Next Article in Journal
In Vitro Production of Somaclones with Decreased Erucic Acid Content in Indian Mustard [Brassica juncea (Linn.) Czern&Coss]
Next Article in Special Issue
Antifungal Activity against Botryosphaeriaceae Fungi of the Hydro-Methanolic Extract of Silybum marianum Capitula Conjugated with Stevioside
Previous Article in Journal
Different Rhizospheric pH Conditions Affect Nutrient Accumulations in Rice under Salinity Stress
Previous Article in Special Issue
Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Artemisia argyi on Ethanol-Induced Gastric Ulcer: Analytical, In Vitro and In Vivo Studies for the Identification of Action Mechanism and Active Compounds
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/plants10071296
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Four Centuries of Medicinal Mosses and Liverworts in European Ethnopharmacy and Scientific Pharmacy: A Review

by
Jacek Drobnik
* and
Adam Stebel
Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Ostrogórska 30, 41–200 Sosnowiec, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(7), 1296; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071296
Submission received: 28 May 2021 / Revised: 7 June 2021 / Accepted: 11 June 2021 / Published: 25 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural Resources of Medicinal and Cosmetic Plants)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Medicinal use of bryophytes dates to ancient times, but it has always been marginal due to their small size, difficult identification, lack of conspicuous organs which would attract attention (flowers, fruits) and insipid taste of the herb. The earliest testimonies of their medical use come from the 1500s. The interest in medicinal bryophytes diminished considerably in the 1880s, except for Sphagnum spp., which became a source of dressing material. The second half of the 20th century saw the revival of the study of bryophyte chemistry. (2) Historical printed sources from 1616 to 1889 were queried. Bryophyte species found were taxonomically identified and presented against the background of their confirmed properties and ecology. The study was supplemented with historical vs. modern ethnomedicinal data. (3) In 26 publications, 28 species were identified. Modern usage was known for 10 of them. Medicinal properties of 16 species were confirmed. (4) Species of wide geographical distribution range were (or are still being) used in local folk medicines. Historical ethnobiological and ethnopharmaceutical uses of them are sometimes convergent with their confirmed properties, mostly external (as antimicrobial or cytotoxic remedies).

1. Introduction

Bryophytes, as any other plant, drew the interest of modern-period botanists in the early 16th century. European herbaria created between ca. 1542–1577 contain as many as 34 identifiable species of bryophytes, collected intentionally (i.e., excluding “by-catches”), and representatives of eight further genera [1]. In the same period, bryophytes must have been also considered as potential medicinal plants. Fuchs in 1549 [2] (p. 600) was able to propose a new (i.e., unknown to Dioscorides) moss species, Polytrichum, as a candidate for a medicinal species [3] and described its usage this way: “A decoction of this plant in water or lye strengthens the roots of the hair, and, therefore, in cases of alopecia, covers the bald head with hair. As a potion, it helps considerably the extraction of thick and viscous material from the chest and lungs; it breaks up stones and is diuretic. It is helpful in epilepsy and ailments of the spleen. It disperses tumours [4] (p. 497), after [5].
In 1600, Schwenckfeld [6] knew as many as three medicinal moss species identified by us [3] as Polytrichum commune Hedw., P. formosum Hedw. and Funaria hygrometrica Hedw., and 2–4 other nonmedicinal mosses [3], which were to be distinguished from. Ölhafen [7] (p. 164) discovered that Thuidium tamariscinum (Hedw.) Schimp. was a hydragoge plant, and this information was absent in the first edition of his book released in 1643 [8].
Moreover, the very beginning of the 17th century saw surprisingly many discoveries of relatively rare and inconspicuous bryophyte species. Let us try to trace the careers of some moss species as candidates for medicinal plants. The following three mosses were described and imaged in 1616 in a botanical work by Colonna [9]:
1. Targionia hypophylla L. was discovered by Colonna [9] (p. 333) and named lichen acaulis hypophyllocarpos, renamed as lichen petraeus minimus fructu orobi [10] (p. 362), and lichen petraeus minimus acaulis [11] (p. 1315). All these authors provided only botanical descriptions, and florists of the 18th century, who normally depicted medicinal plants in their floras, did not mention medicinal properties, either. Rupp [12] (p. 294) found T. hypophylla near Jena, Goüan [13] (p. 453) near Montpellier, and Withering [14] (p. 701) in the British Isles. It was considered doubtful in Britain [15] (p. 287) (due to its extreme rarity) until it was reported indisputably from Suffolk and Devonshire. T. hypophylla is frequent only in southern Europe;
2. Lichen primus Plinii pileatus is Conocephalum conicum (L.) Underw., according to [16] (p. 184). Colonna [9] (p. 330) stressed: “not mentioned by Dioscorides”. It was used in the same way as Marchantia polymorpha L. at least due to its similar habit and habitat [16] (pp. 195–196), and later became an independent article of materia medica named herba Marchantiae conicae [17] (p. 188). Medicinal usage of C. conicum dates back to the 18th century, as we can judge from this polynomial: hepatica vulgaris major vel officinarum Italiae. This name, established by an Italian botanist Micheli [18] (p. 3), emphasizes the presence of C. conicum in therapy and drugstores. Raddi [19] (p. 8) proposed the binomial Fegatella officinalis Raddi. This taxon was likely mentioned as Conocephalus officinalis by Trevisan [20] (p. 785) on his list of Italian liverworts. All these botanical names, as well as the nationality of their authors, reveal the continuous use of this species in Italian medicine;
3. Lichen alter minor caule calceato hypodedemenos [9] (p. 332) is Pellia epiphylla (L.) Corda (=Jungermannia epiphylla L.) [21] (p. [vi]), [22] (p. 7), a plant which is frequent but rather difficult to distinguish from other related thalloid species, and therefore we do not find further mentions of it in European pharmacy.
The examples of T. hypophylla and P. epiphylla prove that the rarity and small size of the plants (as well as low mass of a potential herbal material) prevented them from being proposed as medicinal plants. Only C. conicum, which was discovered in the same year, 1616, became embedded in Italian pharmacy in the early years of the 18th century.
Similarly, common species of mosses could be retained in therapy in external applications. An example is Brachythecium rutabulum (Hedw.) Schimp., which was probably recommended in wound dressing at least between 1651 and 1731 [23]. It was a common species; a weed in gardens [24] (p. 444).
In the 18th century, the economical and medicinal value of bryophytes and lichens became a subject of medical dissertations, e.g., by [25,26,27], but no new pharmacological activities were discovered.

