Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Antioxidant, Xanthine Oxidase-Inhibitory, and Antibacterial Activity of Syzygium cumini Linn. Seed Extracts
Next Article in Special Issue
Persistence of Use Among Amazigh People of Medicinal Plants Documented by Ibn al-Baytar (Early 13th Century CE)
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanisms of Increase of Winter Wheat Frost Resistance Under Tebuconazole Treatment at Early Stage of Growth: Role of Hormone- and Reactive Oxygen Species-Mediated Signaling Pathways
Previous Article in Special Issue
Medicinal Plant Use in North Karelia, Finland, in the 2010s
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/plants14030315
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Content Analysis of Digital Archives Contributes to the Historical Distribution and Folk Knowledge of the Highly Toxic Cicuta virosa L. in Hungary

by
Szabolcs Kis
* and
Attila Molnár V.
*
HUN-REN–UD Conservation Biology Research Group, Department of Botany, University of Debrecen, Egyetem sq. 1., H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(3), 315; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14030315
Submission received: 30 December 2024 / Revised: 13 January 2025 / Accepted: 13 January 2025 / Published: 21 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Historical Ethnobotany: Interpreting the Old Records—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The northern water hemlock is an endangered species that has been severely diminished in Hungary due to water regulation and river control in the 18th and 19th centuries. We collected data on this highly toxic plant from Hungary using archival sources, including digitized databases of daily and weekly newspapers and books. By exploring historical digital archives, we identified 88 locatable occurrence records spanning 65 flora mapping grids, 52 of which represent new additions to its known distribution. Between 1721 and 1943, a total of 103 records were found relating to its vernacular names. The most widespread names were csomorika (predominantly used in the Berettyó-Sárrét and Hortobágy regions), mételytorzsa (Rétköz, Taktaköz, Ecsedi-láp), and Kónyi gyökér (Fertő-Hanság region). Human poisonings caused by this species were primarily due to confusion with parsley, celery, and, less frequently, parsnips or carrots, occasionally resulting in the deaths of entire families. Children, in particular, were at risk when they accidentally consumed it raw as a snack. There have also been instances of intentional homicidal use and unintentional fatalities associated with its ethnomedicinal application. The plant was primarily used to treat scrofula (a form of tuberculosis-induced lymphoma) and for abortion.

1. Introduction

Human-induced modifications to the landscape are a significant driver of biodiversity loss [1]. Such activities include the ploughing of grasslands, deforestation, and wetland drainage. A particularly noteworthy example is the profound transformation of the soil, hydrological, climatic, and ecological conditions of the Hungarian Great Plain resulting from river regulation [2]. Prior to the implementation of river regulation and drainage in the 18th century, a substantial portion of the Pannonian Basin was periodically or permanently covered by water [3]. In the valley of the River Tisza, the largest river regulation project in Europe led to the destruction of approximately 38,000 km2 of wetlands. This significant landscape alteration resulted in considerable changes to both vegetation and fauna, including a dramatic 83% reduction in reedbed areas and the complete disappearance of floating islands [4].
As a result, this extensive landscape transformation has left us with limited information regarding the flora and vegetation of the former wetland habitats, further exacerbating the knowledge gap created by the river regulation efforts. To address this deficiency, the exploration of historical digital archives, which have previously proven effective in studying past wetland grazing [4], emerges as a promising solution.
For this purpose, we selected the highly toxic Cicuta virosa L. as a model species, hypothesizing that its toxicity may have played a significant role in folk life, a role that may be reflected in historical, printed sources contained within digital archives.
Northern water hemlock (Cicuta virosa) is the only European representative of the genus. It is a circumpolar species, distributed across Eurasia (from Western and Central Europe to Siberia, and the Korean Peninsula) and northwestern North America [5,6,7,8].
Cicuta virosa is a hemicryptophyte (hydro-helophytic) species. Its rootstock is multichambered, containing a yellowish oily liquid (Figure 1A) and emitting a characteristic smell of raw parsnip. The stem is thick and hollow (Figure 1B), and the petioles are inflated and hollow. The leaves are alternate, pinnately compound (two or three times) (Figure 1C), and may reach 30–120 cm in length. The leaflets are elliptic–lanceolate with acutely serrate margins. The generative shoots are hollow with clusters of foliage (Figure 1B). The umbellate inflorescence contains clusters of 30–50 flowers with white petals (Figure 1E). The schizocarp fruits are approximately 2 mm long and 3 mm wide, with a much longer pedicel (Figure 1F) [9,10]: 352.
The entire plant is highly toxic, with its primary active compounds being C-17 polyacetylene-type substances that induce respiratory paralysis and death through GABAA receptor antagonism [11] and also inhibit potassium channels [12]. The most notable of these toxins is cicutoxin [13,14], which has historically been responsible for fatal poisonings among both humans and livestock [15]. The cicutoxin content in fresh plant material is approximately 1.5%, and in dried material, it can reach 3.5% [10]. It also contains 11 other C-17 polyacetylene derivatives, the most important of which are oenanthotoxin, cicutol, falcarindiol, and isocicutol [14].
Currently, Cicuta virosa is listed as endangered (EN) in Hungary [16], the Czech Republic [17], and South Korea [8], and as vulnerable (VU) in Slovakia [18]. In Baden-Württemberg (Germany), the species is highly endangered, with its decline largely attributed to the conversion and overuse of water bodies [10].
Our work was based on the two following assumptions: (i) Cicuta virosa may have been much more widespread in Hungary before the river regulation and drainage works of the 19th century; (ii) reports of human and livestock poisoning cases may have appeared in archival, non-scientific sources, such as newspapers, magazines, and periodicals of the time, and these contemporary records may provide valuable insights into the former distribution and local knowledge related to the species.

2. Results

The studied Hungarian historical sources contain a wealth of information on Cicuta virosa (Figure 2).

2.1. Historical Distribution of the Species

Currently, Cicuta virosa is a rare and endangered species in Hungary. The Vascular Plants of Hungary online database [21] documents its occurrence in 39 flora mapping grids. Through exploration of the historical digital archives, we identified 88 locatable occurrence records covering 65 flora mapping grids, 52 of which represent additional distribution points (Figure 3). By overlaying the hydrographic depiction of the Pannonian Basin’s pre-regulation conditions onto the distribution data map derived from digital archives, it becomes evident that the recently identified distribution points correspond to locations that were once covered by extensive wetlands, characterized by periodic or permanent flooding. From this, we can infer that nearly half of the previous Cicuta virosa populations have been lost due to the river regulation and drainage projects in the Pannonian Basin.

2.2. Vernacular Names of Cicuta virosa

Between 1721 and 1943, a total of 103 records were found concerning the Hungarian vernacular names of the studied species (). The most widespread names and their variants, along with their localization, sources, and brief explanations, are listed in Table 1. The most common name, csomorika, is still used in official Hungarian nomenclature to designate the species and has been known since 1578 (czomorika) [22]. The four most common names were found in the sources studied from at least the late 18th to the early 20th century (Figure 4).

2.3. Incidents of Poisoning

Diószegi Sámuel, a Reformed preacher and renowned botanist, wrote the following about Cicuta virosa: “The csomorika, among all plants, is the most wicked poison, particularly its root, which can kill both humans and livestock in a short period” [23]: 195.

