1. Unregulated herb harvesting poses dual threats of species endangerment as well as herbal supplement
contamination. The adulteration of herbal supplements such as black cohosh, A. racemosa, is
commonly caused by misidentification errors within a genus or family2. As is the case with the genus
Actaea and many others in the Ranunculaceae family, misidentification can have severe health and
ecological consequences. Currently, up to 1 in 4 herbal supplement sold as black cohosh are in fact
another species of Actaea4. Two species of this genus are commonly mistaken for black cohosh due to
similarities of native range and morphological characteristics including doll’s-eye, A. pachypoda, that
is toxic when ingested, and mountain bugbane, A. podocarpa DC. A. podocarpa is listed as imperiled
(S2) in Maryland where it is only found in one county, critically imperiled (S1) in IL, and vulnerable
(S3) in PA, WV, and GA. There are less than 500 known extant populations including 10 in
Maryland. The decline of this species continues due to increasing unintentional harvest, as
approximately 98% of black cohosh comes from wild harvested sources2,4. A. podocarpa may make
up a component of the up to 259,617 pounds of black cohosh wild-harvested a year (Alexander et al.).
While species of Actaea may be differentiated via analysis of active compounds, these methods have
limited accessibility to herb diggers and the general public. Our project aids in identification from the
perspective of an occasional herb harvester with little formal training in botany.
Introduction
• Brochure development:
• Photograph flowers, fruits, and other features distinguishing A. racemosa from A. podocarpa and
A. pachypoda.
• measure height, petiole length, leaf surface area, and stalk girth.
• Developed differentiation techniques using common language and everyday references (Fig. 1-5)
• Brochure distribution to National Forests and State Forest offices, local plant societies, herb guilds,
and at related outreach events as a reference guide to individuals applying for plant collection
permits.
Materials and Methods
We would like to thank Frostburg State University and the Western Maryland Chapter of the Maryland Native Plant Society.
Funding was provided from the Maryland Native Plant Society.
Acknowledgments
Mountain bugbane (Actaea podocarpa DC, Ranunculaceae), an understory herbaceous plant, is
declining throughout its range in the southern and central Appalachian mountains due to ecological
and anthropogenic pressures. Ecologically the species is found beneath eastern hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis (L.) Carrière) trees which are threatened by an exotic adelgid resulting in declining
habitat. An anthropogenic threat is species misidentification as black coshosh (A. racemosa L.) which
results in unintentional harvesting for the medicinal plant trade. We developed outreach material for
herb diggers, lay botanists, herbalists, and the general public that differentiates the intended species of
harvest, A. racemosa, from similar-looking related species: A. podocarpa and A. pachypoda Elliott.
Our outreach material simplifies technical morphological descriptions in botanical floras, increasing
the ability to differentiate species in the genus Actaea. This should have positive conservation
implications for A. podocarpa and a reduction in adulteration of herbal supplements. Additional
guides could include Appalachian bugbane, A. rubifolia (Kearney) Kartesz, for the southern part of
the range and red baneberry, A. rubra (Aiton) Willd, for the northern part of the range.
Abstract Results continued
As the demand for Actaea racemosa as an herbal supplement over the past two decades continues to
increase, the ecological pressure on wild populations of Actaea greaten. Often, wild collection occurs
without the aid of resources to properly distinguish A. racemosa from resembling species. Accessibility to
information is key in order for herb diggers and collectors to avoid accidentally digging the imperiled A.
podocarpa. By distributing information to places where herb digging permits are attained, the likelihood
of misidentification decreases, with the goal that herb diggers obtain a working knowledge of the potential
for species and personal health endangerment via herb misidentification. Such information presented with
picture elements, the use of comparative botanical descriptions, and colloquial language also helps to
account for usability. While the process of chemical analysis is widely accepted as an accurate1 means of
identification, general physical and morphological delineations between species can be of great benefit to
wild harvesters and the general public. Additional guides should be developed which include A. rubifolia
for the southern part of the range and A. rubra for the northern part of the range.
Literature Cited
1) Alexander, Susan J.; Oswalt, Sonja N.; Emery, Marla R. 2011. Nontimber forest products in the United
States: Montreal Process indicators as measures of current conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-851. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 36 p.
2) Baker, D. A., Stevenson, D. W., & Little, D. P. (2012). DNA Barcode Identification of Black Cohosh
Herbal Dietary Supplements. Journal Of AOAC International, 95(4), 1023-1034.
doi:10.5740/jaoacint.11-261
3) Foster, S. (2013). Exploring the Peripatetic Maze of Black Cohosh Adulteration. Herbalgram, (98), 32-
51 20p.
4) NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version
7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 28,
2016 ).
5) Pengelly, A., Bennett, K. (2012). Appalachian plant monographs. Black cohosh Actaea racemosa L.
Published online at http://www.frostburg.edu/aces/appalachian-plants/
6) Predny, M. L., De, A. P., Chamberlain, J. L., & United States. (2006). Black cohosh (Actaea racemosa):
An annotated bibliography. Asheville, NC: Southern Research Station.
7) Rhoads, A. F., & Block, T. A. (2007). Actaea L. In The Plants of Pennsylvania (p. 419). Philadelphia,
PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
8) Weakley, A. S., Ludwig, J. C., Townsend, J. F., & Crowder, B. (2012). Ranunculaceae: Actaea. In Flora
of Virginia (pp. 830-832). Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press.