2. Aim of the Work

This paper reviews the history of the knowledge of medicinal bryophytes between the 16th and 19th centuries as seen in the pharmaceutical, ethnomedicinal and medical works printed in Europe and North America. We present these old records against the background of modern ethnopharmaceutical, pharmacological and phytochemical data to show both continuations in use and knowledge gaps, i.e., species which deserve in-depth research of their pharmacological potential. The ecology of bryophytes (i.e., their abundance, habitats) is also a factor shaping their availability as a potential herbal stock. We gathered data on medicinal bryophytes from historical botanical and pharmaceutical prints (containing pharmaceutical or ethnomedical mentions), as well as from many economical and medical botany reviews (which were frequently published in the 19th century).
Having identified the species mentioned in the original texts, their historical medicinal applications were interpreted and cross-checked with ethnopharmacological monographs (especially [5] and [28]), as well as the most recent data on their chemical components and pharmacology by [28,29,30,31,32].

3. Materials and Methods

We queried printed botanical and pharmaceutical publications for mentions of medicinal plants identifiable as mosses or liverworts. They included: botano-medical books (aka herbals), dispensatories, pharmacopoeias, formularies, materia medica handbooks and pharmaceutical taxa (i.e., price-books).
Old polynomials of bryophytes (from pre-Linnaean period in botany) usually contained the Latin nouns hepatica, muscus, adiantum and polytrichum. We tracked their subsequent synonymic polynomials in early taxonomical works (by Dillen, Linnaeus and Hedwig), which eventually led us to first binomial basonyms and further binomial nomenclature. Such partial results have been already published by us [3,8,23]. We queried databases (ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed) for the identified binomials to find data on their chemical compounds and their pharmacology. Independently, we searched ethnomedicinal and ethnopharmaceutical sources for any mentions of historical or modern use of these species in folk medicine. Types of these sources included: so called natural histories of materia medica, botanical reviews of all known economic plants, reports from scientific expeditions and yearly reports on new ethnomedicinal records (usually titled as new remedies).
“No data” for a given species in Table 1 means that data on chemical composition, pharmacology and uses were absent in the queried databases.

4. List of Historical Medicinal Mosses and Bryophytes

Results are presented in Table 1. It contains 7 identified species of liverworts and 21 species of mosses. Taxonomical and ecological commentary on the species is provided below.

4.1. Taxonomy and Ecology of Historical Medicinal Bryophytes and Their Position in Pharmaceutical Sciences

4.1.1. Liverworts

Aneura pinguis (L.) Dumort. is frequent in calcareous habitats but grows in small populations (forming small turfs) or grows as single plants among other bryophytes [84]. It is similar to other members of the subclass Metzgeriideae, which all were scarcely used medicinally (compare the example of Pellia, below).
Conocephalum conicum (L.) Underw. Gleditsch [85] communicated clearly that the Latin term planta officinalis (‘apothecary plant’) denoted plant materials stored permanently in drugstores, and planta medica (‘medicinal plant’) described any other medicinal species which could be prescribed by a physician. The only bryophyte ever called an apothecary plant was Conocephalum conicum, named Fegatella officinalis by Raddi [19] in 1818, and Conocephalus officinalis by Trevisan [20] in 1874. These binomials, proposed (as nomina nuda) by two botanists of the 19th century (both Italians) prove that C. conicum could play a significant role in Italian pharmacy, and that it deserved to be stored in stock in drugstores (Latin: officina). Moreover, the historical internal uses of C. conicum are similar to those of Marchantia polymorpha L. and these species are similar, too. Their external similarity was noticed by Lightfoot [86] (p. 799) who even compared their pharmacological actions: “the same qualities as M. polymorpha, but to a higher degree. Used to treat or prevent scurvy and to thin the blood” [86]. In the late 1880s, it was rated as a powerful diuretic remedy in urolithiasis [87].
Diplophyllum albicans (L.) Dumort. An infrequent montane liverwort from Europe [33], forming the most common populations capable of yielding herbal material.
Marchantia chenopoda L. does not grow in Europe (Czerwiakowski [39] and Rosenthal [37] reported it mistakenly from a European pharmacy). Its distribution range includes the Caribbean, Middle America, South America, Southern Asia and Oceania, i.e., tropical and subtropical areas of the Americas [88]. Its thalli as a herbal stock were not likely to be imported to Europe.
Marchantia polymorpha L. is a liverwort known since antiquity [89]. It is a ubiquitous species, occurring mainly on man-influenced sites worldwide, except for the Arctic [84]. Today, it is the most widely used liverwort and one of the most cited bryophytes to have medicinal potential [5]. Taxonomy of this polymorphic species is tangled. Bischler-Causse and Boisselier-Dubayle [90] divided M. polymorpha into three subspecies: M. p. subsp. polymorpha (Nees) Burgeff, M. p. subsp. montivagans Bischl. & Boissel.-Dub. and M. p. subsp. ruderalis Bischl. & Boissel.-Dub. Other authors (e.g., Damsholt [84]) consider them as three closely allied species: M. aquatica (Nees) Burgeff (=M. p. subsp. polymorpha), M. alpestris (Nees) Burgeff (=M. p. subsp. montivagans) and M. latifolia Gray (=M. p. subsp. ruderalis). Nowadays, most taxonomists agree that M. polymorpha is a single species with three subspecies (e.g., [91,92]): M. p. subsp. polymorpha grows infrequently in wet places (banks of streams, springs, peat bogs), M. p. subsp. montivagans in wet places in mountains and M. p. subsp. ruderalis is the commonest subspecies of human-altered ecosystems, ubiquitous and usually reported jus as “M. polymorpha”. It is interesting that in phytochemical research none of these subspecies were ever mentioned; hence, we do not know any potential chemical differences among these subtaxa. Regarding the historical ethnopharmacology, M. polymorpha tastes bitter [56] (p. 367). As the taste resembles bile, it could determine folk use in liver conditions (according to the doctrine of signatures).
Pellia epiphylla (L.) Corda is a similar case. Ethnomedical usage of liverworts from this genus (no species given) is known from Canada. Among Hesquait Indians, “this liverwort was used if a child had a sore mouth or throat that prevented them from eating or drinking. They would either drink the juice or chew the pulp of the liverwort” [93] (p. 135). Nitidaht (Ditidaht) Indians used it internally and/or externally “for pain anywhere in the body” [45] (p. 135).
Reboulia hemisphaerica (L.) Raddi—a liverwort mostly from southern Europe, regarded as rare [84]. Its populations are mainly small, so it cannot afford much herbal material.
Targionia hypohylla L., described botanically by Colonna [9] in 1616, lacks a testimony from European ethnopharmacology. However, it was recorded in traditional Hindu medicine for curing scabies, itches and other skin diseases by the Irula tribes [94]. Its strong antifungal and antibacterial properties were recently found [95] and thus its efficacy in wound healing was scientifically confirmed [96].