2.3.1. Human Poisoning

Historical records indicate the consumption of approximately 60 wild plant species among Hungarian ethnic groups [24]. At least five species from the Apiaceae family were commonly consumed in Hungary as soup, a spice, refreshing drinks, or children’s snacks (Anthriscus cerefolium (L.) Hoffm., Daucus carota L., Heracleum sphondylium L., Pastinaca sativa L., Chaerophyllum bulbosum L.; [24,25]). Available data show that Cicuta virosa was most commonly mistaken for parsley (seven cases) or celery (three cases), and less frequently for parsnip or carrot. In a detailed incident, an entire family was poisoned in 1878 by the root of Cicuta virosa mistaken for celery purchased at the local market [20]. In 1880, csomorika was cooked in soup, and the family later succumbed to poisoning [26]. “It has caused countless household poisonings, with its beautiful white umbellate flowers, leaves resembling celery, hollow roots mistaken for parsley, or its seeds, similar to aniseed” [27]: 108.
Many cases of poisoning have occurred among children who mistook it for other edible roots, often resulting in death [28]: 203. In 1787, a schoolboy in Losonc (now Lučenec, Slovakia) died after consuming the root, mistaking it for a carrot [19]. In 1796, three children on the outskirts of Pest died after consuming Cicuta virosa [29]. According to the Reformed Church registry in Szeghalom (March 1803), four children consumed a csomorika found on the banks of a ditch; two died, while two were saved after vomiting [30]. In 1816, a prayer was offered for a child who had eaten csomorika [31]: 201. In 1842, two boys and six girls ate csomorika root mistakenly identified as parsnip, and some died soon after [19]. Additionally, children used the hollow stems to make whistles, unwittingly endangering themselves by putting them in their mouths [32].
In 1722, during a witch trial in Békés County, a man was killed by his wife, who prepared bath water with Cicuta virosa [33,34]: 22. The famous physician and naturalist János Földi wrote, “Many people still prepare murderous poison from it”. He believed that instead of marking cultivation sites with prohibition signs, people should be informed about the plant’s medicinal properties [29]. In a case in Dévaványa, a woman cooked csomorika leaves in a stew for her alcohol addict husband, leading to his death by evening [35]. The plant is also mentioned in a darkly humorous folk song, ‘Ki az urát nem szereti, Csomorikát főzzön neki, Ha ma vele megeteti, Még estvére kiteríti’ (“If she does not love her husband, cook him Csomorika. If she feeds him today, he will be dead by night”) [36].
Although Cicuta virosa is not mentioned in Fäller’s (1943) comprehensive work [37], historical sources suggest its use in folk medicine, primarily against tuberculosis (lymphatic gland inflammation) [38] and rheumatism [39]: 6. In Kiskunmaja, Kígyós, and Szank, it was used as an abortifacient. The root was washed and carefully inserted into the uterine cavity; it induced miscarriage after 3 h [40]: 296. In some cases, these practices resulted in fatalities, and records of criminal proceedings initiated thereafter have been preserved. In 1868, a market vendor in Hajdúszoboszló confessed to having cured a six-year-old girl suffering from tuberculosis by preparing a decoction of Cicuta virosa root in milk. The child died that evening in considerable suffering [38].

2.3.2. Poisoning Among Livestock

The majority of historical sources document cases of livestock mortality due to poisoning. Three examples of reports of poisonings caused by csomorika from different Hungarian regions during 18th century are listed in Table 2. Sometimes Cicuta caused significant damage; for instance, Pál Kitaibel reported that in 1799, it resulted in the death of twelve oxen near Pápa [41]. According to complaints from peasants in Szatmár County, “about one-third of the cattle are lost every four years, partly due to the mételytorzsa” [42]: 436.
In particular, in the Berettyó-Sárrét region (comprising the former Békés and Bihar counties), where pastures were scarce, residents grazed their animals in the marshes of the Nagy-Sárrét, where they often succumbed to poisoning. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the damage caused by csomorika was substantial [45]: 5. In the Hanság region, as in Berettyó-Sárrét, it caused poisoning in cattle grazing on pastures in many instances [46]. Cicuta could have entered the animals’ diet either through hay used as winter feed for sheep or through grazing in marshes [29]. However, sources also indicate that cattle generally consumed csomorika only in times of scarcity (autumn and winter) or in swampy areas where other vegetation was unavailable [47,48]. Reports of livestock poisoning from Cicuta in Hungary include cattle, sheep, and horses. “It has often been observed that csomorika kills horses, cattle, and sheep when carelessly offered to them as food” [19]. The majority of poisoned livestock were cattle (35 cases), followed by horses (six cases) and sheep (four cases). However, Diószegi [23] noted that “it is said that the leaves of csomorika can be safely consumed by sheep”. According to Greschik [49], larks and quails can pick the seeds of Cicuta without danger.
The course of poisoning is usually rapid; in cattle, it typically occurs within 5–6 h [48], a few hours [50], or even within half an hour [43]. Symptoms of poisoning include “inability to walk, muscle twitching, whitening and lividity of the tongue, cessation of mucus production (dry throat), and difficulty breathing” [50]. Kátai (1858) [51] described the effects as follows: “When consumed, it causes intense heat, pain, insatiable thirst, gastric ulceration, hiccups, spasms, dizziness, a sensation of drunkenness, convulsions, and ultimately death. After death, the abdomen swells to an enormous size, with the intestines and stomach distended due to inflammation, causing them to collapse, while the brain vessels swell with blood.” According to Kiss [46], “It is such a poisonous plant that when cattle find its leaves mixed with other grasses, they become so bloated that their skin nearly bursts open, leading to death.” Upon dissecting two steers that died from poisoning, it was reported that “the rumen was highly bloated with gases, the reticulum was dry and hard with locust leaves and root parts of the plant. The lungs were congested with blood and air was sparse. In both cases, the diaphragm was pressed tightly against the lungs. Other organs were intact. When the rumen was punctured during dissection, gas escaped with a trumpet-like rattle, similar to that of a drumstick”.
Salt was considered the most effective antidote in ethnoveterinary for poisoning by Cicuta. In Füzesgyarmat, “salt is considered the best antidote. Therefore, if they notice early enough that the cattle have been poisoned, they vigorously rub their tongues with salt and administer water saturated with salt” [52]. In Sárrét (Bihar county), salt was also placed into the mouth of a sheep that had consumed csomorika, or, in the absence of salt, the shepherd would urinate into the sheep’s mouth [53]. Tannic acid [54], milk, and fat were also mentioned as antidotes [55]: 786.
The rhizome is most commonly reported as the poisonous part of the plant (20 times), followed by the leaf (10 cases), and the stem and fruit (1–1 cases). It has also been noted that the evaporation of the plant’s leaves can cause dizziness and fainting [28,46], and that a person could faint who is lying on a pillow with a Cicuta underneath [56]. Kubinyi [19] suggested that the poisonous sap of the plant could contaminate water, especially in areas where the plant grows abundantly.
Considering the damage caused to livestock and human lives, it is possible that the decline in Cicuta virosa (Apiaceae) may have been due to its toxicity, in addition to the draining of its habitats. Diószegi [23] stated, “it is only beneficial to eradicate it wherever it is found”. Anonymous [57] noted, “csomorika weeds must be eradicated so that the crop of God may grow”. In some provinces, the eradication of the csomorika is strictly ordered [19].