1 Undergraduate Ethnobotany Majors, 2Associate Professor, Frostburg State University Department of Biology: Ethnobotany, Frostburg, MD, USA
Karen Johnson1, Laura Price1, and Sunshine Brosi2
Conservation concerns of misidentification among the genus Actaea
Figure 4: (left to right) Smooth, non-grooved petiole of A. racemosa; Grooved petiole
(commonly darkened along groove) of A. podocarpa; Smooth, non-grooved petiole of A.
pachypoda, with diameter approx. ¼ size of petioles of A. podocarpa and A. racemosa.
Figure 3: (left to right) A. racemosa flowers; White, aromatic mono-pistilate ( flowers terminally
arranged in bottle brush-like, branching racemes, A. podocarpa flowers; Non-aromatic flowers that
are multi-pistilated (3) A. pachypoda flowers.
Results
Morphological characteristics of look-alike species among the genus Actaea are distinctive when
presented in a comparative view and help to properly distinguish Actaea podocarpa from A.
racemosa and A. pachypoda.
Discussion
Figure 2: (left to right) A. racemosa leaflet; Leaflets do not overlap each other on the petiole.
Terminal leaf sinus is approximately ½ the length of the entire terminal leaflet. A. podocarpa
leaflet; Leaflets heavily overlap one another along the petiole. Terminal leaf sinus is greater than
½ the length of the entire terminal leaflet. Leaflet bases are highly cordate. Leaflet of A.
pachypoda; Leaflets do not overlap one another on the petiole. Terminal leaf sinus is less than ½
the length of the entire terminal leaflet. Sinus is sometimes lacking.
Leaflet of A. racemosa Leaflet of A. podocarpa Leaflet of A. pachypoda
Mono-pistilate flowers of A.
racemosa7
Multi-pistilate flowers of A.
podocarpa
Mono-pistilate flowers of A.
pachypoda
Results continued
How Do I Know If The Plant is Black Cohosh?
Black Cohosh
(A. racemosa)
Mountain Bugbane
(A. podocarpa)
Doll’s Eye
(A. pachypoda)
Height (ft) 4-6’ 3-7’ 1.5-2.5’
Flower
Single, vase-shaped
inner most part
(female part)
3-8 vase-shaped inner
most parts (female
parts)
Stalks of berries are
bright red
Length of the
stalk with
flowers on it
6-11” 8-10’’ 1-3”
Flowering time June-July Aug-Sept May-June
Flower aroma
Flowers with a strong
smell
Flowers without a
smell
Flowers with a strong
smell
Fruit
Fruit is round with a
hard outside with a
distinctive line
separating it in half
Fruit is shaped like a
half-moon and is
paper-like and thin
Berries: oval, white w/
purple cap, remains on
plant until frost
Stalk of plant
below the leaves
Groove absent Groove present Groove absent
Space between
the lobes on the
top most leaf
Approx. ½ leaf length> ½ leaf length < ½ leaf length
Leaflet overlap
Leaflets do not
overlap one another
on stem
Leaflets overlap one
another on stem
Leaflets do not overlap
one another on stem
Figure 1: (left to right) A. racemosa fruit, ovoid follicles with hard walls and a transverse vein: A. podocarpa fruit, flattened,
papery follicles with a beak-like tip: A. pachypoda fruit, white berries with purple/black top on bright red pedicels.
Typical floras include a description separating out the species by physical
descriptions using technical botanical language (Figure 5 and Figure 6).
We developed a more general descriptive characteristics (Figure 7).
How Do I Know If The Plant is Black Cohosh?
Black Cohosh
(A. racemosa)
Mountain Bugbane
(A. podocarpa)
Doll’s Eye
(A. pachypoda)
Height (ft) 4-6’ 3-7’ 1.5-2.5’
Flower
Solitary pistil, single
ovary
3-8 pistils, multiple
ovaries
Pedicels red
Panicle length
(in)
6-11” 8-10’’ 1-3”
Phenology June-July Aug-Sept May-June
Flower aroma Aromatic, bittersweet Non-aromatic Aromatic, bittersweet
Fruit
Follicles:
transversely veined,
firm walled, ovoid,
dehiscent
Follicles: non-veined,
membranous/ thin
walled, flattened,
beaked at the top,
dehiscent
Berries: ovoid, white w/
purple cap, persistent
until frost
Petiole Groove absent Groove present Groove absent
Terminal leaf
sinus depth
Approx. ½ leaf
length
> ½ leaf length < ½ leaf length
Leaflet overlap
Leaflets do not
overlap one another
on stem
Leaflets overlap one
another on stem
Leaflets do not overlap
one another on stem
Figure 5: Botanical descriptions of Actaea. (Weakley, A. S., Ludwig, J. C., Townsend, J. F., &
Crowder, B. (2012). Ranunculaceae: Actaea. In Flora of Virginia (pp. 830-832). Fort Worth, TX:
Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press.)
Figure 6: Comparative chart between physical characteristics of A. racemosa, A. podocarpa, and A. pachypoda using
botanical references and terms.
Figure 7: Translated comparative chart between physical characteristics of A. racemosa, A. podocarpa, and A.
pachypoda using common, colloquial language.