4.1.2. Mosses

Brachythecium rutabulum (Hedw.) Schimp. is a large moss, growing in lax, glossy, bright green or yellowish green tufts or patches. It is common in Europe and occurs in many habitats, such as soil (both in woodland and non-forest vegetation), tree boles, logs, stones and walls [97]. It is frequently found in man-made habitats such as lawns or gardens, where it is regarded as an unwanted plant. B. rutabulum deserves a pharmacological study, because [98] recently reported antimicrobial activity of an allied species, B. campestre (Müll. Hal.) Schimp.
Fontinalis antipyretica Hedw., one of Europe’s largest mosses, grows sometimes in large clusters in clean streams and lakes [97], from where it can be harvested with ease.
Funaria hygrometrica Hedw., a tiny moss species, but sometimes very abundant in man-made habitats. It seems easy to gather and was one of the first mosses mentioned in floras and in medicinal and botanical works (e.g., [6,99]; see [3]).
Grimmia pulvinata (Hedw.) Sm. (=Dryptodon pulvinatus (Hedw.) Brid.) grows on stones, walls and concrete constructions. Easily available, one of the commonest European members of the Grimmiaceae family [97].
Homalothecium sericeum (Hedw.) Schimp. is moderately robust, glossy, yellowish green to golden brown and occurs in dense rough mats or patches, mainly on the bark of trees and on bare rocks. Sometimes it grows on man-made habitats such as walls and roofs, and it is common in Europe [97].
Meesia: members of this genus grow in peat bogs, mainly in northern Europe, but are rare outside this area, being glacial relics. They seem therefore inaccessible for harvesting, and these species might be misidentified.
Polytrichum commune Hedw., a conspicuous moss, the largest representative of its genus, frequent in Europe in moist habitats [97]. Used in ethnopharmacies worldwide [5].
Polytrichum formosum Hedw. and P. longisetum Brid. are frequent in forests of Europe [97] and are of large size, and therefore seem to be easily harvested (especially P. formosum).
Polytrichum juniperinum Hedw. is another conspicuous species of this genus, which prefers dry and acidic habitats, frequent in Europe [97].
Ptilium crista-castrensis (Hedw.) De Not.—a forest species, sometimes abundant in European coniferous forests [97].
Hylocomiadelphus triquetrus (Hedw.) Ochyra & Stebel, Rhytidiadelphus loreus (Hedw.) Warnst., Rh. squarrosus (Hedw.) Warnst., Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw. and Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt. are large moss species, growing mostly in forests, thickets and meadows, all common across Europe [97]. They seem easy to harvest as herbal stock.

5. Discussion

Historical ethnobiological and ethnopharmaceutical uses of bryophytes are sometimes convergent with our contemporary knowledge, e.g., in the case of many bryophytes used externally which prove to be antimicrobial [28,29,31]. However, the greatest number of biochemical and pharmacological reports on European bryophytes concern Marchantia polymorpha [28,30,31,46].
The persistence of Conocephalum conicum in the official Italian pharmacy of the 19th century is peculiar. Therefore, C. conicum deserves pharmacological research as deep as that of M. polymorpha.
The only description of Marchantia chenopoda as a remedy was published by [55] from Cuba in 1889, probably based on earlier observations or testimonies. Its usage in liver affections by [37,38,55] is convergent or may originate from an unknown earlier source. Diuretic action in hydrops was cited by de la Maza [55] according to a physician named Short.
The following bryophyte species mentioned in this article form small populations which make their harvesting rather difficult and improbable: Aneura pinguis, Meesia spp., Reboullia hemispherica, Diplophyllum albicans and Targionia hypophylla. Abundance of the following species makes their harvesting possible and effective (and has done so throughout the centuries): Brachythecium rutabulum, Conocephalum conicum, Fontinalis antipyretica, Funaria hygrometrica, Grimmia pulvinata, Homalothecium sericeum, Marchantia polymorpha, Polytrichum spp., Ptillium crista-castrensis, Rhytidiadelphus spp., Sphagnum spp. and Thuidium tamariscinum.
We are still lacking any biochemical and pharmacological data on the following European bryophyte species used here in the past centuries: Aneura pinguis (L.) Dumort., Brachythecium rutabulum (Hedw.) Schimp. and Meesia uliginosa Hedw.
Our knowledge of many further species seems incomplete when related to many ethnopharmacological reports on their usage, and it requires assessment. Here belong: Pleurozium schreberi, Rhytidiadelphus loreus, and Thuidium tamariscinum.

6. Conclusions

1. Historical European works on vegetable materia medica and therapy from the years 1616–1889 mention 28 identifiable species of bryophytes (21 mosses, 7 liverworts and no species of hornworts). Only three of them (Aneura pinguis, Brachythecium rutabulum and Meesia uliginosa) have not been searched for pharmacologically active substances so far;
2. Conocephalum conicum was the only bryophyte species of wider therapeutical usage in the 18th and 19th centuries (especially in Italian pharmacy);
3. Marchantia chenopoda was reported as a medicinal plant from Cuba in 1889, but prior to this year it was mentioned twice by European materia medica writers (1849 and 1862) as a diuretic and in liver aliments, probably based on earlier clinical or ethnopharmaceutical testimonies. Its herb was never seen in Europe;
4. Anthocerotophyta is the division of bryophytes which gathers minute organisms growing in small populations. They have never been used medicinally [5] (p. 186). However, ethnopharmaceutical information was recently published about the use of Ceratophyllum demersum L. as a purgative, astringent, constipating and antipyretic [28,45]. C. demersum was erroneously classified among hornworts (i.e., bryophytes) due to its English name rigid hornwort. It is a flowering plant of the Ceratophyllaceae family which contains water plants growing in tropical and temperate regions [100]. Hence, Anthocerotophyta remain the only division of bryophytes without known ethnopharmacological uses.