3. Discussion

The implementation of river regulation and drainage projects has profoundly impacted wetland habitats, leading to a significant reduction in species abundance and biodiversity, primarily due to alterations in hydrological conditions [58,59]. Our analysis of historical sources indicates that Cicuta virosa was far more prevalent in the Pannonian Basin prior to the initiation of river regulation and drainage. Subsequent drainage efforts have led to the disappearance or substantial modification of the species’ habitats. Historical sources have provided considerable information on the vernacular names of the species, the symptoms, danger, and remedies used, and the extent of damage in cases of poisoning.
In a broader context, it is evident that plant poisonings among livestock and humans occur widely across both spatial and temporal dimensions. Numerous plant species, such as Conium maculatum L., Equisetum palustre L., Colchicum autumnale L., and Datura stramonium L., present a significant threat to grazing livestock due to their toxicity [60]. However, members of the genus Cicuta and related species are particularly implicated in a high number of severe poisoning cases. This has been observed in case of Oenanthe crocata L. in France [61] and the United Kingdom [62]. Comparable toxic effects have been associated with Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poir., which has caused poisonings in grazing cattle in Sweden [63] and Poland [64].
Poisoning incidents linked to Cicuta virosa have been extensively documented, particularly in the northern regions of Europe [65]. Carl Linnaeus devoted considerable attention to Cicuta virosa in his travelogues, letters, and books [66,67]. The plant was one of 643 species studied for the food preferences of cows, goats, sheep, horses, and pigs [68]. Cases of poisoning in grazing animals, including dairy cattle, beef cattle, and ewes, continue to be reported in areas where Cicuta virosa is prevalent, especially in northeastern Germany [69]. Additionally, two closely related species, Cicuta maculata L. and Cicuta douglasii (DC.) Coult. & Rose, have been responsible for poisoning incidents in North America, affecting both swine and cattle. One such incident in northwestern Utah resulted in the deaths of nine Hereford cows after they ingested Cicuta maculata in a streamside habitat. Necropsy revealed stomach contents containing cicutoxin and two other cicutol-like compounds [70]. These observations underscore the continued relevance of plant toxicity in livestock management.
Reports of human poisonings attributed to Cicuta virosa have emerged in several countries, including Norway [71], The Netherlands [72], Poland [73], and Sweden [74]. Similarly, Cicuta maculata has been implicated in multiple human poisoning cases in North America. One tragic incident involved the fatal poisoning of a 14-year-old boy, who mistakenly identified Cicuta maculata as a ‘wild carrot’ [75]. Children appear to be particularly vulnerable, as evidenced by reports from various parts of the world, including Poland [73], France [76], and the United States [77]. The latter report described an incident in which 17 boys, aged 9 to 13, exhibited symptoms of poisoning. It was later revealed that five of the boys had consumed the root of Cicuta maculata, resulting in severe convulsions, while the remaining twelve had ingested only its leaves and flowers.
The lesson of our article is the importance of information in non-academic sources written in local languages (such as daily and weekly newspapers), whose accessibility is increasing dramatically with digitization. In particular, these sources can contribute important information about organisms that have played an important role in the life of humankind (e.g., species used as animal feed or human food or for handicraft production, and poisonous taxa). The challenges associated with processing articles written in national (non-English) languages present difficulties in preparing comprehensive scientific reviews [78]. The importance of non-English-language scientific articles in biological research has been acknowledged by several authors [79,80]. Furthermore, printed media (e.g., newspapers) and online platforms occasionally contribute to raising awareness of various issues in conservation biology [81,82].

4. Materials and Methods

To investigate the former distribution and local folk knowledge of Cicuta virosa, we conducted content analysis using the digital archives of Arcanum [83], Hungaricana [84], and Szaktárs [85]. These archives contain digitized Hungarian-language journals, magazines, dailies, weeklies, courtesy letters, and books. The following search terms were employed: the scientific names of the species (Cicuta, Cicuta virosa, Cicuta angustifolia, Cicuta linearis), the official Hungarian name of the species (gyilkos csomorika), and various folk names of the species (csomorika, csomorika fű, tsomorika, mételytorzsa, méregbürök, vízibürök, kony gyökér, konygyökér, kónyi gyökér, kónyigyökér). For the results obtained, the following data were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet: locality, date, folk names, poisoning incidents, symptoms, number of fatal incidents, antidotes, ethnomedicinal or ethnoveterinary uses, and plant parts consumed or used. Distribution data refer to the records that could be identified with sufficient precision to be placed in the flora mapping grids of the Central European Flora Mapping System [86] and that were not included in the Vascular Plants of Hungary online database [21] and had no data in the collections of the four most important Hungarian herbaria (BP, DE, EGR, BPU) [87,88,89,90]. The taxon does not even seem to be reported by archaeobotanical research in Hungary (e.g., see Gyulai [91]).

