats.Our research was primarily based on a scoping review using Google Scholar.We considered articles published in English,Spanish and Portuguese.Our review rendered two sets of articles including those focusing on the nutritional and medicinal properties of NUS and their products,and those focusing on their uses in traditional medicine.Both sets of papers strongly support arguments for conservation of NUS.Additionally,our scoping review expands and includes a case study on the conservation of NUS,highlighting the critical role of civil society on how it can spearhead rescue efforts of botanical resources through the creation of what is possibly the first arboretum of its kind in the Americas.Among the project's key selling points was not only the rescue of an important component of Yucatan's cultural heritage but its nutritional value as well as its potential medicinal properties.Our paper is not prescriptive on how to preserve or even commercially exploit NUS.It is intended as a thought-provoking piece on the potential of a One Health approach as a multi-sectoral platform to support conservation efforts,while stimulating greater interest in the subject and encouraging more action from the academic and pharmaceutical sectors as well as civil society.
文摘The author centers on writing seen both as a human ability and a transcription of oral language,and yet she very heavily refuses there to be any continuity from oral to written language,though once or twice what she says,like in her fifth step about“assigning sounds to signs”,is exactly the reverse of what Homo Sapiens did when he developed writing:he assigned signs to sounds.No matter what way it works for a decipherer,and for Homo Sapiens when he developed some writing system for his/her/their language,and his/her/their language alone in 6-8,000 BCE,the connection between an oral language and its written version is connected,but flexible so that it can be easily replaced by another written code for the very same oral utterances,like the Phoenicians developing the first real consonantal alphabet to replace,for Semitic languages,the Cuneiform writing of the Sumerians(Indo-Iranian)and Akkadians(Semitic),and later on the Greeks adding the vowels of Indo-European languages to the Phoenician alphabet that only had“alep”and only when it was the initial sound or letter of a word.She alludes to signs in painted caves,hence going back to 45,000 BCE,and all over the world,but she does not exploit it.She acknowledges there were six cradles in the world and does not give them in chronological order,hence does not link them to the general evolution of the concerned human groups,and she neglects the fact that Egyptian writing and Sumerian writing developed at the same time or so but with a strong link between them:the Akkadians were the scribes of the Sumerians and they were Semitic like the Egyptians,whereas the Sumerians were Indo-Iranian coming down from the Iranian Plateau and settling in Mesopotamia before moving on.She mistakenly declares them Turkic,or speaking Turkish,an agglutinative language.Mutations selected naturally transformed the foot,the larynx,the respiratory system,the articulatory system,the subglottal zone,and its innervation of the pre-Sapiens Hominins concerned to enable Homo Sapiens to become w