Author Contributions

J.D. conceptualized the study. J.D. reviewed the historical sources, and A.S. wrote the taxonomical and ecological part, as well as provided the phytopharmaceutical information on each identified species. A.S. and J.D. drafted and wrote the manuscript. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SILESIA IN KATOWICE, grant number PCN–1–098/K/0/F.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stech, M.; van Andel, T.; Aptroot, A.; Bertin, A.; Stefanaki, A. Bryophytes and lichens in 16th-century herbaria. J. Bryol. 2018, 40, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Fuchs, L. De Historia Stirpium Commentarii Insignes; Balthazarus Arnollet: Lugduni, France, 1549. [Google Scholar]
  3. Drobnik, J.; Stebel, A. Central European medicinal bryophytes in the 16th-century work by Caspar Schwenckfeld, and their ethnopharmacological origin. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015, 175, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Meyer, F.G.; Trueblood, E.W.E.; Heller, J.L.; Fuchs, L.; Ewan, J.A. The Great Herbal of Leonhart Fuchs: De Historia Stirpium Commentarii Insignes, 1542 (Notable Commentaries on the History of Plants); Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  5. Harris, E.S.J. Ethnobryology: Traditional uses and folk classification of bryophytes. Bryologist 2008, 111, 169–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Schwenckfeld, C. Stirpium et Fossilium Silesiae Catalogus in Quo Praeter Etymon, Natales, Tempus, Natura et Vires Cum Variis Experimentis Assignatur; Impensis Davidis Alberti, Bibliopolae Vratislaviensis: Lipsiae, Germany, 1600. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ölhafen, N. Elenchus Plantarum circa Nobile Borussorum Dantiscum Sua Sponte Nascentium Cum Synonymia Earundem Latina et Germanica, Indice Autorum, Locis Natalibus, Florum Temporibus et Viribus, Denuo Recensitus ac Locupletatus a Successore Ejus, de Quo in Praefatione; [publisher not identified]: Dantisci, Poland, 1656. [Google Scholar]
  8. Drobnik, J.; Stebel, A.; Ochyra, R. The earliest bryological data from East-Central Europe. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 2016, 53, 383–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Colonna, F. Minus Cognitarum Rariorumque Nostro Coelo Orientium Stirpium εκφρασις, Qua Non Pauacae ab Antiquioribus Theophrasto, Dioscoride, Plinio, Galeno, Aliisque Descriptae… Item de Aquatilibus Aliisque Nonnullis Anibalibus; Apud Iacobum Mascardum: Romae, Italy, 1616. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bauhin, C. Πίναξ Theatri Botanici; Sumptibus & typis Ludovici Regis: Basileae, Switzerland, 1623. [Google Scholar]
  11. Parkinson, J. Theatrum Botanicum; Tho. Cotes: London, UK, 1640. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rupp, H.B. Flora Ienensis sive Enumeratio Plantarum, Tam Sponte Circa Ienam, et in Locis Vicinis Nascentium, Quam in Hortis Obviarum…; Apud Ernestum Claud. Bailliar: Francofurti et Lipsiae, Germany, 1726. [Google Scholar]
  13. Goüan, A. Flora Montspeliaca Sistens Plantas No. 1850 ad Sua Genera Relatas; Sumptibus Benedicti Duplain: Lugduni, France, 1765. [Google Scholar]
  14. Withering, W. A Botanical Arrangement of All the Vegetables Naturally Growing in Great Britain; T. Cadel & P. Elmsley: Birmingham, UK, 1776; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  15. Smith, J.E. English Botany or, Coloured Figures of British Plants, with Their Essential Characters, Synonyms and Places of Growth; J. Davis: London, UK, 1795; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nees von Esenbeck, C.G. Naturgeschichte der Europäischen Lebermoose: Mit Besonderer Beziehung auf Schlesien und Die Oertlichkeiten des Riesengebirgs; Bei Grass, Barth und Comp.: Breslau, Poland, 1838. [Google Scholar]
  17. Aschenbrenner, M. Die Neueren Arzneimittel und Arzneibereitungsformen mit Vorzüglicher Berücksichtigung des Bedürfnisses Praktischer Aerzte Bearbeitet; F. Enke′s Verlagsbuchhandlung: Erlangen, Germany, 1843. [Google Scholar]
  18. Micheli, P.A. Nova Plantarum Genera Iuxta Tournefortii Methodum Disposita Quibus Plantæ 1900 Recensentur, Scilicet Fere 1400 Nondum Observatae; Typis Bernardi Paperinii, Typographi r. c. Magnae Principis Viduae ab Etruria: Florentiae, Italy, 1729. [Google Scholar]
  19. Raddi, J. Novarum vel Rariorum ex Cryptogamia Stirpium in Agro Florentino Collectarum Decades Duae; Typis Annesii de Nobilibus: Bolognae, Italy, 1818. [Google Scholar]
  20. Trevisan, V. Nuovo censo delle epatiche Italiane. In Rendiconti. Reale Istitituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere; Ser. 2; Tipografia di Giuseppe Bernardoni: Milano, Italy, 1874; Volume 7, pp. 776–786. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hooker, W.J. British Jungermanniae; Being a History and Description with Colored Figures, of Each Species of the Genus; Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown: London, UK, 1816; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lindberg, S.O. Revisio Critica Iconum in Opere Flora Danica Muscos Illustrantium; Ex Officina typographica Societatis Litterariae Fennicae: Helsingforsiae, Finnland, 1871. [Google Scholar]
  23. Drobnik, J.; Stebel, A. Brachythecium rutabulum, a neglected medicinal moss from the 17th century. Hum. Ecol. 2017, 46, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Boecler, J. Cynosurae Materiae Medicae Continuatio Secunda; Sumptibus Johannis Beckii: Argentorati, France, 1731. [Google Scholar]
  25. Berlin, A.H. Dissertatio academica Usum Muscorum Breviter Delineatura…; [publisher not identified]: Upsaliae, Sweden, 1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Weber, G.H. Commentario Botanico-Medica Sistens Vires Plantarum Cryptogamicarum Medicas Quam Una Cum Adiectis Quibusdam Thesibus Magnifico Praeside D. Frider. Christiano Struve p.t. Protectore… Proponit Auctor G. H. Weber; Litteris Mich. Frieder. Bartschii, acad. typogr.: Kiliae Holsatorum, Germany, 1773. [Google Scholar]
  27. Vogler, I.P. Dissertatio de Muscis et Algis Notioribus Valetudini Servientibus; Apud Iohannem Iacobum Braun: Giessae, Germany, 1775. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ozturk, M.; Gökler, I.; Altay, V. Medicinal bryophytes distributed in Turkey. In Plants and Human Health; Ozturk, M., Hakeem, K.R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Asakawa, Y.; Ludwiczuk, A.; Hashimoto, T. Cytotoxic and antiviral compounds from bryophytes and inedible fungi. J. Pre-Clin. Clin. Res. 2013, 7, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Asakawa, Y.; Ludwiczuk, A.; Nagashima, T. Phytochemical and biological studies of bryophytes. Phytochemistry 2013, 91, 52–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Asakawa, Y.; Ludwiczuk, A.; Nagashima, F. Chemical constituents of bryophytes. Bio- and chemical diversity, biological activity, and chemosystematics. In Progress in the Chemistry of Organic Natural Products; Kinghorn, A.D., Falk, H., Kobayashi, J., Eds.; Springer: Wien, Austria, 2013; pp. 1–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Asakawa, Y. The isolation, structure elucidation, and bio- and total synthesis of bis-bibenzyls, from liverworts and their biological activity. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2017, 12, 1335–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. The Plant List. Version 1.1. 2013. Available online: http://www.theplantlist.org/ with further updates (accessed on 7 June 2021).