5. Conclusions

Our study has confirmed our hypothesis that historical digital archives in Hungarian contain substantial information regarding the past distribution and knowledge of the highly poisonous species Cicuta virosa. Thus, it can be asserted that digital archives in non-English languages hold significant potential for enhancing ethnobiological and biogeographical knowledge of organism with significant economic and/or cultural significance.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants14030315/s1, Table S1: Distribution, ethnomedicinal, and ethnoveterinary information related to Cicuta virosa in the archival sources studied. For the complete reference list, please see the main text. References [92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K. and A.M.V.; methodology, S.K. and A.M.V.; investigation, S.K. and A.M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K. and A.M.V.; writing—review and editing, S.K. and A.M.V.; visualization, S.K. and A.M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by OTKA K132573 and MEC N 24 148930 grants of National Research, Development and Innovation Office (Hungary).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to János Éliás for providing the photograph of the Reformed death certificate of Szeghalom. We are grateful to the Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum (Békéscsaba, Hungary) for help in obtaining the relevant literature.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lindenmayer, D.; Scheele, B.C.; Lavery, T.; Likens, G.E. Biodiversity response to rapid successive land cover conversions in human-dominated landscapes. GECCO 2023, 45, e02510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Somogyi, S. A XIX századi folyószabályozások és ármentesítések földrajzi és ökológiai hatásai Magyarországon. In The Geographical and Ecological Effects of River Regulation and Flood Control in Hungary in the 19th Century; Geographical Research Institute of Hungarian Academy of Sciences: Budapest, Hungary, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hungarian Hydrographic Institute. Magyarország vízborította és árvízjárta területei az ármentesítő és lecsapoló munkálatok megkezdése előtt. In Water Covered Areas and Wetlands in the Carpathian Basin Before the Commencement of Flood Protection and Draining; Ministry of Agriculture: Budapest, Hungary, 1938. [Google Scholar]
  4. Biró, M.; Bölöni, J.; Molnár, Z. Use of long-term data to evaluate loss and endangerment status of Natura 2000 habitats and effects of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 2018, 32, 660–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Meusel, H.; Jäger, E.; Weinert, E. Vergleichende Chorologie der Zentraleuropäischen Flora; Gustav Fischer: Jena, Germany, 1965; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mulligan, G.A. The genus Cicuta in North America. Can. J. Bot. 1980, 58, 1755–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kaplan, Z.; Danihelka, J.; Šumberová, K.; Chrtek, J., Jr.; Rotreklová, O.; Ekrt, L.; Štěpánková, J.; Taraška, V.; Trávníček, B.; Prančl, J.; et al. Distributions of vascular plants in the Czech Republic. Part 5. Preslia 2017, 89, 333–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cho, J.S.; Bo, K.J.; Cheol, H.L. Seed dormancy and germination characteristics of the endangered species Cicuta virosa L. in South Korea. HEB 2018, 59, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tutin, G.T. Cicuta L. In Flora Europaea; Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Valentine, D.H., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1976; Volume 2, p. 352. [Google Scholar]
  10. Philippi, G. Cicuta L. 1753 Wasserschierling. In Die Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Baden-Württembergs. Haloragaceae bis Apiaceae; Band 4; Sebald, O., Seybold, S., Philippi, G., Eds.; Verlag Eugen Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany, 1992; pp. 272–274. [Google Scholar]
  11. Green, B.T.; Goulart, C.; Welch, K.D.; Pfister, J.A.; McCollum, I.; Gardner, D.R. The non-competitive blockade of GABAA receptors by an aqueous extract of water hemlock (Cicuta douglasii) tubers. Toxicon 2015, 108, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Strauss, U.; Wittstock, U.; Schubert, R.; Teuscher, E.; Jung, S.; Mix, E. Cicutoxin from Cicuta virosa. A new and potent potassium channel blocker in T lymphocytes. BBRC 1996, 219, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Anet, E.F.L.J.; Lythgoe, B.; Silk, M.H.; Trippett, S. Oenanthotoxin and cicutoxin isolation and structures. J. Chem. Soc. 1953, 62, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wittstock, U.; Hadacek, F.; Wurz, G.; Teuscher, E.; Greger, H. Polyacetylenes from water hemlock, Cicuta virosa. Planta Medica 1995, 61, 439–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hulst, J.P.L. Poisoning by Water-Hemlock, Cicuta virosa. Ned. Tijdschr. Voor Geneeskd. 1935, 79, 2935–2940. [Google Scholar]
  16. Király, G. Vörös Lista a magyarországi edényes flóra veszélyeztetett fajai. In Red List of the Vascular Flora of Hungary; Private edition of the Authors: Sopron, Hungary, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Grulich, V. Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Republic: 3rd edition. Preslia 2012, 84, 631–645. [Google Scholar]
  18. Eliáš, P.; Dítě, D.; Kliment, J.; Hrivnák, R.; Feráková, V. Red list of ferns and flowering plants of Slovakia, 5th edition (October 2014). Biologia 2015, 70, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kubinyi, Á. Magyarországi Mérges Növények; Magyar Királyi Egyetem: Buda, Hungary, 1842. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dubay, M. Családmérgezés Cicuta virosaval. Gyógyászat 1878, 18, 65–67. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bartha, D.; Bán, M.; Schmidt, D.; Tiborcz, V. Vascular Plants of Hungary Online Database. Available online: http://floraatlasz.unisopron.hu (accessed on 2 August 2024).
  22. Szarvas, G.; Simonyi, Z. Magyar nyelvtörténeti szótár. A legrégibb nyelvemlékektől a nyelvújításig 1–3; Hornyánszky: Budapest, Hungary, 1878; pp. 1890–1893. [Google Scholar]
  23. Diószegi, S. Orvosi Füvész Könyv, Mint A’ Magyar Füvész Könyv’ Praktika Része; Második Rész, Öthimesek: Debrecen, Hungary, 1813. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dénes, A.; Papp, N.; Babai, D.; Czúcz, B.; Molnár, Z. Wild plants used for food by Hungarian ethnic groups living in the Carpathian Basin. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2012, 81, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Németh, A.G.L.; Horváth, B.; Pinke, G. A csemege baraboly (Chaerophyllum bulbosum) etnobotanikai és kultúrtörténeti jelentősége a Kárpát-medencében. Kitaibelia 2024, 29, 141–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Arányi, L.H. Az életmentő Sibilla tanácsai. Néptanítók Lapja 1880, 13, 350–356. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerlóczy, Z. Az Egészség Könyvtára III: A mérgezésekről; Franklin Társulat: Budapest, Hungary, 1907. [Google Scholar]
