Scientific Sources and Nomenclature

Every botanical profile published on Natugreens ends with a formatted references section in which each relevant piece of information can be traced back to its source. On a subject that involves health and the safety of people and pets, this practice lets readers check for themselves what has been said, understand where each statement comes from, and see when a piece of information rests on solid studies and when it comes from more modest records. This page explains which types of source appear in those references, how we weigh the evidence, and what care we take with plant names.

Taxonomic Databases

Before discussing uses, compounds, or safety, we need to know exactly which plant is in question. That is why each species’ identity is checked against international and regional taxonomic databases, which record accepted names, synonyms, authors, and geographic distribution. Among those that appear frequently in the site’s references are:

• Biodiversity Heritage Library: a digital collection of historical botanical works, useful for consulting original species descriptions and classic reference texts that would be hard to access otherwise.
• eFloras: brings together published regional floras, such as the Flora of China and the Flora of North America, with detailed morphological descriptions and identification keys.
• Flora e Funga do Brasil: a project run by the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden that serves as the basis for the nomenclature, distribution, and status of native or naturalized species in Brazil.
• IPNI (International Plant Names Index): an index of the scientific names of vascular plants and their publication details, used to verify authorship and the work in which each name was first published.
• Missouri Botanical Garden: a US research institution that maintains the Tropicos nomenclatural database and Plant Finder, whose species pages help with information on cultivation and the general characteristics of plants.
• POWO (Plants of the World Online): a database maintained by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, consulted as a source for accepted names, synonyms, and native distribution. Natugreens only cites POWO in its references and has no partnership or institutional affiliation with Kew.
• USDA Plants Database: a database run by the United States Department of Agriculture, with information on the nomenclature, distribution, and status of plants in the United States.
• World Flora Online: an international initiative that seeks to consolidate a consensus list of known plant species, useful for cross-checking data against the other databases.

When two databases disagree on a species’ accepted name, which happens fairly often, the profile adopts the best-supported position and records the relevant synonym so that readers do not get lost when searching other sources.

Scientific and Safety Sources

For chemical composition and for studies on effects, interactions, and toxicity, the references point to bibliographic databases, public agencies, and scientific journals. The examples below are sources that actually appear in published profiles:

• ASPCA (Animal Poison Control): the poison control center of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, consulted when a profile addresses the risk a plant poses to dogs, cats, horses, and other domestic animals.
• DOI (Digital Object Identifier): a system of persistent identifiers for academic publications. Whenever an article has a DOI, we use it in the reference, because it keeps leading to the exact article even when the publisher changes the page address.
• IUCN Red List: the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s list assessing the extinction risk of species, cited when a plant’s conservation status deserves attention.
• Merck Veterinary Manual: a reference manual in veterinary medicine, consulted mainly on questions of toxicity to animals.
• NCCIH (National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health): a US federal agency, part of the National Institutes of Health, that publishes summaries of what is and is not yet known about natural products.
• PubMed and PMC: databases of the US National Library of Medicine. PubMed indexes abstracts from the biomedical literature and PMC provides the full text of some of those articles, and both are among the sources that appear most often in the site’s references.
• ResearchGate: a network where researchers post copies of their own work, used only as a way to access a text when it is not available by other means. The reference always identifies the original publication.
• Scientific journals: articles published by academic publishers and platforms such as MDPI, Oxford Academic, PLOS, ScienceDirect, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley Online Library. These articles generally undergo peer review at the journal itself before publication, although the rigor of that process varies from one journal to another.

How We Read the Evidence

Not every study carries the same weight, and a piece of information only makes sense when you know where it comes from. That is why we organize our reading of the sources as a kind of pyramid, from the strongest type of evidence to the weakest.

At the top are systematic reviews, which gather and compare multiple studies on the same question, and official monographs published by health authorities, which already summarize what the literature supports. Just below come clinical trials, in which the plant or an extract of it is tested in people under controlled conditions. Next are preclinical studies, carried out in the laboratory, on cells or in animal models, which help explain mechanisms but are not always borne out in the human body. At the base are ethnobotany and the record of traditional use, which document how different peoples have used the plant over time.

A single profile may include information from all of these levels, but each piece is labeled so that readers know whether they are looking at a clinical result, a laboratory finding, or a traditional use. Sitting at the base of the pyramid does not make a piece of information invalid. Traditional knowledge has value in its own right and often guides scientific research, but on its own it offers weaker evidence of efficacy and safety than a well-conducted trial. No profile replaces the guidance of a health professional.

Nomenclature

Each profile is organized around the species’ accepted scientific name, with its corresponding author. Many plants have accumulated several names over the history of botany, and these synonyms are listed so that readers can recognize the same species in older texts or in sources that still follow a different classification. A synonym does not indicate a different plant, and it is never treated as one.

The same care applies to autonyms, the infraspecific names that repeat the species epithet, as in Achillea millefolium subsp. millefolium. They designate the part of the species that contains its nomenclatural type, not a separate plant, so we do not present them as if they were another species, nor do we create separate profiles for them when the literature does not draw that distinction.

Botanical families follow their current circumscription, based on studies of evolutionary relationships such as the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification. This explains why some plants appear in families different from those listed in older books.

Common names call for special attention on a site published in several languages. In each version, vernacular names are taken from sources in that language and region and are never translated word for word from Portuguese, since a literal translation can produce a name that nobody uses or, worse, the name of a different plant.

Limits of the Sources

Scientific literature changes over time. New studies may confirm, qualify, or contradict what was known, and the taxonomic databases themselves revise names and classifications fairly regularly. Each profile reflects what the consulted sources said as of its revision date, and the references make it possible to check that basis at any time.

If you find a discrepancy between a profile and a reliable source, whether an outdated name, a reference that does not check out, or information that has changed, please let us know through the Contact page. Every report is reviewed and, when warranted, the profile is corrected.

Last revised: 2026-10-31