  34. Rosenthal, D.A. Synopsis Plantarum Diaphoricarum. Systematische Übersicht der Heil, Nutz- und Giftpflanzen aller Länder; Enke, F., Ed.; Erlangen, Germany, 1862; Volume 1–2. Available online: https://search.books2ebooks.eu/Record/bium_02371817X (accessed on 28 May 2021).
  35. Bauhin, J. Historia Plantarum Universalis Nova et Absolutissima Cum Consensu et Dissensu Circa Eas; [Publisher Not Identified]: Ebroduni, Switzerland, 1651. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Historia-Plantarum-Universalis-Absolutissima-Consensu/dp/1396370730 (accessed on 28 May 2021).
  36. Gray, S.F. A Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia Being A Treatise of Pharmacology in General; Thomas & George Underwood: London, UK, 1821. [Google Scholar]
  37. Singh, M.; Singh, S.; Nath, V.; Sahu, V.; Rawat, A.K.S. Antibacterial activity of some bryophytes used traditionally for the treatment of burn infections. Pharm. Biol. 2011, 49, 526–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Abay, G.; Altun, M.; Karakoc, O.C.; Gul, F.; Demirtas, I. Insecticidal activity of fatty acid-rich Turkish bryophyte extracts against Sitophilus granarius (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2013, 16, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Czerwiakowski, I.R. Opisanie Roślin Skrytopłciowych Lékarskich i Przemysłowych. Część 1; W drukarni Uniwersytetu: Kraków, Poland, 1849. [Google Scholar]
  40. Linnaeus, C. Flora Suecica, 2nd ed.; Sumtu et Literis Laurentii Salvii: Stockholmiae, Sweden, 1755. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pant, G.P. Medicinal uses of bryophytes. In Topics in Bryology; Chopra, R.N., Ed.; Allied Publisher Limited: New Delhi, India, 1998; pp. 112–124. [Google Scholar]
  42. Drobnik, J.; Stebel, A. Medicinal mosses in pre-Linnaean bryophyte floras of central Europe. An example from the natural history of Poland. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2014, 153, 682–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chandra, S.; Chandra, D.; Barh, A.; Pandey, R.K.; Sharma, I.P. Bryophytes: Hoard of remedies, an ethno-medicinal review. J. Tradit. Complementary Med. 2017, 7, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Cheng, X.; Xiao, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, P.; Li, H.; Yan, H.; Liu, Q. Anti-tumor and pro-apoptotic activity of ethanolic extract and its various fractions from Polytrichum commune L. ex Hedw in L1210 cells. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2012, 143, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dey, A.; Nath de, J. Antifungal bryophytes: A possible role against human pathogens and in plant protection. Res. J. Bot. 2011, 6, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Veljić, M.; Đurić, A.; Soković, M.; Ćirić, A.; Glamočlija, J.; Marin, P.D. Antimicrobial activity of methanol extracts of fontinalis antipyretica, hypnum cupressiforme, and ctenidium molluscum. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2009, 61, 225–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kluk, K. Dykcyonarz Roślinny. Warszawa, Poland. 1787. Available online: https://polona.pl/item/dykcyonarz-roslinny-w-ktorym-podlug-ukladu-linneusza-sa-opisane-rosliny-nietylko-kraiowe,MzM2NTk3Mw/2/#info:metadata (accessed on 28 May 2021).
  48. Endlicher, S. Enchiridion Botanicum; Sumptibus Guil. Engelmann, Lipsiae, apud Fr. Beck, Braunmüller & Seidel, Carol. Gerold, Mörschner, Rohrmann, Schaumburg & Comp., Tendler & Schäfer, Volke, Wallishausser: Viennae, Austria, 1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Vollár, M.; Gyovai, A.; Szűcs, P.; Zupkó, I.; Marschall, M.; Csupor-Löffler, B.; Bérdi PVecsernyés, A.; Csorba, A.; Liktor-Busa, E. Antiproliferative and antimicrobial activities of selected bryophytes. Molecules 2018, 23, 1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Savaroğlu, F.; Ilhan, S.; Filik-Iscen, C. An evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of some Turkish mosses. J. Med. Plants Res. 2011, 5, 3286–3292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Akani, N.P.; Barika, P.N.; Amakoromo, R. Antibacterial activity of bryophyte (Funaria hygrometrica) on some throat isolates. Int. J. Health Pharm. Res. 2018, 4, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  52. Çolak, E.; Kara, R.; Ezer, T.; Çelik, G.Y.; Elibol, B. Investigation of antimicrobial activity of some turkish pleuroearpic mosses. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 12905–12908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Oztopcu-Vatan, P.; Savaroğlu, F.; Filik-Iscen, C.; Kabadere, S.; Ilhan, S.; Uyar, R. Antimicrobial and antiproliferative activities of Homalothecium sericeum (Hedw.) schimp. extracts. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2011, 20, 461–466. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ertürk, O.; Sahm, H.; Ertürk, E.Y.; Hotaman, H.E.; Koz, B.; Özdemır, Ö. The antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of extracts obtained from some moss species in turkey. Herba Pol. 2015, 61, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. de la Maza, M.G. Ensayo de Farmacofitologia Cubana. Resumen de las Propiedades Medicinales, Especialidad las Recientemente Estudiadas, de Muchas Plantas Indígenas ó de Cultivo. Nuevos Productos; La propaganda Literaria: Habana, Cuba, 1889. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hooper, R. A New Medical Dictionary: Containing an Explanation of the Terms in Anatomy, Physiology… and the Various Branches of Natural Philosophy Connected with Medicine; E. & R; Published by M. Carey & son, Benjamin Warner, and Edward Parker: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1817. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/New-Medical-Dictionary-Containing-Explanation/dp/0342520814 (accessed on 28 May 2021).
  57. Spielmann, J.R. Institutiones Materiae Medicae Praelectionibus Academicis Accommodatae; Apud Bauerum & Socium, Bibliop.: Argentorati, France, 1774. [Google Scholar]