  28. Soltész, J. A Füvészet Alapvonalai, Tekintettel a Műveltebb Néposztály Szükségeire; Eggenberger-Féle Akad; Könyvkereskedés: Budapest, Hungary, 1873. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nagy, S. Földi János hadházi évei. (Adalékok életrajzához és hajdúkerületi orvosi működéséhez). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Kiadványai 1976, 56, 647–774. [Google Scholar]
  30. Anonymus, Mit mesél a Mátrikula? Reformátusok Lapja 1997, 41, 6.
  31. Ángyán, J. Halotti Predikátziókra Való Rajzolatok; Eggenberger, J., Ed.; Officina: Pest, Hungary, 1816; 203p. [Google Scholar]
  32. Anonymous. Az ernyős öthimes ötszirmu növevények (Pentapetala umbellata L.). Hasznos Mulatságok 1828, 12, 22–24. [Google Scholar]
  33. Oláh, G. A boszorkányperek Békésvármegyében. In A Békésvármegyei Régészeti és Művelődéstörténeti Társulat Évkönyve; Karácsonyi, J., Ed.; Békésvármegyei Régészeti és Művelődéstörténeti Társulat: Békés–Gyula, Hungary, 1888. [Google Scholar]
  34. Csákabonyi, K. Békés Megyei Boszorkányperek a XVIII. Században, 17. kötet; A Gyulai Erkel Ferenc Múzeum Kiadványai: Gyula, Hungary, 1960. [Google Scholar]
  35. Márton, L. A sárréti Juhtartás Ismeretanyaga és Szókincse; Unpublished Manuscript; Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum: Békéscsaba, Hungary, 1968; p. 82. [Google Scholar]
  36. Anonymous. Párviadal. Rajzolatok a Társas Élet és Divatvilágból. 1838, 4, 339. [Google Scholar]
  37. Fäller, J. Növényeink a Népies Gyógyászatban, Kuruzslásban és Babonában. Ph.D. Thesis, Tisza István University, Debrecen, Hungary, 1943. [Google Scholar]
  38. Nagy, S. A hajdúkerületi törvényszék ítélkezési gyakorlata az ember élete ellenelkövetett bűncselekményekben 1861–1871. In Hajdúsági Múzeum Évkönyve X; Nyakas, M., Ed.; Hajdúsági Múzeum: Hajdúböszörmény, Hungary, 2001; pp. 185–280. [Google Scholar]
  39. Darvas, F.; Magyary-Kossa, G. Hazai Gyógynövények. Termelésük, Értékesítésük, Hatásuk és Orvosi Használatuk; Edition of Atheneum Irodalmi és Nyomdai Részvénytársulat: Budapest, Hungary, 1926; 210p. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gémes, B. A népi születésszabályozás (magzatelhajtás) Magyarországon a XIX–XX. században. In Popular Ways of Birth-Control (Procured Abortion) in Hungary in the 19th and 20th Centuries; MTA Néprajzi Kutató Csoport: Budapest, Hungary, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gombocz, E. Diaria Itinerum Pauli Kitaibelii 1–2; Ungarischen Naturwissenschaftlichen Museums: Budapest, Hungary, 1945. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fazekas, R.; Kujbusné Mecsei, É. Mindennapok Szabolcs és Szatmár Megyében a XIX. Században; A Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Levéltár Kiadványa: Nyíregyháza, Hungary, 2000; 427p. [Google Scholar]
  43. Cseh, E. A Békés Vármegyei parasztok válaszai az úrbéri kérdőpontokra. In Békés Megye és Környéke XVIII. sz.-i Történetéből (Közlemények); Erdmann, G., Ed.; Békés Megyei Levéltár: Gyula, Hungary, 1989; pp. 279–394. [Google Scholar]
  44. Anonymous. Magyar Hírmondó: Tizenötödik Szakasz; Hummel, J.D., Ed.; Nyomdája: Wien, Austria, 1799; 846p. [Google Scholar]
  45. Fényes, E. Magyar Országnak, s a Hozzá Kapcsolt Tartományoknak Mostani Állapotja Statistikai és Geographiai Tekintetben 4; Trattner, K., Ed.; Békés Vármegye: Pest, Hungary, 1839; 480p. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kiss, J. A Fertő tavának geographiai, historiai, és természeti leírás 1797-ben. In Monumenta Hungarica, az az: Magyar Emlékezetes Írások 1; Rumy, K.G., Ed.; J. Trattner: Pest, Hungary, 1817; 426p. [Google Scholar]
  47. Molnár, J. Orvosi Törvény; Számmer Klára Nyomdája: Székesfehérvár, Hungary, 1814; 504p. [Google Scholar]
  48. Horváth, I. Olvasói levél. Természettud. Közl. 1895, 27, 107. [Google Scholar]
  49. Greschik, J. Vérkilövellő bogarak madaraink táplálékában. Aquila 1939, 42–45, 613–624. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kossuth, L. Olvasói levél. Természettud. Közl. 1905, 37, 87. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kátai, G. A mérgezések és ellenszerei. Vasárnapi Ujság 1858, 5, 211–212. [Google Scholar]
  52. Skolka, A. Beyträge zur Geographie und Physiographie des Békescher Comitats 2 Füzes Gyarmath—Zeitschrift von und für Ungern 6: 139–154. [Adalékok Békés vármegye geográfiájához és természetrajzához Füzes Gyarmath]. In A Hétköznapok Histórikuma. Források II; Dusnoki-Draskovich, J., Erdész, Á., Eds.; Békés Megyei Levéltár: Gyula, Hungary, 1997; pp. 198–211. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bertalan Szilágyi, J. A Biharvármegyei Sárrét leirása 1827. Aquila 1920, 27, 60–69. [Google Scholar]
  54. Reményik, M. Az alföldi gazdát érdeklő mérges növények. Friss Hírek 1920, 4, 3. [Google Scholar]
  55. Linzbauer, X.F. Codex Sanitario-Medicinalis Hungariae 3/1; Typis Caesareo-Regiae Scientiarum Universitatis: Buda, Hungary, 1853; 932p. [Google Scholar]
  56. Anonymous. A Hanság. Rajzolatok a társas élet és divatvilágból 1836, 2, 805–806. [Google Scholar]
  57. Anonymous; Szociális ügyek. Urbanizmus. Magy. Közigazgatás 1923, 41, 5. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gumpinger, C.; Scheder, C. Decline of biodiversity as a result of various human impacts related to river regulation-exemplified by several small river catchments (Austria). TRSER 2008, 6, 141–148. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kuiper, J.J.; Janse, J.H.; Teurlincx, S.; Verhoeven, J.T.; Alkemade, R. The impact of river regulation on the biodiversity intactness of floodplain wetlands. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 22, 647–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cortinovis, C.; Caloni, F. Alkaloid-containing plants poisonous to cattle and horses in Europe. Toxins 2015, 7, 5301–5307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Gish, A.; Robveille, C.; Gicquel, T.; Allorge, D.; Gault, G.; Gaulier, J.M. Analytical documentation of an Arabian horse fatality related to Oenanthe crocata poisoning. Toxicon 2022, 210, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wilson, A.L.; Johnston, W.G.; McCusker, H.B.; Bannatyne, C.C. Hemlock water dropwort (Oenanthe crocata) poisoning in cattle. Vet. Rec. 1958, 70, 587–590. [Google Scholar]
  63. Espefält, E. Vattenstäkra (Oenanthe aquatica)—förgiftning hos nöt. Svensk Veterinärtidning 1995, 47, 531–532. [Google Scholar]
  64. Miçdzobrodzki, K. Przypadek zatrucia jalówek kropidtem wodnym (Oenanthe aquatica). Med. Weter 1960, 16, 608–609. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ingebrigtsen, K. Main plant poisonings in livestock in the Nordic countries. In Bioactive Compounds in Plants. Benefits and Risks for Man and Animals; Bernhoft, A., Ed.; The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters: Oslo, Norway, 2010; pp. 30–43. [Google Scholar]
  66. Linnaeus, C. Flora Lapponica; Salomon Schouten: Amstelaedami, The Netherlands, 1737; pp. 71–74. [Google Scholar]
  67. Linnaeus, C. Flora Svecica, 2nd ed.; Laurentius Salvius: Stockholmiae, Sweden, 1755; p. 92. [Google Scholar]
  68. Carlsson, B.Å.; Björkman, C.; Rydin, H. Are cows pickier than goats? Linnaeus’s innovative large-scale feeding experiment. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2024, 143, blae084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schrader, A.; Schulz, O.; Völker, H.; Puls, H. Recent plant poisoning in ruminants of northern and eastern Germany. Communication from the practice for the practice. Berl. Tierarztl. Wschr. 2001, 114, 218–221. [Google Scholar]
  70. Panter, K.E.; Gardner, D.R.; Stegelmeier, B.L.; Welch, K.D.; Holstege, D. Water hemlock poisoning in cattle: Ingestion of immature Cicuta maculata seed as the probable cause. Toxicon 2011, 57, 157–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vogt, E. Forgiftning med selsnepe (Cicuta virosa); meddelelse om 2 tilfelle. Tidsskr. Nor. Laegeforen. 1951, 71, 577–578. [Google Scholar]
  72. Keizer, D.P. Cicuta virosa vergiftiging. Geneeskd. Gids 1954, 32, 133–135. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kozielec, T.; Nowotarska, T. Zatrucie szalejem jadowitym (Cicuta virosa) szesciorga dzieci. Pediatr. Pol. 1973, 48, 1519–1522. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  74. Knutsen, O.H.; Paszkowski, P. New aspects in the treatment of water hemlock poisoning. Clin. Toxicol. 1984, 22, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Heath, K.B. A fatal case of apparent water hemlock poisoning. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 2001, 43, 35–36. [Google Scholar]
  76. Durand, M.F.; Pommier, P.; Chazalette, A.; de Haro, L. Child poisoning after ingestion of a wild apiaceae: A case report. Arch. Pediatr. 2008, 15, 139–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Gompertz, L.M. Poisoning with water hemlock (Cicuta maculata): Report of seventeen cases. JAMA 1926, 87, 1277–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nuñez, M.A.; Amano, T. Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Amano, T.; Berdejo-Espinola, V.; Christie, A.P.; Willott, K.; Akasaka, M.; Báldi, A.; Sutherland, W.J. Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 2021, 19, e3001296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chowdhury, S.; Gonzalez, K.; Aytekin, M.Ç.K.; Baek, S.Y.; Bełcik, M.; Bertolino, S.; Amano, T. Growth of non-English-language literature on biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2022, 36, e13883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jacobson, S.K.; Langin, C.; Carlton, J.S.; Kaid, L.L. Content analysis of newspaper coverage of the Florida panther. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Unger, S.D.; Hickman, C.R. A content analysis from 153 years of print and online media shows positive perceptions of the hellbender salamander follow the conservation biology. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 246, 108564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Arcanum. Available online: https://adt.arcanum.com/ (accessed on 10 December 2023).
  84. Hungaricana. Available online: https://www.hungaricana.hu/hu/ (accessed on 21 September 2023).
  85. Szaktárs. Available online: https://www.szaktars.hu/ (accessed on 18 November 2023).
  86. Niklfeld, H. Bericht uber die Kartierung der Flora Mitteleuropas. Taxon 1971, 20, 545–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vojtkó, A.E.; Takács, A.; Molnár, V.A.; Vojtkó, A. Herbarium database of the vascular collection of Eszterházy Károly College (EGR). Kitaibelia 2014, 19, 339–348. [Google Scholar]
  88. Takács, A.; Nagy, T.; Fekete, R.; Lovas-Kiss, Á.; Ljubka, T.; Löki, V.; Lisztes-Szabó, Z.; Molnár, V.A. A Debreceni Egyetem Herbáriuma (DE) I: A “Soó Rezső Herbárium”. Kitaibelia 2014, 19, 142–155. [Google Scholar]
  89. Takács, A.; Süveges, K.; Ljubka, T.; Löki, V.; Lisztes-Szabó, Z.; Molnár, V.A. A Debreceni Egyetem Herbáriuma (DE) II: A “Siroki Zoltán Herbárium”. Kitaibelia 2015, 20, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nótári, K.; Nagy, T.; Löki, V.; Ljubka, T.; Molnár, V.A.; Takács, A. Az ELTE Füvészkert herbáriuma (BPU). Kitaibelia 2017, 22, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gyulai, F. Archaeobotany in Hungary; Archaeolingua: Budapest, Hungary, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  92. Anonymous. Mérges növények. Fillértár 1834, 1, 125–127. [Google Scholar]
  93. Anonymous. Az állatok és különösen a lovak gyomor és bél-gyúladások. Vasárnapi Újság 1835, 70, 549–552. [Google Scholar]
  94. Anonymous. Bihar megyei orvos—gyógyszerész- és természettudományi egylet Nagyváradon. Orvosi Hetil. 1901, 45, 641–643. [Google Scholar]
  95. Argenti, D. Hasonszenvi Utitárs Rögtön Támadt Betegségek Elhárítására. I. Fejbetegségek; Kozma, V., Ed.; Nyomdája: Pest, Hungary, 1863. [Google Scholar]
  96. Bak, B. Magyarország Történeti Helységnévtára. Győr Megye 1773–1808; Központi Statisztikai Hivatal Könyvtár és Dokumentációs Szolgálat: Budapest, Hungary, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  97. Reisz, T.C. Hegedűs János: Sopron vármegye új leírása (Adalék Bél Mátyás földrajzi munkája kijavítási kísérletéhez). Soproni Szle. 2002, 56, 300–319. [Google Scholar]
  98. Béres, A. Állategészségügy a XIX. század eleji Hortobágyon. In Hajdú-Bihar megyei Levéltár Évkönyve III; Gazdag, I., Ed.; Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Levéltár: Debrecen, Hungary, 1976; pp. 75–92. [Google Scholar]
  99. Bodnár, B. Adatok Wierzbicki Péter keszthelyi működéséhez. Agrártörténeti Szle. 1957, 1, 57–67. [Google Scholar]
  100. Borbás, V. Békésvármegye Flórája; Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Könyvkiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1881. [Google Scholar]
  101. Borbás, V. Az úszó szigetek képződéséről. Természettud. Közl. 1901, 33, 265–270. [Google Scholar]
  102. Boros, Á. Az egerbaktai és keleméri mohalápok növényzete. Magy. Bot. Lapok 1924, 23, 62–64. [Google Scholar]
  103. Boros, Á. Az úszólápok. Természettud. Közl. 1925, 57, 203–204. [Google Scholar]
  104. Boross, M. A hazai mérges növényekről. In Délibáb Képes Naptár; Podmaniczky, F.B., Degré, A., Friebeisz, I., Eds.; Edition of István Friebeisz: Pest, Hungary, 1857; pp. 127–132. [Google Scholar]
  105. Borovszky, S. Magyarország Vármegyéi és Városai. (Magyarország Monográfiája). Bihar Vármegye és Nagyvárad; Apollo Irodalmi Társaság: Budapest, Hungary, 1901. [Google Scholar]
  106. Chernel, K. Kőszeg Szabad Királyi Város Jelene És Múltja; Seiler, H., Ed.; Nyomdája: Szombathely, Hungary, 1877. [Google Scholar]
  107. Csaplovics, J. Gemälde von Ungern. Trattner, J.M., Ed.; Kossuth Kiadó: Pest, Hungary, 1829. [Google Scholar]
  108. Czirbusz, G. A Délmagyarországi Bolgárok Ethnologiai Magánrajza; Csanád-Egyházmegyei Könyvnyomda: Temesvár, Hungary, 1882. [Google Scholar]
  109. Dóczy, J. Európa Tekintete Jelenvaló Természeti, Míveleti, és Kormányi Állapotjában IX; Nemes Haykul, A., Ed.; Nyomdája: Wien, Austria, 1830. [Google Scholar]
  110. Mágócsy-Dietz, S. Feleletek. Természettud. Közl. 1889, 21, 621. [Google Scholar]
  111. Ebenhöch, F. A megye viránya. In Győr Megye és város Egyetemes Leirása; Kreusz, K., Ed.; Franklin-Társulat Nyomdája: Budapest, Hungary, 1874; pp. 97–132. [Google Scholar]
  112. Fazekas, R. Földművelés és állattenyésztés Szatmár megyében az 1828. évi összeírás tükrében. In Szabolcs-Szatmár-Beregi Levéltári Évkönyv 10; Nagy, F., Ed.; Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Levéltár Kiadványai: Nyíregyháza, Hungary, 1994; pp. 115–139. [Google Scholar]