  58. Fu, P.; Lin, S.; Shan, L.; Lu, M.; Shen, Y.H.; Tang, J.; Liu, R.H.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, R.L.; Zhang, W.D. Constituents of the moss polytrichum commune. J. Nat. Prod. 2009, 72, 1335–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sevim, E.; Baş, Y.; Celik, G.; Pınarbaş, M.; Bozdeveci, A.; Ozdemir, T. Antibacterial activity of bryophyte species against Paenibacillus larvae isolates. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2017, 41, 521–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Guo, Z.-F.; Bi, G.-M.; Zhang, Y.-H.; Li, J.-H.; Meng, D.-L. Rare benzonaphthoxanthenones from Chinese folk herbal medicine Polytrichum commune and their anti-neuroinflammatory activities in vitro. Bioorg. Chem. 2020, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Martini, J. Dispensatorium Pharmaceuticum Brunsvicense; Offic. Libraria Orphanotrophei: Brunsvici, Germany, 1777. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bergeret, J.-P. Phytonomatotechnie Universelle, c’est-à-dire l’Art de Donner aux Plantes des Noms Tirés de Leurs Caractères, Nouveau Système au Moyen Duquel on Peut de Soi-Même, Sans le Secours D’aucun Livre, Nommer Toutes les Plantes Qui Croissent Sur la Surface de Notre Globe...; Chez Didot le jeune, Poisson: Paris, France, 1783. [Google Scholar]
  63. Schöpf, J.D. Materia Medica Americana; I. I. Palmius: Erlangae, Germany, 1787. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jiménez, M. Tratado de Materia Farmacéutica; D.N. Sanchiz: Madrid, Spain, 1838. [Google Scholar]
  65. Posner, L.; Simon, C.E. Handbuch der speciellen Arznei-Verordnungslehre; A. Hirschwald: Berlin, Germany, 1855. [Google Scholar]
  66. Begemann, C. Allgemeine Veterinär-Pharmakopöe, Thierärztliche Waarenkunde und Receptirkunde; Schmorl & von Seefeld: Hannover, Germany, 1864. [Google Scholar]
  67. King, J.; Newton, R.S. The Eclectic Dispensatory of the United States of America; H.W. Derby & Co.: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1852. [Google Scholar]
  68. Karpiński, T.M.; Adamczak, A. Antibacterial activity of ethanolic extracts of some moss species. Herba Pol. 2017, 63, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Klavina, L.; Springe, G.; Nikolajeva, V.; Martsinkevich, I.; Nakurte, I.; Dzabijeva, D.; Steinberga, I. Chemical composition analysis, antimicrobial activity and cytotoxicity screening of moss extracts (moss phytochemistry). Molecules 2015, 20, 17221–17243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Wei, H.C.; Ma, S.J.; Wu, C.L. Sesquiterpenoids and cyclic bis-bibenzyls from the liverwort Reboulia Hemisphaerica. Phytochemistry 1995, 39, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sharma, C.; Sharma, A.; Katoch, M. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial activity of methanolic extract and phenolic compounds of a liverwort, reboulia hemispherica. Arch. Bryol. 2013, 193, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  72. Yağlioğlu, M.Ş.; Abay, G.; Demirtaş, İ.; Yağlioğlu, A.Ş. Phytochemical screening, antiproliferative and cytotoxic activities of the mosses Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus (Hedw.) Warnst. and Tortella tortuosa (Hedw.) Limpr. Anatol. Bryol. 2017, 3, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Alan, S.; Koçer, F.; Uyar, G. Antimicrobial activities of some bryophytes in Turkey. Comun. Fasc. Sci. Ank. Ser. C 2018, 27, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dulger, B.; Hacioglu, N.; Uyar, G. Evaluation of antimicrobial activity of some mosses from Turkey. Asian J. Chem. 2009, 21, 4093–4096. [Google Scholar]
  75. Middendorff, A.T. Reise in der Äufsersten Norden und Osten Siberiens: Übersicht der Natur Nord- und Ost-Siberiens; Buchdruckerei der Keiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften: St. Petersburg, Russia, 1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Nordenskiöld, A.E. Die Umseglung Asiens und Europas auf der Vega; F.A. Brockhaus: Leipzig, Germany, 1882. [Google Scholar]
  77. Drobnik, J.; Stebel, A. Tangled history of the European uses of Sphagnum moss and sphagnol. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2017, 209, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Painter, T.J. Carbohydrate polymers in food preservation: An integrated view of the Maillard reaction with special reference to discoveries of preserved foods in Sphagnum-dominated peat bogs. Carbohydr. Polym. 1998, 36, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Painter, T.J. Concerning the wound-healing properties of Sphagnum holocellulose: The Maillard reaction in pharmacology. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2003, 88, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Balance, S.; Kristiansen, K.A.; Skogaker, N.T.; Tvedt, K.E.; Christensen, B.E. The localisation of pectin in Sphagnum moss leaves and its role in preservation. Carbohydr. Polym. 2012, 87, 1326–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Leisrink, H.; Mielck, W.H.; Korach, S. Der Torfmoos-Verband; Verlag von Leopold Voss: Hamburg und Leipzig, Germany, 1884. [Google Scholar]
  82. Nordenskiöld, A.E. Die Wissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse der Vega-Expedition; F.A. Brockhaus: Lepizig, Germany, 1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Aslanbaba, B.; Yilmaz, S.; Yayintaş, Ö.T.; Özyurt, D.; Öztürk, B.D. Total phenol content and antioxidant activity of mosses from Yenice Forest (Ida Mountain). J. Sci. Perspect. 2017, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Damsholt, K. Illustrated Flora of Nordic Liverworts and Hornworts; Nordic Bryological Society: Lund, Sweden, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  85. Gleditsch, J.G. Botanica Medica, Oder Die Lehre Von Den Vorzüglich Wirksamen Einheimischen Arzneygewächsen; Lüders, F.W.A., Ed.; Bey Friedrich Wilhelm Vieweg, Dem Jüngern: Berlin, Germany, 1788. [Google Scholar]
  86. Lightfoot, J. Flora Scotica: Or, a Systematetic Arrangement, in the Linnaean Method, of the Native Plants of Scotland and the Hebrides; B. White at Horace′s Head: London, UK, 1777. [Google Scholar]
  87. Watt, G. Dictionary of the Economic Products of the India; W. H. Allen & Co.: London, UK, 1889; Volume V. [Google Scholar]
  88. ITIS, Integrated Taxonomic Information System Online Database. Available online: https://www.itis.gov/ (accessed on 12 May 2021).