  113. Frank, F. Tata vidéke flórájának rövid ismertetése. In A kegyes Tanítórend Tatai Kis-Gymnasiumának Értesítvénye az 1869/70-es Tanévre; Anonymous, Horák, E., Eds.; Nyomdája: Esztergom, Hungary, 1870; pp. 3–6. [Google Scholar]
  114. Gombocz, E. Sopronvármegye növényföldrajza és flórája. Math. És Természettudományi Közlemények 1906, 28, 1–179. [Google Scholar]
  115. Herman, O. A Magyar Pásztorok Nyelvkincse; Királyi Magyar Természettudományi Társulat: Budapest, Hungary, 1914. [Google Scholar]
  116. Hutyra, F. Törvényszéki Állatorvostan; Pátria Irodalmi Vállalat és Nyomdai Rt.: Budapest, Hungary, 1908. [Google Scholar]
  117. Mátyus, I.K. Ó és Új Diaetetica az az: Az Életnek és Egéssségnek Fenntartására és Gyámolgatására. Istentől Adattatott Nevezetesebb Természeti Eszközöknek Való Elszámlálása, 4. Kötet; Landerer, M., Ed.; Nyomdája: Pozsony, Hungary, 1789. [Google Scholar]
  118. Kassai, J. Származtató, s Gyökerésző Magyar-Diák Szó-Könyv III; Csomó: Pest, Hungary, 1834. [Google Scholar]
  119. Joachim, V. A görvély rövid ismertetése s különféle gyógyszereinek bírálata. Orvosi Tár 1841, 4, 117. [Google Scholar]
  120. Kiss, Á. Adatok a Hegyalja flórájához. Bot. Közlem. 1939, 36, 181–273. [Google Scholar]
  121. Kiss, L. Kemecse. Magyarságtudomány 1943, 2, 265–288. [Google Scholar]
  122. Kiss, L. Régi Rétköz; Akadémia Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  123. Kóssa, G. Nyelvtörténeti adatok. Régi magyar gyógyszernevek. Magyar Nyelv 1909, 5, 378–381. [Google Scholar]
  124. Magda, P. Magyar Országnak és a Határőrző Katonaság Vidékinek Legújabb Statistikai és Geographiai Leírása; Trattner, J., Ed.; Nyomdája: Pest, Hungary, 1819. [Google Scholar]
  125. Margittai, A. Adatok Beregvármegye flórájához. Magy. Bot. Lapok 1911, 10, 388–413. [Google Scholar]
  126. Máttyus Nepomuk, J. Lótudomány; Trattner-Károlyi Nyomda: Pest, Hungary, 1845. [Google Scholar]
  127. Missuray-Krúg, L. Hany Istók, a rábaközi regék hőse. Soproni Szle. 1943, 7, 24–57. [Google Scholar]
  128. Molnár, J. Magyar Könyv-Ház III: Karvernek, Pokoknak’s Másoknak Utazásaik, 150; Könyv Landerer, M., Ed.; Nyomdája: Pozsony, Hungary, 1783. [Google Scholar]
  129. Nebojszki, L. Felső-Bácskai Települések Néprajzi-Helyrajzi Leírása 1859-1860-Ból; Argumentum Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  130. Nagy, J. Debrecen növény- és állatvilága. In Magyar Városok Fejlődése. Debrecen Szabad Királyi Város. A Város Múltja, Jelene és Jövője Rövid Áttekintésben; Kiszely, G., Ed.; Vármegyei Könyvkiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1931; pp. 209–233. [Google Scholar]
  131. Pap, J. Képek Szeged város birtokterületének növényvilágából. In A Kegyes Tanítórendiek Vezetése Alatt Álló Szegedi Városi Főgymnasium Értesítője az 1892–1893. Tanévről; Magyar, G., Ed.; Bába Sándor Könyvnyomdája: Szeged, Hungary, 1893; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  132. Papp, I. A szarvasmarha vérvizelléséről. Magy. Gazda 1841, 1, 122–127. [Google Scholar]
  133. Pauer, A. Vas vármegye természeti értékei. In A Csornai Premontrei Kanonokrendi Szent Norbert Gimnázium 1931–1932. Évi Értesítője; Stern, M., Ed.; Martineum Könyvnyomda Rt.: Szombathely, Hungary, 1931. [Google Scholar]
  134. Pillich, F. Adatok Tolnavármegye flórájához. Magy. Bot. Lapok 1927, 26, 94–97. [Google Scholar]
  135. Anonymus, Gyermekmérgezésekről. Új Barázda 1932, 14, 5.
  136. Peller, J. Plantae Officinales Hungariae Indigenae; Dissertatio Inauguralis Botanico-Pharmacologico-Medica; Trattner-Károlyi Nyomdája: Pest, Hungary, 1843. [Google Scholar]
  137. Pokorny, A.; Dékány, R. Képes Természetrajz. Középtanodák alsó Osztályai Számára; Lampel, R., Ed.; Nyomdája: Pest, Hungary, 1873. [Google Scholar]
  138. Polgár, S. Győr vidékének vízi és vízparti edényes növényzete. In A Győri Magyar Királyi Állami Főreáliskola Harmiczadik Évi Értesítője az 1902–1903. Tanévről; Lenner, E., Ed.; Gross Gusztáv Könyvnyomda Intézete: Győr, Hungary, 1902; pp. 3–32. [Google Scholar]
  139. Polgár, S. Győrmegye flórája. Flora Comitatus Jaurensis. Bot. Közlem. 1941, 38, 201–352. [Google Scholar]
  140. Rácz, S. A’ Borbélyi Tanításoknak Második Darabja A’ Törvényes Orvosi Tudományról, és az Orvosi Politziáról; Trattner, M., Ed.; Nyomdája: Pest, Hungary, 1794. [Google Scholar]
  141. Rácz, S. Dobozi tájszavak; ELTE Magyar Nyelvtörténeti és Nyelvjárási Tanszék: Budapest, Hungary, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  142. Récsi, E. Közigazgatási Törvénytudomány Kézikönyve, II. Kötet; Heckenast, G., Ed.; Nyomdája: Pest, Hungary, 1854. [Google Scholar]
  143. Réfi Oszkó, M. Gazdálkodás a Rétközben a XVIII–XIX. Században; A Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Levéltár Kiadványai III; Tanulmányok 4: Nyíregyháza, Hungary, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  144. Szabó, I. Magyar herbáriumok. A tapolcai polgár iskola herbáriuma Redl Gusztávtól. Bot. Közlem. 2002, 89, 203–218. [Google Scholar]
  145. Széchenyi, B. A Fertő-taváról. Ellenőr 1876, 8, 3. [Google Scholar]
  146. Szotyori, J. Diététikai Rövid Katékhézis: Melyet Az Erdély Országi Reformátum Méltóságos Fő Consistorium Rendeléséből; Református Kollégium: Marosvásárhely, Hungary, 1831. [Google Scholar]
  147. Takáts, S. Az ecsedi láp eresztése a múlt században. Magy. Gazdaságtörténelmi Szle. 1899, 6, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  148. Téglási Ercsei, J. A hazai mérges növények ismertetése. In Mentor. Erdélyi Népkönyv Közhasznú Ismeretek Tára a Honi Szorgalom, s Értelmesedés Előmozdítására; Nagy, F., Ed.; Tilsch és fia Nyomdája: Kolozsvár, Hungary, 1842; pp. 260–278. [Google Scholar]
  149. Virágh, E. Eltűnt lápvidék. Köztelek 1899, 9, 948–949. [Google Scholar]
  150. Wagner, J. Magyarország Virágos Növényei; Atheneum Irodalmi és Nyomdai Részvénytársulat Kiadása: Budapest, Hungary, 1902. [Google Scholar]
  151. Leopold, L. A Hanság. Budapesti Hírlap 1924, 44, 4. [Google Scholar]
Plants 14 00315 g001
Figure 1. Morphological characteristics of Cicuta virosa. (A) Rhizome resembling celery and its longitudinal section with leaking yellowish, oily liquid; (B) hollow, articulate, generative stem with nodular adventitious roots and its longitudinal section; (C) leaf; (D) flowering individual; (E) inflorescence; (F) unripe fruits. Photo credits (A,B,D) by A. Molnár V.; (C,E,F) by Sz. Kis.
Figure 1. Morphological characteristics of Cicuta virosa. (A) Rhizome resembling celery and its longitudinal section with leaking yellowish, oily liquid; (B) hollow, articulate, generative stem with nodular adventitious roots and its longitudinal section; (C) leaf; (D) flowering individual; (E) inflorescence; (F) unripe fruits. Photo credits (A,B,D) by A. Molnár V.; (C,E,F) by Sz. Kis.
Plants 14 00315 g001
Plants 14 00315 g002
Figure 2. Cicuta virosa in archival sources. (A) Illustration of the species in the work of Á. Kubinyi [19] published in 1842; (B) “Family poisoning with Cicuta virosa”: news on the cover of the journal Gyógyászat in 1878: “On the 20th of October last year, I had the opportunity to observe a case of a rather uncommon yet intriguing course of illness, which, precisely because it could easily recur and had an exceptionally fortunate outcome, rightfully deserves to be presented in its entirety” [20]; (C) death certificate of a 6-year-old boy who consumed csomorika in 1803, Szeghalom, Eastern Hungary: “The son of János Szarka, Mihály, ate the csomorika which caused his death. He found the csomorika by the bank of the ditch near their house, and in addition to him, one Catholic children perished, while two others ate less and were saved by means of vomiting.”. (C): photographed by J. Éliás.
Figure 2. Cicuta virosa in archival sources. (A) Illustration of the species in the work of Á. Kubinyi [19] published in 1842; (B) “Family poisoning with Cicuta virosa”: news on the cover of the journal Gyógyászat in 1878: “On the 20th of October last year, I had the opportunity to observe a case of a rather uncommon yet intriguing course of illness, which, precisely because it could easily recur and had an exceptionally fortunate outcome, rightfully deserves to be presented in its entirety” [20]; (C) death certificate of a 6-year-old boy who consumed csomorika in 1803, Szeghalom, Eastern Hungary: “The son of János Szarka, Mihály, ate the csomorika which caused his death. He found the csomorika by the bank of the ditch near their house, and in addition to him, one Catholic children perished, while two others ate less and were saved by means of vomiting.”. (C): photographed by J. Éliás.
Plants 14 00315 g002
Plants 14 00315 g003
Figure 3. Three most common regionally used vernacular names and complete distribution of Cicuta virosa in Hungary, overlaid with the pattern of inundation. Areas that were permanently or temporarily covered with water in Hungary prior to river regulation are distinguished (according to the Hungarian Hydrographic Institute [3]). Full circles represent distribution data obtained from the Vascular Plants of Hungary online database [21].
Figure 3. Three most common regionally used vernacular names and complete distribution of Cicuta virosa in Hungary, overlaid with the pattern of inundation. Areas that were permanently or temporarily covered with water in Hungary prior to river regulation are distinguished (according to the Hungarian Hydrographic Institute [3]). Full circles represent distribution data obtained from the Vascular Plants of Hungary online database [21].
Plants 14 00315 g003
Plants 14 00315 g004
Figure 4. Temporal pattern of usage of the most common vernacular names for Cicuta virosa. The bars represent the number of mentions for each name (including variants) across decades in the studied literature.
Figure 4. Temporal pattern of usage of the most common vernacular names for Cicuta virosa. The bars represent the number of mentions for each name (including variants) across decades in the studied literature.
Plants 14 00315 g004
Table 1. Frequency of use of various vernacular names, their geographical distribution, and brief explanations of the Hungarian terms.
Table 1. Frequency of use of various vernacular names, their geographical distribution, and brief explanations of the Hungarian terms.
Vernacular Name (Number of Mentions)RegionNotes
Csomorika (22); Csomorika fű (3); Gyilkos csomorika (19), Mérges csomorika (3)Berettyó-Sárrét region, Hortobágy (E-Hungary)Csomorika is the most widespread and currently used name for the plant. The specific epithets (gyilkos, mérges) refer to toxicity of the plant (killer and poisonous, respectively).
Mételytorzsa (9), Métel (1), Métely (3), Mételfű (1).Rétköz, Taktaköz, Ecsedi-láp (NE-Hungary)The Hungarian word torzsa means a thick, fleshy plant stem. The word métely refers to the liver fluke (Fasciola hepatica, Platyhelminthes), a parasite of ruminants. In a general sense, however, the word métely means a pathogenic, harmful organism. Megmételyezni = to spoil, poison, influence in a negative direction.
Kónyi gyökér (15), Konyer Wurzel (1)Hanság, Fertő (NW-Hungary)Kóny is a village in north-western Hungary, where the plant was common in the early 20th century. The word gyökér means root.
Vízibürök (6), Vízi mérgesbürök (2) Méregbürök (4)In several regions.The word bürök is usually used to designate the species Conium maculatum, which also belongs to the Apiaceae family and is severely poisonous too. Cicuta is usually distinguished from Conium based on their habitats (víz means water, vízi is equivalent to aquatic).
Table 2. Examples of sources providing ethnobotanical data on livestock poisoning from the 18th century.
Table 2. Examples of sources providing ethnobotanical data on livestock poisoning from the 18th century.
RegionOriginal TextEnglish TranslationSource
Nagy-Sárrét‘A lapos és posványos hellyeken levő csomorika nevezetű fű a marhának olly veszedelmes, hogy ha azt megeszi, fél óra múlván elkelletik néki veszni. E miatt is marháinkban esztendőnként nagy kárt szenvedünk.’The herb, called csomorika, which is found in marshy places, is so dangerous to cattle that if they eat it, they are forced to die after half an hour. Because of this we also suffer a lot of damage to our cattle every year.[43]: 331
Hajdúság ‘Egy nyáj juhot téli időben szénával éppen olyan rét aljon étettek, ahol az ilyen Tsomorikának torzsás gyökerei bőven találtattanak. Ezt a juhok még inkább rágták, mint a szénát (minthogy ezt édességének okáért különben is szeretik). De csakhamar kezdetiének is tőle számosan ledobbanni és megdögleni.’ In winter, a flock of sheep was fed by hay at the bottom of a meadow where the roots of such “Tsomorika” were found in abundance. The sheep like it for its sweetness and chewed it even more than hay. But it soon began to cause many of them to fall and die.[29]
Hanság ‘A’ Hanyságbann is valamint a’ Kónyi-tó mellett a’ Vármegye szélén, bőven találtatik az úgy nevezett Kónyi-gyökér melly olly mérges, hogy ha a’ marha meg találja enni, azonnal feldagad ’s megdöglik.’ In Hanyság as well as near Lake Kónyi on the edge of the county, there is plenty of the so-called Kónyi root which is so poisonous that if the cattle find it to eat, it swells up and dies immediately.[44]: 805
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kis, S.; Molnár V., A. Content Analysis of Digital Archives Contributes to the Historical Distribution and Folk Knowledge of the Highly Toxic Cicuta virosa L. in Hungary. Plants 2025, 14, 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14030315

AMA Style

Kis S, Molnár V. A. Content Analysis of Digital Archives Contributes to the Historical Distribution and Folk Knowledge of the Highly Toxic Cicuta virosa L. in Hungary. Plants. 2025; 14(3):315. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14030315

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kis, Szabolcs, and Attila Molnár V. 2025. "Content Analysis of Digital Archives Contributes to the Historical Distribution and Folk Knowledge of the Highly Toxic Cicuta virosa L. in Hungary" Plants 14, no. 3: 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14030315

APA Style

Kis, S., & Molnár V., A. (2025). Content Analysis of Digital Archives Contributes to the Historical Distribution and Folk Knowledge of the Highly Toxic Cicuta virosa L. in Hungary. Plants, 14(3), 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14030315

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