  89. Bowman, J.L. A brief history of marchantia from greece to genomics. Plant Cell Physiol. 2016, 57, 210–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Bischler-Causse, H.; Boisselier-Dubayle, M.C. Lectotypification of Marchantia polymorpha L. J. Bryol. 1991, 16, 361–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Shimamura, M. Marchantia polymorpha: Taxonomy, phylogeny and morphology of a model system plant. Cell Physiol. 2016, 57, 230–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Hodgetts, N.G.; Söderström, L.; Blockeel, T.L.; Caspari, S.; Ignatov, M.S.; Konstantinova, N.A.; Lockhart, N.; Papp, B.; Schröck, C.; Sim-Sim, M.; et al. An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus. J. Bryol. 2020, 42, 1–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Turner, N.J.; Efrat, B.S. Ethnobotany of the Hesquiat Indians of Vancouver Island; Cultural Recovery Paper; British Columbia Provincial Museum: Victoria, BC, Canada, 1982; Volume 2, pp. 1–101. [Google Scholar]
  94. Remesh, M.; Manju, C. Ethnobryological notes from West Ghats, India. Bryologist 2009, 112, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Krishnan, R.; Manoj, G.S.; Murugan, K. In vitro microbicidal potentiality of targionia hypophylla L. and bryum species-bryophytes. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 4, 410–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Tosun, A.; Süntar, İ.; Keleş, H.; Özenoğlu Kiremit, H.; Asakawa, Y.; Küpeli Akkol, E. Wound healing potential of selected liverworts growing in Turkey. Turk. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 13, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Frey, W.; Frahm, J.-P.; Fischer, E.; Lobin, W. The liverworts, Mosses, and Ferns of Europe; Harley Books: Colchester, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  98. Yayintas, O.T.; Yapici, B.M. In vitro antimicrobial activity of Brachythecium campestre and Eurhynchium pulchellum extracts. Asian J. Chem. 2009, 21, 2193–2197. [Google Scholar]
  99. Mentzel, C. Centuria Plantarum Circa Gedanum Sponte Nascentium Appendicis Loco ad Elenchum Plantarum Gedanensium Excell. & Exper. Nicolai Oelhafii; Typis Andreae Hünefeldii: Dantisci, Poland, 1650. [Google Scholar]
  100. Stevens, P.F. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. 2001 Onwards. Version 14. July 2017. Available online: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/ (accessed on 2 January 2021).
Table
Table 1. Historical medicinal bryophytes, their taxonomical identification, ethnopharmaceutical uses and confirmed medicinal properties.
Table 1. Historical medicinal bryophytes, their taxonomical identification, ethnopharmaceutical uses and confirmed medicinal properties.
Original (Pharmaceutical) Names of Plants or Herbal MaterialOriginal ApplicationsSources for Original ApplicationsSpecies Identification (Current Name According to [33])Uses in Traditional MedicineContemporary Knowledge
Jungermannia pinguis L.It contains iodine and was used to obtain it.[34] (p. 38)Aneura pinguis (L.) Dumort.No dataNo data
muscus terrestris et hortensisStemming the blood[35] (p. 764), [24] (p. 444), [27] (p. 15)Brachythecium rutabulum (Hedw.) Schimp. [23]In the 17th–18th centuries, used for dressing wounds [23]No data
Marchantia conica, Hepatica stellata, H. fontana.Aperitive, acrid, astringent, used in diseases of the liver.[36] (p. 11)Conocephalum conicum (L.) Dumort. (including newly described C. salebrosum Szweyk., Buczk. and Odrzyk.)Antimicrobial, antifungal, antipyretic, antidotal activity; used to cure cuts, burns, scalds, fractures, swollen tissue, poisonous snake bites and gallstones [28,29]Antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral activity, superoxide release inhibitory Sactivity [31].
Antimicrobial [37].
Insecticidal [38]
Herba Marchantiae conicae, music hepaticiThick decoct of the herb. Cataplasms on swollen parts. Analgesic. Diuretic in calculus and hydrops.[17] (p. 188)
Fegatella conicaResolving and purging organs, especially the liver[39] (p. 160)
herba Hepaticae fontinalis = herba Lichenis stellati Fegatella officinalis Raddi = Marchantia conica L.Resolving, and in conditions of the liver[34] (p. 39)
Fontinalis antipyreticaThe herb boiled with beer applied as a footbath (pediluvium) in pectoral fever[40] (p. 379), [26]
(p. xxv)		Fontinalisantipyretica Hedw.Chest fever, antimicrobial, to treat fever and for detoxification [41,42,43]Antimicrobial and antiproliferative [44]. Anti-proliferation activity against neoplastic cell lines: rat glioma (C6), and antifungal [45]
Antimicrobial and antifungal [46]
Fontinalis antipyreticaIn fevers [47] (p. 9)
Fontinalis antipyreticaFor pediluvia (i.e., foot wash)[27] (p. 12), [48] (p. 33)
herba Fontinalis antipyreticae, Fontinalis antipyretica L.In breast ailments, decoct in footbaths[34] (p. 39)
Fontinalis antipyreticaDecoct was once recommended in pulmonary conditions and as a footbath[39] (p. 183)
Funaria hygrometricaDiaphoretic, diuretic, laxative[39] (p. 172)Funaria hygrometrica Hedw.Hemostatic, in pulmonary tuberculosis, vomitus cruentus (hematemesis), bruises and athlete’s foot dermatophytosis (dermatomycosis) [29,41]Antiproliferative to cancer cells: HeLa (of cervical cancer), A2780 (ovary cancer), T47D (breast cancer) [49].
Slightly antibacterial against B. subtilis, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus; antifungal [50] and antibacterial [51].
Bryum pulvinatum L.; Dryptodon pulvinatusImmersed in vinegar and imposed onto the top of the head and into the nostrils, stops hemorrhage; poultices of the herb boiled with vinegar[27] (p. 14),
[48] (p. 33)		Grimmia pulvinata (Hedw.) Sm.No dataHigh activity against 3 Gram-positive bacteria: E. faecalis, S. aureus and S. pyogenes, and 2 Gram-negative bacteria: E. coli and K. pneumoniae [47]
Hypnum sericeum. Leskia sericea, Leskea sericea Hedw.In hemorrhages (hemostatic, styptic)[27] (p. 15), [36] (p. 11), [48] (p. 33), [39] (p. 184), [34] (p. 39)Homalothecium sericeum (Hedw.) Schimp.No dataAntomicrobial [43,52]. Antiproliferative [53]. Antioxidant [54].
Jungermannia alba L.It contains iodine and was applied to obtain it[34] (p. 38)A confused name (non-existent binomial). Maybe Diplophyllum albicans (L.) Dumort.No dataD. albicans: antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral [31].
P. albescens: no data.
Marchantia chenopodaIn the West Indies, used in liver aliments[39] (p. 162)Marchantia chenopoda L. This species is not native to the flora of Europe; the herbal raw material was not likely to be imported hereNo dataAntimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral [31].
Marchantia chenopodea L.In the (West) Indies: clumps of the abdomen, esp. the liver[34] (p. 39)
Marchantia chenopoda L.Tempering, aperitive. In hepatical, renal, vesico–urinary and dermal affections. Externally in hydrops. It acts as a diuretic.[55] (pp. 3–4)
Marchantia polymorpha, Marchantia polymorpha L.In ailments of liver, in jaundice, to promote lactation[26] (p. xvii),
[47] (p. 109)		Marchantia polymorpha L.Antipyretic, antihepatic, antidotal, diuretic activity; used to cure cuts, fractures, poisonous snake bites, burns, scalds and open wounds [28,29]Cytotoxic, antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral, inhibitory activity against 5-lipoxygenase, calmodulin, hyaluronidase, cyclooxygenase, DNA, polymerase b and a-glucosidase, cathepsin L and cathepsin B inhibitory activity [31]. Antifungal activity [45].
hepatica terrestris, Marchantia polymorpha L.Aperient, resolvent, antiscorbutic[56] (p. 367)
Marchantia polymorpha L.A resolving remedy in ailments of the liver[34] (p. 39)
Meesia uliginosaPromoting sweat, urine and stool[39] (p. 178)Meesia uliginosa Hedw.No dataNo data
Adiantum aureum Tabern., percemousse, golden Wiederthon.Roborant[57] (p. 372)Polytrichum commune Hedw.Antipyretic and antidotal; for hemostasis, cuts, bleeding from gingivae, hematemesis and pulmonary tuberculosis [29].
P. commune is a traditional Chinese remedy for fever, hemorrhage, uterine prolapse and lymphocytic leukemia [44].		Cytotoxic [58]. Anti-cancer and proapoptotic [44]. Antibacterial [59]. Anti-neuroinflammatory [60].
Polytrichum commune αA decoct nourishes and strengthens the hair, applied externally[27] (p. 13)
Polytrichum communeIt belongs to the five capillary herbs[61] (p. 7)
Polytrichum communeIn cough and pleurisy, in form of syrup, decoct or distilled water and then sudorific. Boiled in red wine as emmenagogue. For liver obstruction and jaundice.[26]
(pp. xxvi–xxvii)
Polytrichum commune L.Antitussive, sudorific, antipleuritic; drug form: distilled water.[62] (p. 6)
Polytrichum communeIn pleuritis[63] (No. 343)
Polytrichum communeIn jaundice, urolithiasis, colic.[47] (p. 218)
herba adianthi aurei constituted by Polytrichum commune L.An astringent, in diseases of the lungs, and calculous complaints[56] (p. 18)
adiantum aurerum = Polytrichum vulgareSudorific, pulmonary[36] (p. 11)
Adiantum aureum seu majus = Polytrichum communeDiaphoretic[64] (p. 52)
Polytrichum communeDecoct or ethereous tincture as emmenagogue and lactagoge.[17]
(pp. 231–232)
herba Polytrichi = hb. musci capillarisGently astringent, promoting sweat and urine[39] (p. 180)
herba adianta aurei, Polytrichum communeMucilaginous[65] (p. 155)
Polytrichum communeVeterinary[66] (p. 83)
Polytrichum juniperumPowerful diuretic[67]
(pp. 323–324)		Polytrichum juniperinum Hedw.Prostate and urinary difficulties; skin ailments [28]Antibacterial action against Bacillus cereus, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes [68]. Cytotoxic and antiproliferative against the following lines of neoplastic cells: rat glioma (C6), human epidermoid carcinoma (A431), human lung cancer (A549), human breast cancer (MCF-7), human intestinal cancer (CaCo-2) and mouse Sarcoma 37 cells. [69].
Hypnum castrenseChewed and applied onto snake bites.[63]
(No. 343)		Ptilium crista-castrensis (Hedw.) De Not.No dataAntibacterial against Proteus mirabilis, Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli; antiproliferative against lines of neoplastic cells: rat glioma (C6), human epidermoid carcinoma (A431), human lung cancer (A549), Mus musculus skin melanoma (B16-F10), human breast cancer (MCF-7) and human intestinal cancer (CaCo-2) [69].
Rebouillia hemisphaericavel androgynaIn England, it is used in edema (hydrops)[39]
(pp. 159–160)		Reboulia hemisphaerica (L.) RaddiFor blotches, hemostasis, external wounds and bruises [29]Liver X-receptor (LXR)a agonist and (LXR)b antagonist activity [30]. Antiplatelet activity [70].
Antimicrobial [71].
Marchantia hemisphaerica L.Conditions of liver, and hydrops[34] (p. 1070)
muscus vulgaris in which were recognized: Hypnum triquetrum L., H. loreum L., H. schreberi Willd., H. sqarrosum L., and H. cupressiforme L.Moderately astringent, subdiaphoretic, gently diuretic[48] (p. 33)1. Hylocomiadelphus triquetrus (Hedw.) Ochyra & Stebel2
2. Rhytidiadelphus loreus (Hedw.) Warnst.
3. Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt.
4. Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus (Hedw.) Warnst.
5. Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw.		No dataH. triquetrus: antiproliferative and cytotoxic [72]. Antimicrobial [73].
H. cupressiforme: antimicrobial, antifungal [47] and insecticidal [39].
Herba adianti aurei = hb. Polytrichi = hb. musci capillacei, which was constituted by: Polytrichum commune L., P. formosum (Hedw.) G. L. Sm., P. longisetum Sw., P. juniperifolium Hoffm., Funaria hygrometrica Hedw., Meesia uliginosa Hedw.Moderately astringent, subdiaphoretic, gently diuretic[48] (p. 33)1. Polytrichum commune Hedw.
2. Polytrichastrum formosum (Hedw.) G. L. Sm.
3. Polytrichastrum longisetum (Brid.) G. L. Sm.
4. Polytrichum juniperinum Hedw.
5. Funaria hygrometrica Hedw.
6. Meesia uliginosa Hedw.		Various species of Polytrichum: diuretic; promoting the growth of hair [29]For F. hygrometrica, M. uliginosa, P. commune, P. juniperinum see above.
P. formosum is antimicrobial [74].
Sphagnum palustre L.As a diaper and bedding for nursing babies, a good urine absorbent[25] (p. 9), [75] (p. 1445), [76] (p. 100)Sphagnum palustre L., later Sphagnum spp.No dataSphagnum spp.: odor absorbent for personal hygienic uses, and a historical but powerful wound dressing material [77]. A polysaccharide compound called sphagnan induces Maillard reaction with proteins, lowers the pH and binds nitrogen compounds (including amino-acids and enzymes) [78,79]. Food preservation [80].
Sphagnum palustre L.Humid and frigid, applied to swollen feet in elderly people[40] (p. 379)
Sphagnum palustre L.In foot edema: as a decoct made from the herb and beer, applied as a poultice[26] (p. xxv), [27] (p. 12)
Sphagnum spp.Dressing material[81] (p. 12)
Sphagnum fimbriatum Wils., S. squarrosum Pers., S. strictum Lindb.Baby bedding, diapers[82] (p. 204)Sphagnum fimbriatum Wilson,
S. squarrosum Crome,
S. girgensohnii Russow, respectively.
muscus filicinus majorHydragoge (diuretic)[7] (p. 164)Thuidium tamariscinum (Hedw.) Schimp. [8]No dataAntioxidant [83].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Drobnik, J.; Stebel, A. Four Centuries of Medicinal Mosses and Liverworts in European Ethnopharmacy and Scientific Pharmacy: A Review. Plants 2021, 10, 1296. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071296

AMA Style

Drobnik J, Stebel A. Four Centuries of Medicinal Mosses and Liverworts in European Ethnopharmacy and Scientific Pharmacy: A Review. Plants. 2021; 10(7):1296. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071296

Chicago/Turabian Style

Drobnik, Jacek, and Adam Stebel. 2021. "Four Centuries of Medicinal Mosses and Liverworts in European Ethnopharmacy and Scientific Pharmacy: A Review" Plants 10, no. 7: 1296. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071296

APA Style

Drobnik, J., & Stebel, A. (2021). Four Centuries of Medicinal Mosses and Liverworts in European Ethnopharmacy and Scientific Pharmacy: A Review. Plants, 10(7), 1296. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071296

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop