Advertisement

Herpetofauna Used in Traditional Folk Medicine: Conservation Implications

  • Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega AlvesEmail author
  • Washington Luiz Silva Vieira
  • Gindomar Gomes Santana
  • Kleber Silva Vieira
  • Paulo Fernando Guedes Pereira Montenegro
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the global use of herpetofauna in traditional folk medicine and the implications for conservation. The results indicate that 331 species (284 reptiles and 47 amphibians) are used in traditional folk medicine around the world. Among the species recorded, 182 reptiles and 42 amphibians are listed in the IUCN Red List. Additionally, 93 reptiles are in some of the appendices of CITES. These numbers demonstrate the importance of understanding such medicinal uses in the context of reptile conservation as well as the need for considering sociocultural factors when establishing management plans directed toward the sustainable use of these reptiles.

Keywords

Traditional Medicine Amphibian Species Medicinal Purpose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Folk Remedy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

7.1 Introduction

Amphibians and reptiles (collectively known as herpetofauna) represent one of the most important groups of vertebrates. The herpetofauna and human societies have interacted for millennia, virtually wherever they have been in contact. Thereby, amphibians and reptiles are one of the fundamental ethnozoological entities, and people interpret their relationship with these animals differently depending on culture, environment, and personal experience (Alves et al. 2010a).

Ethnoherpetology, a subdivision of ethnozoology, examines the relationships between human cultures and reptiles/amphibians (Bertrand 1997; Das 1998; Goodman and Hobbs 1994; Speck 1946). Ethnozoological studies can aid in the evaluation of the impacts human populations have on native animal species and in the development of sustainable management plans, and thus, they are essential to conservation efforts (Alves and Souto 2011).

Evidence from a variety of sources has shown that humans have long exploited the eggs, meat, blood, oil, shells, skin, bones, and other parts of reptiles and amphibians to provide food and materials for making tools, ornaments, and religious objects (Alves 2006; Alves et al. 2006, 2008; Alves and Pereira Filho 2007; Alves and Santana 2008; Fitter 1986; Fitzgerald et al. 2004; Franke and Telecky 2001; Frazier 2005; Mohneke et al. 2009; Tyler et al. 2007; Zhou and Jiang 2004). In addition to these uses, the herpetofauna is used for medicinal and cultural purposes (e.g., as totem or fetish or in particular ceremonies), as well as in day-to-day activities (Alves et al. 2008, 2009; Boll 2004; Mohneke et al. 2011; Myers et al. 1978; Morris and Morris 1965).

People have relied on medicinal products derived from natural sources for millennia, and animals have long been an important part of that repertoire (Adeola 1992; Alves and Rosa 2005; Angeletti et al. 1992; Lev 2003). The pharmacopeias of folk societies as well as of traditional (such as those of the Chinese, Ayurvedic, Unani) and Western medical systems contain thousands of uses for medicines made from leaves, herbs, roots, bark, animals, mineral substances, and other materials found in nature (Gesler 1992). Ingredients derived from wild plants and animals are not only widely used in traditional remedies, but are also increasingly valued as raw materials in the preparation of modern medicines and herbal preparations.

Increased demand and the growth of human populations have led to increased and often unsustainable rates of exploitation of natural resources, and some wild species are already threatened with extinction for this reason (Lee 1999). Discussions concerning the links between traditional medicine and biodiversity are therefore becoming imperative, particularly in view of the fact that folk medicine is the source of primary health care for 80% of the world’s population (Alves and Rosa 2005; Alves et al. 2007a).

Despite the intensive use of the herpetofauna for medicinal purposes, there is a general lack of detailed information concerning the magnitude of this harvesting and its impact on the species involved (Alves and Pereira Filho 2007; Alves et al. 2008; Mohneke et al. 2011). Demands on the wild sources of traditional medicinal products are increasing as human populations grow inexorably and poorer countries are forced to decrease spending per capita on Western health systems. On the other hand, Western populations are turning to more traditional and homeopathic products, and their demand for natural remedies is increasing (IUCN 2000). Additionally, some species are in danger of extinction due to a combination of factors independent of the growing global demand for traditional medicines and other natural products.

Reptiles are among the animal species most frequently used in traditional folk medicine (Alves and Alves 2011; Alves et al. 2007a, 2008, 2009; Mahawar and Jaroli 2008; Vázquez et al. 2006; Zhou and Jiang 2004). This also applies to amphibians which are used for medicinal purposes in several countries (Alves et al. 2007b; Boll 2004; Mohneke et al. 2011), although to a lesser extent compared to reptiles.

The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of the global use of the herpetofauna in traditional medicine, to identify those species used as folk remedies, and to discuss the implications of their harvesting. In this context, we address the following questions: (1) which reptile and amphibian species are used in folk medicine; (2) which medicinal species are endangered, and (3) what are the implications of the use of zootherapeutics for reptile and amphibian conservation? We hope to stimulate further discussions about this use of biodiversity and its implications for wildlife conservation.

7.2 Methods

In order to examine the diversity of reptiles used in traditional medicine, all available references or reports of folk remedies based on herpetofauna sources were examined. Only taxa that could be identified to the species level were included in the database. Scientific names provided in the publications were updated according to The Reptile Database (2011) and Amphibian Species of the World 5.5 (Frost 2011). The conservation status of the reptile species follows IUCN (2011) and CITES (2011).

The sources analyzed were: Branch and Silva (1983), Begossi (1992), Begossi and Braga (1992), Donadio and Gallardo (1984), Figueiredo (1994), China National Corporation of Traditional and Herbal Medicine (1995), Marques (1995), Freire (1996), Costa-Neto (1996, 1999a, b, c, 2000), SEMARNAP-PROFEPA (1998), Begossi et al. (1999), Sodeinde and Soewu (1999), Chen et al. (2000, 2006, 2009), El-Kamali (2000), Perry (2000), Seixas and Begossi (2001), Almeida and Albuquerque (2002), CITES (2002), Kakati and Doulo (2002), Apaza et al. (2003), Lev (2003), Fitzgerald et al. (2004), Silva et al. (2004), Almeida et al. (2005), Andrade and Costa-Neto (2005), Costa-Neto and Pacheco (2005), Smart et al. (2005), Ashwell and Walston (2008), Alakbarli (2006), Alves (2006), Alves and Rosa (2006; 2007a, b; 2010), Alves et al. (2007a, b), Ives (2006), Kakati et al. (2006), Mahawar and Jaroli (2006), Vázquez et al. (2006), Alves and Pereira Filho (2007), Barzyk (1999), Dharmananda (2007a; 2007b), El Din (2007), Negi and Palyal (2007), Fretey et al. (2007), Highfield and Bayley (2007), Highfield and Slimani (2007), IFAW (2007), Meiling et al. (2008), Quave et al. (2010), Rowley et al. (2010), Martínez and Barboza (2010), Mohneke et al. (2010), Mohneke et al. (2011), Shao-Ke et al. (2010), Alves and Alves (2011), Indian Traditional Medicinal Knowledgebase (2011) and Lohani (2011).

7.3 Results and Discussion

7.3.1 Medicinal Herpetofauna

The medicinal herpetofauna includes a total of 331 species, of which 284 are reptiles and 47 are amphibians. These species belonging to 202 genera and 57 families are used in traditional folk medicine.

Among the reptiles, the groups with the largest numbers of species used were snakes (123 species), followed by lizards (71), chelonians (76), and crocodilians (14) (Table 7.1). In relation to amphibians, the family with the largest number of species was Bufonidae (15 species). Of the total amphibians recorded, 42 species are included in the IUCN Red List (Fig. 7.1), but none are in the appendices of CITES. Among the reptiles recorded, a total of 182 species are listed in IUCN (Fig. 7.2) and 93 are found in some of the appendices of CITES. The order Testudines showed the highest number of species included in the IUCN Red List and in the appendices of CITES, with 22 species in the category vulnerable and 26 species in Appendix II, respectively (Fig. 7.3).
Table 7.1

Herpetofauna species used in traditional folk medicine and conservation status according to IUCN (2011) and CITES Appendix (2011)

Family/species

AMPHIBIA (47 species)

Caudata (2 species)

Salamandridae (2 spp): Laotriton laosensis (Stuart and Papenfuss, 2002), Salamandra salamandra (Linnaeus, 1758)LC.

Anura (45 species)

Hyperoliidae (1 sp):Kassina fusca Schiøtz, 1967LC

Arthroleptidae (1 sp):Leptopelis bufonides Schiøtz, 1967LC

Pyxicephalidae (1 sp):Tomopterna cryptotis (Boulenger, 1907)LC

Bufonidae (15 spp):Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758)LC, Bufo” pentoni Anderson, 1893LC, Amietophrynus regularis (Reuss, 1833)LC, A. maculatus (Hallowell, 1854)LC, A. xeros (Tandy, Tandy, Keith, and Duff-MacKay, 1976)LC, Nanorana liebigii (Günther, 1860)LC, Rhinella schneideri (Werner, 1894)LC, R. marina (Linnaeus, 1758)LC, R. jimi (Stevaux, 2002)LC, R. icterica (Spix, 1824)LC, Incilius bocourti (Brocchi, 1877)LC, I. valliceps (Wiegmann, 1833)LC, I. macrocristatus (Firschein and Smith, 1957)VU, Schismaderma carens (Smith, 1848)LC, Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider, 1799)LC.

Leptodactylidae (3 spp):Leptodactylus labyrinthicus (Spix, 1824)LC, L. vastus Lutz, 1930, L. troglodytes Lutz, 1926LC.

Dicroglossidae (3 spp):Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin, 1802)LC, Nanorana liebigii (Günther, 1860)LC, N. polunini (Smith, 1951)LC.

Craugastoridae (2 spp):Craugastor laticeps (Duméril, 1853)NT, C. glaucus (Lynch, 1967)CR

Ranidae (8 spp):Lithobatesmaculatus (Brocchi, 1877), L. berlandieri (Baird, 1859)LC, L. montezumae (Baird, 1854)LC, L. sylvaticus (LeConte, 1825)LC, L. spectabilis (Hillis and Frost, 1985)LC, Pelophylax perezi (López-Seoane, 1885)LC, P. ridibundus (Pallas, 1771)LC, Rana amurensis Boulenger, 1886LC.

Hylidae (8 spp):Charadrahyla chaneque (Duellman, 1961)EN, Trachycephalus typhonius (Linnaeus, 1758), T. resinifictrix (Goeldi, 1907)LC, Phyllomedusa bicolor (Boddaert, 1772)LC, P. burmeisteri Boulenger, 1882LC, Hyla arborea (Linnaeus, 1758)LC, H. cinerea (Schneider, 1799) LC, H. arenicolor Cope, 1866 LC.

Microhylidae (1 sp):Hypopachus barberi Schmidt, 1939VU.

Ceratophryidae (1 sp):Telmatobius culeus (Garman, 1876)CR.

Calyptocephalellidae (1 sp):Calyptocephalella gayi (Duméril and Bibron, 1841).

REPTILIA (284 species)

Testudines (76 species)

Cheloniidae (6 spp):Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758)VU/I, Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766)EN/I, Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758)VU/I, Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829)VU/I, L. kempii Garman, 1880 CR/I, Natator depressus Garman 1880DD//I,

Dermochelyidae (1 spp):Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761)CR/I.

Emydidae (3 spp):Trachemys scripta (Schoepff, 1792)LC/II, Malaclemys terrapin Schoepff 1793LC, Emys orbicularis (Linnaeus, 1758)NT

Chelidae(4 spp):Phrynops geoffroanus (Schweigger, 1812), P. tuberosus Peters 1870, Mesoclemmys tuberculata (Luederwaldt, 1926), Chelus fimbriatus (Schneider, 1783).

Trionychidae (5 spp): Lissemys punctata (Lacepède, 1788)LC/II, Pelochelys bibroni (Owen 1853)VU/II, Pelodiscus sinensis (Wiegmann 1835)VU, Palea steindachneri (Siebenrock 1906)EN/III, Amyda cartilaginea (Boddaert, 1770)VU

Chelydridae (1 sp):Platysternon megacephalum Gray 1831EN/II

Testudinidae (15 spp):Testudo horsfieldii Gray 1844VU/II, T. graeca Linnaeus 1758VU/II, T. kleinmanni Lortet 1883CR/I, Chelonoidis carbonaria (Spix, 1824)DD/II, C. denticulata (Linnaeus, 1766)VU/II, Geochelone platynota (Blyth, 1863)CR, G. elegans (Schoepff 1795)LC, Stigmochelys pardalis (Bell, 1828)LC, Kinixys belliana (Gray 1831)LC, K. spekii Gray, 1863LC,Indotestudo elongata (Blyth 1854)EN, I. forstenii (Schlegel & Müller 1844)EN/II, Manouria impressa (Günther 1882)VU, Astrochelys radiata (Shaw, 1802)CR, Chersina angulata (Schweigger, 1812)LC.

Kinosternidae (5 spp):Kinosternon scorpioides Linnaeus 1766, K. integrum (Le Conte 1854)LC, Pangshura tentoria (Gray 1834)LC, P. tecta (Gray 1831)LC, Staurotypus triporcatus (Wiegmann 1828)NT.

Podocnemididae (4 spp):Podocnemis expansa (Schweiger,1812)LC/II, P. unifilis (Troschel, 1848)VU/II, P. sextuberculata Cornalia 1849VU/II, Peltocephalus dumeriliana (Schweigger 1812)VU/II.

Geoemydidae: (33 spp): Rhinoclemmys punctularia (Daudin, 1802), Cuora amboinensis (Daudin 1802)VU, C. trifasciata (Bell 1825)CR, C. aurocapitata Luo & Zong, 1988CRCistoclemmys galbinifrons (Bourret, 1939)CR/II, C. flavomarginata (Gray 1863)EN/II, Leucocephalon yuwonoi (Mccord, Iverson & Boeadi 1995)CR/II, Sacalia bealei (Gray 1831)EN, S. quadriocellata (Siebenrock, 1903)EN, Mauremys reevesii (Gray, 1831)EN/III, M. mutica (Cantor 1842)EN, M. leprosa (Schweigger, 1812), Ocadia sinensis (Gray 1834)EN, Morenia petersi (Anderson, 1879)VU, M. ocellata (DumÉril and Bibron 1835)VU/I, Pyxidea mouhotii (Gray 1862)EN/II, Geoemyda spengleri (Gmelin, 1789)EN/III, Malayemys subtrijuga (DumÉril and Bibron 1835)VU/II, Cyclemys dentata (Gray 1831)NT, Geoclemys hamiltonii (Gray 1831)VU/I, Hardella thurjii (Gray 1831)VU, Heosemys depressa (Anderson, 1875)CR/II, H. grandis (Gray 1831)VU/II, H. spinosa (Gray 1831)EN/II, H. annandalii (Boulenger, 1903)EN/II, Chinemys nigricans (Gray 1834)EN/III, Melanochelys trijuga (Schweigger, 1812)NT, Notochelys platynota (Gray 1834)VU/II, Callagur borneoensis (Schlegel and Müller, 1844)CR, Pangshura smithii (Gray 1863)NT/II, P. tecta (Gray 1831)LC/I, Siebenrockiella crassicollis (Gray 1831)VU/II, Orlitia borneensis Gray, 1873EN.

Platysternidae (1 sp):Platysternon megacephalum Gray 1831EN/II

Crocodylia (14 species)

Alligatoridae (7 spp):Caiman latirostris (Daudin, 1801)LC/II, C. crocodilus (Linnaeus, 1758)LC/II, C. yacare (Daudin 1802), Paleosuchus palpebrosus (Cuvier, 1807)LC/II, P. trigonatus (Schneider, 1801)DD/II, Melanosuchus niger (Spix, 1825)LC/II, Alligator sinensis Fauvel 1879CR/I

Crocodylidae (6 spp):Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti 1768LC/I, C. siamensis Schneider 1801CR/I, C. porosus (Schneider, 1801)LC/I, C. palustris Lesson 1831VU/I, C. moreletii (Duméril & Bibron 1851)LC/I, C. acutus (Cuvier 1807)VU/II.

Gavialidae (1 sp):Gavialis gangeticus (Gmelin 1789)EN/I

Squamata—Lizards (71 species)

Phrynosomatidae (8 spp):Sceloporus serrifer Cope 1866LC, S. taeniocnemis Cope 1885LC, S. acanthinus Bocourt 1873, S. spinosus Wiegmann 1828LC, S. grammicus Wiegmann 1828LC, Phrynosoma cornutum (Harlan 1825)LC, P. modestum Girard 1852LC, P. orbiculare (Gmelin, 1789)LC.

Anguidae (3 spp):Abronia lythrochila Smith & Alvarez Del Toro 1963LC, Mesaspis moreletii Bocourt 1871LC, Ophisaurus harti Boulenger 1899LC.

Scincidae (3 spp): Acontias plumbeus Bianconi, 1849LC, Eutropis carinata (Schneider 1801)LC,Scincus scincus (Linnaeus 1758).

Cordylidae (4 spp):Cordylus giganteus Smith 1844VU/II, C. tropidosternum (Cope 1869)LC/II, C. vittifer (Reichenow, 1887)LC, C. warreni (Boulenger 1908) LC/II.

Helodermatidae (1 sp): Heloderma horridum (Wiegmann 1829)VU/II.

Agamidae (9 spp):Uromastyx hardwickii Gray, 1827II, U. dispar Heyden 1827II, U. aegyptia (Forskal 1775)II, Agama agama (Linnaeus 1758), A. impalearis Boettger 1874, Calotis versicolor Daudim 1802, Laudakia nupta (De Filippi 1843), Trapelus mutabilis (Merrem 1820), Acanthocercus atricollis (Smith, 1849)LC.

Lacertidae (4 spp): Lacerta agilis Linnaeus 1758LC, Timon lepidus (Daudin, 1802)NT, Podarcis hispanicus (Steindachner, 1870)LC, Zootoca vivipara (Von Jacquin 1787)LC.

Liolaemidae (2 spp):Liolaemus pantherinus Pellegrin 1909, L. alticolor Barbour 1909.

Varanidae (5 spp):Varanus niloticus (Linnaeus 1758)LC/II. V. bengalensis (Daudin 1758)LC/I, V. salvator (Laurenti 1768)LC/II, V. griseus (Daudin 1803)I, V. albigularis (Daudin 1802)LC/II.

Teiidae (6 spp):Tupinambis merianae (Duméril & Bibron, 1839)LC/II, T. teguixin (Linnaeus 1758)II, T. rufescens (Günther,1871)II, Ameiva ameiva (Linnaeus, 1758), Cnemidophorus gr ocellifer (Spix, 1825), Kentropyx pelviceps (Cope 1868).

Iguanidae (3 spp):Iguana iguana (Linnaeus, 1758)II, Ctenosaura pectinata Wiegmann 1834, C. similis (Gray 1831)LC.

Polychrotidae (3 spp):Polychrus acutirostris Spix 1825, P. marmoratus (Linnaeus 1758), Anolisfuscoauratus D’Orbigny, 1837

Tropiduridae (4 spp):Tropidurus semitaeniatus (Spix, 1825)LC, T. torquatus (Wied, 1820)LC, T. hispidus (Spix, 1825), Uranoscodon superciliosus (Linnaeus 1758).

Gekkonidae (4 spp):Hemidactylus mabouia (Moreau de Jonnes, 1818), H. frenatus Schlegel 1836LC, Gekko gecko (Linnaeus 1758)NT, G. chinensis (Gray, 1842)LC.

Phyllodactylidae (1 sp):Tarentola mauritanica (Linnaeus 1758)LC.

Sphaerodactylidae (1 sp):Gonatodes hasemani Griffin 1917LC.

Chamaeleonidae (8 spp):Chamaeleo senegalensis Daudin 1802LC/II, C. chamaeleon (Linnaeus 1758)II, C. dilepis Leach, 1819,LCFurcifer lateralis (Gray, 1831), Bradypodion dracomontanum Raw 1976II, B. nemorale Raw 1978LR/II, B. setaroi Raw 1976EN/II, B. thamnobates Raw 1976LC/II.

Gerrhosauridae (2 spp): Gerrhosaurus major Duméril, 1851LC, G. flavigularis Wiegmann, 1828LC.

Squamata—Snakes (123 species)

Achrochordidae (1 sp): Acrochordus granulatus (Schneider, 1799)LC.

Boidae (8 spp):Boa constrictor Linnaeus, 1758II, Corallus caninus (Linnaeus, 1758)DD/II, C. hortolanus (Linnaeus, 1758)DD/II, Epicratesassisi Machado, 1945, E. cenchria (Linnaeus, 1758)II, Eunectes murinus (Linnaeus, 1758)II, E. notaeus (Cope, 1862), Eryx johnii (Russell 1801)II.

Pythonidae (6 spp):Python sebae (Gmelin 1789)II, P. regius (Shaw 1802)II, P. molurus (Linnaeus 1758)LC/I, P. natalensis Smith 1840LC/II, P. bivittatus Kuhl, 1820, Broghammerus reticulatus (Schneider 1801)II.

Viperidae (35 spp):Lachesis muta (Linnaeus, 1766), Caudisona durissa (Linnaeus, 1758)DD/III, C. molossus (Baird & Girard 1853)LC, C. basiliscus (Cope 1864)LC, Crotalus. horridus Linnaeus 1758LC, C. scutulatus (Kennicott, 1861)LC, C. viridis Rafinesque 1818LC, Hoserea atrox (Baird and Girard 1853)LC, Uropsophus lepidus (Kennicott 1861)LC, U. triseriatus Wagler 1830LC, Aechmophrys pricei (Van Denburgh 1895)LC, A. willardi (Meek 1905)LC, A. polystictus (Cope 1865)LC, A. transversus (Taylor 1944)LC, Deinagkistrodon acutus (Günther 1888), Atropoides nummifer (Rüppell 1845)LC, Cerrophidion tzotzilorum (Campbell 1985)LC, Protobothrops mucrosquamatus (Cantor 1839)LC, Bothrops atrox (Linnaeus 1758), B. asper (Garman 1883), B. leucurus Wagler, 1824, B. lanceolatus (Bonnaterre, 1790), Bitis gabonica (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril 1854), B. arietans (Merrem 1820), Causus rhombeatus (Lichtenstein 1823), Agkistrodon contortrix (Linnaeus, 1766)LC, Gloydius blomhoffi (Boie 1826), G. himalayanus (Günther 1864), Daboia russelli (Shaw 1797), Macrovipera lebetina (Linnaeus, 1758), Vipera latastei (Bosca, 1878)VU, Viridovipera stejnegeri (Schmidt, 1925), V. vogeli (David, Vidal & Pauwels, 2001), Cryptelytrops albolabris (Gray, 1842)LC, C. macrops (Kramer, 1977).

Elapidae (25 spp):Micrurus spixii Wagler 1824, M. surinamensis (Cuvier 1817), M.ibiboboca (Merrem, 1820), Bungarus multicinctus Blyth 1861, B. fasciatus (Schneider 1801), B. candidus (Linnaeus, 1758), Naja atra Cantor 1842II, N. annulifera Peters 1854, N. naja (Linnaeus 1758)II, N. mossambica Peters, 1854LC, N. kaouthia Lesson, 1831LC, N. siamensis Laurenti, 1768LC, Elapognathus coronata (Schlegel, 1837), Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor 1836)VU/II. Hydrophis cyanocinctus Daudin 1803LC, H. melanocephala Gray, 1849DD, Polyodontognathus caerulescens (Shaw, 1802)LC, Pelamis platura (Linnaeus, 1766)LC, Dendroaspis polylepis Günther, 1864LC, D. angusticeps (Smith, 1849)LC, Hemachatus haemachatus (Bonnaterre, 1789)LC Lapemis hardwickii Gray, 1834, Praescutata viperina (Schmidt, 1852)LC, Laticauda laticaudata (Linnaeus, 1758)LC, L. semifasciata (Reinwardt, 1837)NT.

Dipsadidae (8 spp):Oxyrhopus trigeminus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, O. formosus (Wied 1820), O. melanogenys (Tschudi 1845), Tachymenis peruviana Wiegmann, 1835, Imantodes cenchoa Linnaeus 1758, Leptodeira annulata (Linnaeus, 1758), Philodryas olfersii (Lichenstein, 1823), Thamnodynastes strigatus (Günther, 1858)LC.

Homalopsidae (3 sp): Enhydris enhydris (Schneider, 1799)LC, E. chinensis Gray 1842LC, E. plumbea Boie 1827LC.

Colubridae (28 spp):Spilotes pullatus (Linnaeus, 1758), Leptophis ahetula (Linnaeus, 1758), Chironius carinatus (Linnaeus, 1758), C. grandisquamis Peters 1869, Mastigodryas bifossatus (Raddi, 1820), Lampropeltis triangulum (Lacépède 1789), Ptyas dhumnades (Cantor 1842), P. mucosus (Linnaeus, 1758)II, P. korros (Schlegel 1837), Drymobius margaritiferus (Schlegel 1837), Dinodon rufozonatum (Cantor 1842), Orthriophis taeniurus (Cope 1861), O. moellendorffi (Boettger 1886), Pituophis lineaticollis (Cope 1861)LC, Rhinechis scalaris (Schinz, 1822)LC, Dispholidus typus (Smith, 1828)LC, Ahaetulla nasuta (Bonnaterre, 1790), A. prasina (Boie, 1827)LC, Boiga multomaculata (Boie, 1827), Coelognathus radiatus (Boie, 1827), Dendrelaphis pictus (Gmelin, 1789), Elaphe quatuorlineata (Wagler, 1833) E. carinata (Günther 1864), E. radiata Boie 1827, E. schrenckii Strauch, 1873, E. bimaculata Schmidt, 1925, Euprepiophis mandarinus (Cantor, 1842), Oocatochus rufodorsatus (Cantor, 1842)LC.

Cylindrophiidae (1 sp): Cylindrophis ruffus (Laurenti, 1768).

Natricidae (2 sp): Xenochrophis flavipunctatus (Hallowell, 1860), Sinonatrix annularis (Hallowell, 1856).

Lamprophiidae (3 sp): Malpolon monspessulanus (Hermann, 1804)LC, Lamprophis aurora (Linnaeus, 1758)LC, Pseudaspis cana (Linnaeus, 1758)LC,

Psammophiidae (3 sp): Psammophis phillipsi (Hallowell, 1844)LC, Psammophylax rhombeatus (Linnaeus, 1758)LC, P. tritaeniatus (Günther, 1868)LC.

Categories of IUCN red list: CR critically endangered, EN endangered, VU vulnerable, LR lower risk, DD deficient data. CITES Appendix (I, II and III)

Fig. 7.1

Status of the conservation of amphibian species used in traditional folk medicine and conservation status according to IUCN (2011). Categories of IUCN Red List: CR critically endangered, EN endangered, VU vulnerable, LR lower risk, DD deficient data, NL not listed

Fig. 7.2

Status of the conservation of reptile species used in traditional folk medicine and conservation status according to IUCN (2011). Categories of IUCN Red List: CR critically endangered, EN Endangered, VU vulnerable, LR lower risk, DD deficient data, NL not listed

Fig. 7.3

Reptile species used in traditional folk medicine included in one of the appendices of CITES (2011) NL not listed, AP I appendix I, AP II appendix II, AP III appendix III

These numbers reveal the importance of the medicinal use of the herpetofauna from a conservationist perspective, even though this form of exploitation is not the main threat to the majority of the species of reptiles and amphibians used in traditional medicine. This is an additional factor that increases pressure on exploited species.

The high taxonomic diversity observed among reptiles used in traditional medicine is not surprising, as numerous workers have pointed out that reptiles are among the animals most frequently used in folk medicine (Alves and Alves 2011; Ashwell and Walston 2008; Kakati et al. 2006; Mahawar and Jaroli 2008). However, considering the relatively small number of published studies on this subject, it is possible that the number of medicinal reptile species used is greater than that recorded here.

Some widespread species are used in different countries, such as Kinosternon scorpioides (in Mexico and Brazil), Varanus niloticus (in India, Sudan, and China), Varanus bengalensis (in India and China), and Dermochelys coriacea (in Brazil, Mexico, Benin, Cameroon, and Togo). A given animal often has multiple medicinal uses and can be employed to treat more than one ailment, while different species of reptiles and amphibians can likewise be used to treat the same illnesses. Products derived from Tupinambis merianae and T. teguixin, for instance, are indicated for treating 8 and 18 conditions, respectively, in Brazil (Alves and Rosa 2007a); in India, products derived from the land monitor (V. bengalensis) are used to treat hemorrhoids, rheumatism, body pain, and burns, as well as spider and snake bites (Kakati et al. 2006); in Mexico, rattlesnake pills have been indicated for curing a wide variety of ailments, including: skin blotches, cancer, sores, rashes, pimples, welts, itching, rheumatism, varicose veins, face blotches, acne, blackheads, stress, heart disease, diabetes, hemorrhoids, and sexual impotence (Rubio 1998).

Reptiles are one of the groups most closely associated with the history of medicine. The Greeks and Romans worshipped snakes and the god of medicine is represented holding a snake (Ziemendorff 2008). Historical documents indicated that reptiles have been used in traditional medicines since ancient times (Alakbarli 2006; Almeida 2007; Alves et al. 2007a; MacKinney 1946; Silva et al. 2004). In Brazil, for example, animal species (including reptiles) have been used medicinally by indigenous societies for millennia (Alves et al. 2007a).

In his Compendium of Materia Medica, Li Shizhen, a noted pharmacologist in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644 A.D.) states that turtle helps “repair internal injury caused by overstrain, strengthens the yin and yang” and “replenishes vital essence, reduces fever, clam the liver and subdues yang, soften and resolve hard masses” (Li et al. 2000). Many ancient Chinese medical books described the therapeutic effects of treating rheumatism, hemiplegia, neuralgia, and muscle poliomyelitis with parts of snakes including gall bladder and liver (Guo et al. 1996).

Similarly, a historical review of the therapeutic uses of animals as described in medieval manuscripts from Alakbarl (2006) revealed a total of 12 species of reptiles with medicinal uses. According to these medieval manuscripts, these reptiles were successfully used to treat ailments that included sexual impotence and leprosy. Among the species mentioned were indigenous species still found in Azerbaijan, such as the Caucasian agama (Agama caucasica), the Levantine viper (Vipera lebetina), the Mediterranean tortoise (Testudo graeca), and the Moorish gecko (Tarentola mauritanica). Exotic reptiles mentioned included the chameleon (Chameleo chameleo), the monitor lizard (Varanus griseus), and the crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). The medicines prepared from these reptiles were imported into Azerbaijan from distant countries.

The medicinal use of amphibians is also very old. Gomes et al. (2007) pointed out that in many ancient cultures, amphibians were believed to possess medicinal properties. For instance, frog potions are used as aphrodisiacs and to prevent impotence and infertility; they are also used as contraceptives and to treat various illnesses (Gomes et al. 2007). Fever could be treated with ground frog heads (Hendricks 1966, p. 44), and whooping cough with a soup made from nine frogs (Hendricks 1980, p. 109). Heart trouble was treated with ground-up toad skins (Hendricks 1980, p. 8). Also, newts are often burned to ashes and then used in medicinal formulas and concoctions since ancient times (Gomes et al. 2007). Alakbarli (2006), highlighted that amphibians were not used in medicine as widely as reptiles, but mentioned that four species of amphibians described in medieval sources have been identified. This group includes frogs, toads, salamanders, and tree-frogs (Hyla arborea).

Crocodilians, snakes, lizards, turtles, tortoises, and amphibians serve as important sources of protein for human populations around the world, and the consumption of reptile meat is often intertwined with cultural or medicinal beliefs (Alves et al. 2006, 2008, 2009; Angeletti et al. 1992; Klemens and Thorbjarnarson 1995). Likewise, various medicinal species of amphibians and reptiles are also hunted as food and represent important protein sources for the inhabitants of rural areas (as well as in urban areas where they are often sold), and include Podocnemis expansa, P. unifilis, Chelonia mydas, Chelonoides denticulata, C. carbonaria, T. merianae, Paleosuchus palpebrosus, P. trigonatus, Melanosuchus niger, Naja naja, Bungarus fasciatus, Ptyas mucosus, P. korros, Bufo pentoni, Amietophrynus regularis, A. maculatus, Kassina fusca, Leptodactylus vastus, and Leptopelis bufonides, among others (Alves and Alves 2011; Alves et al. 2006, 2008, 2009; Mohneke et al. 2010, 2011). Other studies have also recorded the use of animal species as foods/medicines (Alves and Rosa 2006, 2007a; Alves et al. 2007a; Pieroni et al. 2002).

Besides their role in healing, natural products often have magical-religious significance, reflecting the different views of health and disease that exist within different cultures. In this context, animal parts are used to prepare clinical remedies as well as to make amulets or charms used in magical/religious diagnoses.

Popular beliefs usually affect the way species are used in zootherapy (Alves and Rosa 2006). Reptiles and amphibians are commonly used in healing through the magical transfer of disease, one of the most engaging subjects in the whole field of folk medicine (Hand 1980). In some situations, it is believed that the mere contact with an animal is sufficient for the disease to pass from the victim to the animal. In Ontario, for example, the mere touching of a live frog to a goiter is sufficient to make the malady pass into the frog; however, final curing depends upon burying the hapless critter head down in the ground until it decays. When this happens the goiter will disappear. Tying or binding a live frog to the affected part will cure a felon, will cause chills to go out of the patient into the frog, will cure asthma, and, in a North Carolina example, spells resembling the hard ague. In the Blue Grass country a live toad is bound to the back to cure rheumatism, the pain passing from the back of the sufferer into the toad (Hand 1980). In Northeast Brazil, jabutis (Chelonoidis carbonaria) are usually bred as pets because it is believed that they protect the household from acquiring asthma (Alves et al. 2011).

Another form of spiritual treatment involves the use of amulets containing reptile parts to protect the user from the “evil-eye” or from diseases (Alves et al. 2010b; Alves and Pereira Filho 2007). An example is caiman teeth (C. latirostris, M. niger, and P. palpebrosus) used as protection against snake bites in Brazilian traditional medicine. Alves and Pereira Filho (2007) reported that snakes are sold for medicinal and magic-religious purposes in many Brazilian cities.

Various medicinal amphibians and reptiles are also sold as pets or souvenirs. Large numbers of iguanas (I. iguana), for example, are imported to well-established businesses in the United States from El Salvador and other Central American countries and then re-exported for the pet market in Europe and Asia (Gibbons et al. 2000). In many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, amphibians and reptiles are collected for subsistence or local consumption (Altherr et al. 2011; Klemens and Thorbjarnarson 1995; Mohneke et al. 2009). These multiple uses (including medicinal) of the herpetofauna and their impact on animal populations must be properly assessed (Alves et al. 2007a) and taken into consideration when implementing recovery plans for these species, especially those that are highly exploited.

Traditional drugs and medicine in general will require more research and careful evaluations, and it is a well-established fact that many plant, animal, and mineral remedies used in traditional settings are capable of producing serious adverse reactions (Alves and Rosa 2005; De Smet 1991). At least 11 cases of serious extra-gastrointestinal infections by Salmonella arizona attributed to the ingestion of a rattlesnake folk remedy have been reported (Fainstein et al. 1982; Fleischman et al. 1989; McIntyre et al. 1982; Riley et al. 1988). In China, people were reported to be reverting to their habit of eating snakes, as the fear of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) was fading (Zhou and Jiang 2005).

A thorough review of the biological risks associated with consumption of reptile products (Magnino et al. 2009) does not include incidents associated with medicinal snake wine, an alcoholic beverage produced by infusing whole snakes in rice wine or grain alcohol (Barzyk 1999). However, human sparganosis, caused by (among others) the ingestion of plerocercoid larvae in raw or insufficiently cooked meat of reptiles (or amphibians), has been reported from Vietnam (Beaver et al. 1984; Magnino et al. 2009). As such, it is essential that traditional drug therapies be submitted to appropriate risk/benefit analyses (De Smet 1991).

Unfortunately, little research has been done so far to prove the claimed clinical efficacy of animal products for medicinal purposes (Still 2003). Moreover, as pointed out by Pieroni et al. (2002), although the chemical constituents and pharmacological actions of certain animal products are known to some extent, more ethnopharmacological studies focusing on animal remedies are needed in order to better define the eventual therapeutic usefulness of this class of biological remedies.

Reptiles and amphibians have been used as sources of drugs for modern medical practices. Reptiles venoms are complex mixtures of bioactive molecules (Chen et al. 2006), and the venom of snakes belonging to the families Viperidae and Elapidae contain analgesic substances that are stronger than morphine and have been used to treat terminal cancer patients (Bisset 1991). These observations are corroborated by Brasil (1937) and Giorgi et al. (1993), who noted that analgesic drugs have been extracted from the venom of Crotalus durissus. Batroxobin, extracted from the venom of Bothrops atrox, has been found to have significant therapeutic effects on ischemic-reperfused rats in vivo and in clinical trials, and batroxobin, as well as ancrod, is currently being commercially produced. Three other thrombin-like enzyme preparations are also commercially available: reptilase, crotalase, and an enzyme derived from Agkistrodon contortrix (Bell and Markland 1997). However, wider clinical use of thrombin-like enzymes has been impeded by immunologic reactions in patients, limited availability of snake venoms, and high production costs as well (Warkentin 1998).

Similarly, studies have demonstrated the enormous potential of amphibians as a source of natural products and drugs (Daly 1998). Amphibian skin has long been known to possess intriguing biological properties, and scientific examination of these secretions has revealed that their components possess a range of medical properties (Shaw 2009). The medicinal activity of various skin components has been confirmed by modern pharmacology as having great potential in ultimately helping to cure various diseases or at least being the basis for derivates and respective anticancer drugs, pain killers, or even agents to prevent cells from being invaded by HIV viruses (Alves et al. 2006; Daly 2003; Garg et al. 2008; Lu et al. 2008). As pointed out by Alves and Rosa (2006), further ethnopharmacological studies are necessary to increase our understanding of the links between traditional uses of faunistic resources, public health policies and sustainable management of natural resources.

It is important to note that behind the perceived efficacy by users, the popularity of animal-based remedies is influenced by cultural aspects, the relations between humans and biodiversity in the form of zootherapeutic practices are conditioned by the social and economic relations between humans themselves (Alves et al. 2008). It has been documented that people sometimes resort to traditional home remedies as a means of resisting urban modern medicine and of asserting their traditional culture (Alves et al. 2007b; Boltanski 1989; Ngokwey 1995). In China, for example, the demand of turtle in traditional medicine is fueled by deeply held cultural beliefs (Rubio 1998).

The medicinal use of the herpetofauna is important to both urban and rural populations, a result in line with Alves and Rosa (2007a, b), who suggested that zootherapeutic practices may function as a social conduit that (in conjunction with other factors) helps rural populations that have migrated to cities to maintain connections with their traditional cultures and values. More specifically, the use of folk remedies indicates an exchange of materials and information on illnesses and treatments between remote rural areas and urban communities.

The commercialization of reptiles and amphibians for medicinal and other purposes has been reported for many parts of the world (Alves et al. 2006; Alves and Rosa 2010; Angeletti et al. 1992; Barzyk 1999; Fitzgerald et al. 2004; Franke and Telecky 2001; Zhou and Jiang 2004). In several Brazilian cities, for example, snakes are widely traded in outdoor markets (that can even have designated stalls for medicinal animals and plants) or in small stores specifically dedicated to this activity (Alves and Pereira Filho 2007; Alves and Rosa 2010). In Mexico, natural and traditional remedies derived from reptiles (such as dried rattlesnakes, rattlesnake pills, and rattles) are frequently offered for sale (Fitzgerald et al. 2004). Turtles, snakes, and lizards (especially monitor and gecko lizards—Fig. 7.4) are widely hunted and traded in Vietnam for food and as traditional medicines (Jenkins 1995; Le and Broad 1995; Nash 1997; Stuart 2004). Somaweera and Somaweera (2010) documented the use and trade of snakes in snake wine in four of the most touristic cities in Vietnam. He and Peng (1999) reported that the quantity of snakes consumed in the markets of Guangzhou, Guangdong Province of China, was about 1.4 × 10kg each year. From 1990 to 1995, the annual demand for wild snakes from 13 factories producing traditional Chinese medicines (TCM) included 1,656.77 kg of Zaocys dhumnades, 234.75 kg of Deinagkistrodon acutus, and 20,300 heads and 32.1 kg of Bungarus multicinctus (Zheng and Zhang 2000). These examples illustrate the urgent need to increase our knowledge concerning the harvesting and trading of reptiles in traditional medicine and to assess the impacts caused by this commercial exploitation.
Fig. 7.4

Geckos (imported from Indonesia) for sale at a market in China. Photo: Anthony B. Cunningham

7.3.2 Implications for Conservation

Reptile populations are being seriously reduced throughout the world. Factors responsible for these observed declines include the alteration, destruction, or fragmentation of habitat, climate change, disease, impacts from non-indigenous species, ultraviolet radiation, and xenobiotic chemicals (Gibbons et al. 2000). In addition, reptile populations are heavily harvested for human use. The observed population decreases due to human harvesting may be due to the direct physical removal of these animals or due to collection techniques that destroy the habitats used by these reptiles (Alves et al. 2008).

A similar trend is observed for amphibians, which are one of the most threatened groups of animals (Collins and Crump 2009; Stuart 2008; Stuart et al. 2004). Reasons for this are numerous, but besides habitat degradation and loss, disease and rapid enigmatic declines, overexploitation is mentioned as one of the main causes (Alves et al. 2006; Angeletti et al. 1992; Gomes et al. 2007; Halliday 2008). Amphibian species are harvested and used worldwide mainly as a food source, i.e., frog legs are thought to be delicacies in many regions of the world. However, frogs are also collected for leather production and souvenirs, for the pet trade and for cultural reasons including traditional medicine (Gomes et al. 2007; Oza 1990; Warkentin et al. 2009).

The collection of individual animals from the wild for subsistence or commercial and medicinal purposes has been invoked as a factor contributing to the decline of certain species (Alves et al. 2006, 2008; Angeletti et al. 1992; Gibbons et al. 2000), although there has not yet been a comprehensive evaluation of this potential link. The popularity of folk medicine certainly places pressure on these natural resources (Almeida and Albuquerque 2002).

Our results demonstrate that a substantial number of reptile and amphibian species (n = 331) are used in traditional medicine throughout the world and that the vast majority of these animals are collected from the wild. Of the medicinal species used, 224 (67.6%) are already included on endangered species lists. Of the species cataloged in this study, 93 (28%) are included in three CITES appendices (see Table 7.1), although the reasons for their inclusion are not necessarily related to medicinal use. These results demonstrate the need to assess the implications of the trade of reptiles used in traditional medicines on their wild populations, and the need for including such uses in discussions about herpetofauna conservation.

The trade of animals for medicinal purposes is a widespread phenomenon, with significant implications for their conservation and sustainable use (Alves and Rosa 2005). The demand for live snakes (and their body parts) for use in traditional medicine appears to have led to significant reductions in their populations in certain parts of the world (Fitzgerald et al. 2004).

Field reports have indicated the southeastern Asian medicinal trade as a growing threat to reptiles, especially turtles and snakes (Klemens and Thorbjarnarson 1995). Asia has a high diversity of turtle species, but its unique fauna is facing a perilous and uncertain future. The main reason for the Asian turtle survival crisis is Chinese demand for turtle products (van Dijk et al. 2000). Directly or indirectly, the medicinal value attributed to chelonians has been one of the main reasons for their trade and overexploitation. In China, turtles are sought as a delicacy because of widespread popular belief, inspired by Traditional Chinese Medicine, that turtle meat or shell possesses especially nutritious or curative properties (Lau and Shi 2000). Such situations demonstrate that cultural aspect should be taken into consideration in the elaboration of conservation plans. A study conducted in China showed that the same (or better) nutritional benefits of turtles can be obtained with cheaper, common, and less-endangered food sources such as domestic animals (Rubio 1998). These authors concluded that given the financial and environmental cost of using turtle products, other options for obtaining the same nutrition should be promoted and that future challenges should involve balancing cultural practices with sustaining biodiversity.

More than one-half of all freshwater tortoise and turtle species from Southeast and Eastern Asia are currently endangered or critically endangered, largely because of overcollection by the food and traditional medicine industries (Garg et al. 2008; Hand 1980; Klemens and Thorbjarnarson 1995; Turtle Conservation Fund 2002). The high demand for crocodile skins, meat, and body parts for traditional medicine have certainly contributed to the observed decline in their populations in Nigeria (Ita 1994), as the demand for live rattlesnakes, skins, and body parts has reduced the populations of these reptiles in Mexico (Fitzgerald et al. 2004).

Many factors affect reptilian and amphibian populations in the world, and the use of these animals for medicinal purposes represents an additional pressure, whose impact varies depending on the species exploited and the cultural factors associated with their exploitation. The medicinal use of the herpetofauna must be considered together with other anthropogenic pressures, such as habitat loss. The depletion of medicinal resources not only poses a challenge for conservation but also represents a serious threat to the health of many human communities, and efforts to stabilize the status of these species are important not only to conservationists but also to millions of people whose health depends on the use of traditional remedies.

Ultimately, the most successful conservation programs are those that identify and deal with the reason a species is endangered and at the same time provide economic benefits to local people (Pough et al. 2004). Therefore, management strategies aimed at herpetofauna conservation need to be established to minimize the impact of the traditional populations that use several species as food and medicine or for other purposes (Alves et al. 2008, 2009).

An alternative proposal can be the creation of reptile breeder cooperatives in rural gatherer communities for raw material supplies and products for medicinal use. These cooperatives could be part of breeding sites of species such as Podocnemis expansa, P. unifilis, Chelonia mydas, Chelonoidis denticulata, C. carbonaria, T. merianae, Paleosuchus palpebrosus, P. trigonatus, Boa constrictor, Uranoscodon superciliosus, and Tupinambis spp, among others, with the appropriate authorization and regulation by competent governmental bodies, besides the presence of specialists in the area (biologists, veterinarians, and animal husbandry staff) (Alves et al. 2008, 2009). An example of a successful cooperative can be the snake collectors for poison extraction in India (Whitaker 1989).

Sustainable use programs for reptiles have had some success in the world (Pough et al. 2004; Vitt and Caldwell 2009), such as the snake collectors who extract venom in India (Whitaker 1989). Lizards (Tupinambis, and certain iguanids) are harvested for local consumption and have experienced sharp population declines in many areas due to overhunting (Vitt and Caldwell 2009).

Breeding programs to raise iguanas for release into the wild have been developed in several countries, including Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, and Venezuela (Eilers et al. 2002), and iguana farming has become an attractive economic alternative to cattle breeding and a significant source of food for local populations (Magnino et al. 2009). Managed harvests of crocodilians began about three decades ago to assist the recovery of species and populations that had been devastated by unregulated hunting. The success of managed harvests and captive rearing in Papua New Guinea, Venezuela, and a few other countries stimulated other governments to begin similar programs. These managed species have shown remarkable resilience in many countries, and their populations are no longer endangered. However, with more countries producing skins, supply began to exceed demand and was followed by a declining popularity of crocodilian leather (Vitt and Caldwell 2009).

In addition, the therapeutic indications of wild animals and plants and domestic or cultivated species also overlapped in many cases (Alves et al. 2007a). This aspect opens the possibility of replacing, where suitable, the use of threatened species with other species in traditional medicine formulas. Such substitution of products is of interest from a conservationist perspective, in the context of reducing the pressure on overexploited populations, or legally protected species (Alves and Rosa 2007a). Educational programs are also quite viable alternatives, mainly when focused on rural communities where inhabitants eat reptiles/amphibians and use them in traditional medicine and religious practices.

Projects seeking to train teachers in those communities and old hunters in sites nearby protected areas help to minimize the impacts on the herpetofauna. As pointed out by Pough et al. (2004), education is urgently needed at all levels to maintain viable populations of reptiles. Training in areas of habitat protection, wildlife management, and conservation biology is needed, especially in tropical countries where most species of reptiles are found. The success of conservation and management programs ultimately depends on how well the programs are tailored to the interests and needs of the people on whose land the threatened or endangered animal live.

The use of amphibians and reptiles is an integral part of many cultures (Alves et al. 2006, 2008; Angeletti et al. 1992; Gibbons et al. 2000). The great diversity of interactions between humans and the herpetofauna provide the foundations for the cultural, economic, emotional, intellectual, social, and spiritual motivations that determine how conservation and management activities are designed, conducted, and assessed (Alves et al. 2008, 2009; Frazier 2005).

As described in this chapter, reptiles and amphibians are used globally in traditional folk medicine, which is thereby a form of exploitation that should be taken into consideration. This use of the herpetofauna represents an additional pressure for many species, and for others this has been indicated as an important cause of population decline. Thus, not only should one consider the use of these animals in popular medicine but also their exploitation by the pharmaceutical industry. As pointed out by Shaw (2009), any pharmaceutical scientist who is involved in contemporary natural product research has to get involved in or at the very least become familiar with the global issues of species conservation and/or biodiversity.

Reptiles and amphibians have declined rapidly in both numbers and range in recent decades and their exploitation by humans is noted as an impacting factor for the decline of many species. Hence, an understanding of the cultural, social, and traditional roles of the herpetofauna is essential for establishing management plans directed toward sustainable use. As recorded in this work, medicinal use of the herpetofauna, despite being widely disseminated, has been studied little, limiting the evaluation of the impact of these practices on animal populations. Therefore, studies in ethnoherpetology are essential in conservation strategies and to record associated knowledge of such uses.

References

  1. Adeola MO (1992) Importance of wild animals and their parts in the culture, religious festivals, and traditional medicine, of Nigeria. Environ Conserv 19(02):125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alakbarli F (2006) Medical manuscripts of Azerbaijan. Heydar Aliyev Foundation, BakuGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida AV (2007) Zooterapia indígena brasileira do século XVIII nas obras de Guilherme Piso, Georg Marcgrave e Joannes de Laet. Sitientibus Série Ciências Biológicas 7(3):261–272Google Scholar
  4. Almeida CFCBR, Albuquerque UP (2002) Uso e conservação de plantas e animais medicinais no Estado de Pernambuco (Nordeste do Brasil): Um estudo de caso. Interciencia 27(6):276–285Google Scholar
  5. Almeida AV, Alves AGC, Lucena RFP, Albuquerque UP (2005) Prescrições zooterápicas indígenas brasileiras nas obras de Guilherme Piso (1611–1678). In: Atualidades em Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia. Nupeea, Sociedade Brasileira de Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia, Recife, pp 45–60Google Scholar
  6. Altherr S, Goyenechea A, Schubert DJ (2011) Canapés to extinction: the international trade in frogs’ legs and its ecological impact. A report by Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Welfare Institute. Munich (Germany), Washington, D.C. (USA)Google Scholar
  7. Alves RRN (2006) Use of marine turtles in zootherapy in Northeast Brazil. Mar Turt Newslett 112:16–17Google Scholar
  8. Alves RRN, Alves HN (2011) The faunal drugstore: animal-based remedies used in traditional medicines in Latin America. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 7(9):1–43Google Scholar
  9. Alves RRN, Pereira Filho GA (2007) Commercialization and use of snakes in North and Northeastern Brazil: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 16:969–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Alves RRN, Rosa IL (2005) Why study the use of animal products in traditional medicines? J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 1(5):1–5Google Scholar
  11. Alves RRN, Rosa IL (2006) From cnidarians to mammals: the use of animals as remedies in fishing communities in NE Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol 107:259–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Alves RRN, Rosa IL (2007a) Zootherapeutic practices among fishing communities in North and Northeast Brazil: A comparison. J Ethnopharmacol 111:82–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Alves RRN, Rosa IL (2007b) Zootherapy goes to town: the use of animal-based remedies in urban areas of NE and N Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol 113:541–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Alves RRN, Rosa IL (2010) Trade of animals used in Brazilian traditional medicine: trends and implications for conservation. Human Ecol 38(5):691–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Alves RRN, Santana GG (2008) Use and commercialization of Podocnemis expansa (Schweiger 1812) (Testudines: Podocnemididae) for medicinal purposes in two communities in North of Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 4(3):6Google Scholar
  16. Alves RRN, Souto WMS (2011) Ethnozoology in Brazil: current status and perspectives. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 7(22):1–19Google Scholar
  17. Alves RRN, Filho GAP, Lima YCC (2006) Snakes used in ethnomedicine in Northeast Brazil. Environ Dev Sustain 9(4):455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Alves RRN, Rosa IL, Santana GG (2007a) The Role of animal-derived remedies as complementary medicine in Brazil. Bioscience 57(11):949–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Alves R, Filho GAP, Lima YCC (2007b) Snakes used in ethnomedicine in Northeast Brazil. Environ Dev Sustain 9(4):455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Alves RRN, Vieira WLS, Santana GG (2008) Reptiles used in traditional folk medicine: conservation implications. Biodivers Conserv 17(8):2037–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Alves RRN, Léo Neto NA, Santana GG, Vieira WLS, Almeida WO (2009) Reptiles used for medicinal and magic religious purposes in Brazil. Appl Herpetol 6(3):257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Alves RRN, Pereira-Filho GA, Vieira KS, Santana GG, Vieira WLS, Almeida WO (2010a) Répteis e as populações humanas no Brasil: uma abordagem etnoherpetológica. In: Alves RRN, Souto WMS, Mourão JS (eds) A Etnozoologia no Brasil: importância, status atual e perspectivas, vol 7, 1st edn. NUPEEA, Recife, pp 121–148Google Scholar
  23. Alves RRN, Pereira-Filho GA, Vieira KS, Santana GG, Vieira WLS, Almeida WO (2010b) Répteis e as populações humanas no Brasil:uma abordagem etnoherpetológica. In: Alves RRN, Souto WMS, Mourão JS (eds) A Etnozoologia no Brasil: importância, status atual e perspectivas futuras. NUPEEA, Recife, pp 121–146Google Scholar
  24. Alves RRN, Barbosa JAA, Santos SLDX, Souto WMS, Barboza RRD (2011) Animal-based remedies as complementary medicines in the semi-arid Region of Northeastern Brazil. eCAM:1–15. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nep134
  25. Andrade JN, Costa-Neto EM (2005) Primeiro registro da utilização medicinal de recursos pesqueiros na cidade de São Félix. Estado da Bahia, Brasil Acta Sci Biol Sci 27(2):177–183Google Scholar
  26. Angeletti LR, Agrimi U, French D, Curia C, Mariani-Costantini R (1992) Healing rituals and sacred serpents. Lancet 340(8813):223–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Apaza L, Godoy R, Wilkie D, Byron E, Huanca T, Leonard WR, Peréz E, Reyes-García V, Vadez V (2003) Markets and the use of wild animals for traditional medicine: a case study among the Tsimané ameridians of the Bolivian rain forest. J Ethnobiol 23(1):47–64Google Scholar
  28. Ashwell D, Walston N (2008) An overview of the use and trade of plants and animals in traditional medicine systems in Cambodia, 1st edn. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia Greater Mekong Programme, Ha NoiGoogle Scholar
  29. Barzyk JE (1999) Turtles in crisis: the Asian food markets. http://www.tortoisetrust.org/articles
  30. Beaver PC, Jung RC, Cupp EW (1984) Clinical parasitology, vol 9. Lea & Febiger, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Begossi A (1992) Food taboos at Búzios Island (SE Brazil): their significance and relation to folk medicine. J Ethnobiol 12(1):117–139Google Scholar
  32. Begossi A, Braga F (1992) Food taboos and folk medicine among fishermen from the Tocantins River. Amazoniana 12:341–352Google Scholar
  33. Begossi A, Silvano RAM, Amaral BD, Oyakama OT (1999) Uses of fish and game by inhabitants of an extrative reserve (Upper Juruá, Acre, Brazil). Environ Dev Sustain 1:73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Bell WR, Markland FS (1997) Defibrinogenating enzymes. Discussion. Drugs 54:18–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Bertrand H (1997) Contribution à l’étude de l’herpétologie et de l’ethnoherpétologie en Anjou = A study on the herpetology and ethnoherpetology of Anjou province (France). Bulletin de la Société herpétologique de France 82–83:51–62Google Scholar
  36. Bisset NG (1991) One man’s poison, another man’s medicine? J Ethnopharmacol 32(1–3):71–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Boll V (2004) The distribution and ethnozoology of frogs (and toad) in North–Eastern Arnhem Land (Australia). Anthropozoologica 39(2):61–72Google Scholar
  38. Boltanski L (1989) As classes sociais eo corpo. Graal, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  39. Branch L, Silva MF (1983) Folk medicine in Alter do Chão, Pará, Brasil. Acta Amazônica 13:737–797Google Scholar
  40. Brasil V (1937) Do emprego da peconha em terapeutica. GB (Brazil), Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  41. Chen TH, Lin HC, Chang HC (2000) Current status and utilization of chelonians in Taiwan. In: Van Dijk PP, Stuart BL, Rhodin AGJ (eds) Workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, pp 45–51Google Scholar
  42. Chen T, Kwok HF, Ivanyi C, Shaw C (2006) Isolation and cloning of exendin precursor cDNAs from single samples of venom from the Mexican beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum) and the Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum). Toxicon 47(3):288–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Chen TH, Chang HC, Lue KY (2009) Unregulated trade in turtle shells for Chinese traditional medicine in East and Southeast Asia: the case of Taiwan. Chelonian Conserv Biol 8(1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. China National Corporation of Traditional and Herbal Medicine (1995) Materia medica commonly used in china. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  45. CITES (2002) List of species traded for medicinal purposes. 18th meeting of the animals committee. San José, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  46. CITES (2011) CITES Appendix. http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html. Accessed 7 Aug 2011
  47. Collins JP, Crump ML (2009) Extinction in our times: global amphibian decline. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Costa-Neto EM (1996) Faunistc Resources used as medicines by an Afro-brazilian community from Chapada Diamantina National Park, State of Bahia-Brazil. Sitientibus 15:211–219Google Scholar
  49. Costa-Neto EM (1999a) Barata é um santo remédio: introdução a zooterapia popular no Estado da Bahia Editora Universitária da UEFS, Feira de SantanaGoogle Scholar
  50. Costa-Neto EM (1999b) Healing with animals in Feira de Santana city, Bahia, Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol 65:225–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Costa-Neto EM (1999c) Recursos animais utilizados na medicina tradicional dos índios Pankararé que habitam o Nordeste do Estado da Bahia, Brasil. Actualidades Biologicas 21(70):69–79Google Scholar
  52. Costa-Neto EM (2000) Conhecimento e usos tradicionais de recursos faunísticos por uma comunidade Afro-Brasileira. Resultados preliminares. Interciencia 25(9):423–431Google Scholar
  53. Costa-Neto EM, Pacheco JM (2005) Utilização medicinal de insetos no povoado de Pedra Branca, Santa Terezinha, Bahia, Brasil. Biotemas 18(1):113–133Google Scholar
  54. Daly JW (1998) Thirty years of discovering arthropod alkaloids in amphibian skin†. J Nat Prod 61(1):162–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Daly JW (2003) Ernest Guenther award in chemistry of natural products. Amphibian skin: a remarkable source of biologically active arthropod alkaloids. J Med Chem 46(4):445–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Das I (1998) The Serpent’s tongue: a contribution to the ethnoherpetology of India and adjacent countries. Edn Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  57. De Smet PAGM (1991) Is there any danger in using traditional remedies? J Ethnopharmacol 32:43–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Dharmananda S (2007a) Endangered species issues affecting turtles and tortoises used in Chinese medicine http://www.itmonline.org/arts/turtles.html
  59. Dharmananda S (2007b) The medicinal use of snakes in China http://www.itmonline.org/arts/snakes.html
  60. Donadio OE, Gallardo JM (1984) Biología y conservación de las especies del género Tupinambis (Squamata, Sauria, Teiidae) en la República Argentina. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales” Bernardino Rivadavia”. Zoologia 13:117–127Google Scholar
  61. Eilers K, Koops W, Udo H, Van Keulen H, Noordhuizen J (2002) Analysis of Iguana iguana farming systems in Nicaragua Costa Rica and Panama. Interciencia 27(11):599–606Google Scholar
  62. El-Din SB (2007) Testudo Kleinmanni in Libya. http://www.tortoisetrust.org/articles/libya.html
  63. El-Kamali HH (2000) Folk medicinal use of some animal products in Central Sudan. J Ethnopharmacol 72:279–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Fainstein V, Yancey R, Trier P, Bodey GP (1982) Overwhelming infection in a cancer patient caused by Arizona hinshawii: its relation to snake pill ingestion. Am J Infect Control 10(4):147–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Figueiredo N (1994) Os ‘bichos’ que curam: os animais e a medicina ‘folk’ em Belém do Pará. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Göeldi 10(1):75–91Google Scholar
  66. Fitter RSR (1986) Wildlife for man: how and why we should conserve our species. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  67. Fitzgerald LA, Painter CW, Reuter A, Hoover C, America TN (2004) Collection, trade, and regulation of reptiles and amphibians of the Chihuahuan desert ecoregion. TRAFFIC North America, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  68. Fleischman S, Haake DA, Lovett MA (1989) Salmonella arizona infections associated with ingestion of rattlesnake capsules. Arch Intern Med 149(3):701–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Franke J, Telecky TM (2001) Reptiles as pets: an examination of the trade in live reptiles in the United States. Humane Society of the United States, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  70. Frazier J (2005) Traditional and cultural use of marine turtles. In: 3rd Meeting of the signatory states, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  71. Freire FC (1996) Répteis utilizados na medicina popular no Estado de Alagoas. Monografia de graduação. Universidade Federal de Alagoas, MaceióGoogle Scholar
  72. Fretey J, Segniagbeto GH, Soumah M (2007) Presence of sea turtles in traditional pharmacopoeia and beliefs of West Africa. Mar Turt Newsl 116:23–25Google Scholar
  73. Frost DR (2011) Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 5.5. American Museum of Natural History. http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/. Accessed 11 Aug 2011
  74. Garg AD, Hippargi RV, Gandhare AN (2008) Toad skin-secretions: potent source of pharmacologically and therapeutically significant compounds. Internet J Pharmacol 5(2):17Google Scholar
  75. Gesler WM (1992) Therapeutic landscapes: medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Soc Sci Med 34(7):735–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Gibbons JW, Scott DE, Ryan TJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville TD, Metts BS, Greene JL, Mills T, Leiden Y, Poppy S, Winne CT (2000) The global decline of reptiles, Déjà Vu amphibians. BioScience 50(8):653–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Giorgi R, Bernardi MM, Cury Y (1993) Analgesic effect evoked by low molecular weight substances extracted from Crotalus durissus terrificus venom. Toxicon 31(10):1257–1265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Gomes A, Giri B, Saha A, Mishra R, Dasgupta SC, Debnath A (2007) Bioactive molecules from amphibian skin: Their biological activities with reference to therapeutic potentials for possible drug development. Indian J Exp Biol 45(7):579PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Goodman SM, Hobbs J (1994) The distribution and ethnozoology of reptiles of the northern portion of the Egyptian Eastern Desert. J Ethnobiol 14:75–100Google Scholar
  80. Guo Y, Zou X, Chen Y (1996) Tentative survey on sustainable use of medicinal animals. In: Development CICCoEa (ed) Protect the biodiversity of China. China Environmental Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  81. Halliday TR (2008) Why amphibians are important. Int Zoo Yearbook 42(1):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Hand WD (1980) Magical medicine: the folkloric component of medicine in the folk belief, custom, and ritual of the peoples of Europe and America: selected essays of Wayland D. Hand. University of California Press, HandGoogle Scholar
  83. He H, Peng X (1999) Tentative survey on snake market in Guangzhou. Sichuan J Zool 18(3):139–141Google Scholar
  84. Hendricks GDM (1966) Mice and mus-taches: a sampling of superstitions and popular beliefs in Texas. Texas Folklore Society, AustinGoogle Scholar
  85. Hendricks GD (1980) Roosters, rhymes and railroad tracks. A second sampling of superstitions and popular beliefs in Texas. Southern Methodist University Press, DallasGoogle Scholar
  86. Highfield AC, Bayley JR (2007) Folklore, myth, and exploitation of snakes in Morocco and Tunisia. http://www.tortoisetrust.org/articles/exploit.html
  87. Highfield AC, Slimani T (2007) The Spiny-tailed Lizard at home—Uromastyx acanthinurus in southern MoroccoGoogle Scholar
  88. IFAW—International Fund for Animal Welfare (2007) What’s hiding inside your traditional medicine? http://www.ifawct.org/Publications/Program_Publications/Wildlife_Trade/Traditional_Chinese_Medicine/asset_upload_file1_14609.pdf
  89. Indian Traditional Medicinal Knowledgebase (2011) http://www.ncbi.org.in/traditionalmedicine/index.jsp
  90. Ita EO (1994) Aquatic plants and wetland wildlife resources of Nigeria. CIFA occasional paperGoogle Scholar
  91. IUCN (2000) Approaches to the conservation of species used in traditional medicines. Newslett Species Surviv Comm 33:36–38Google Scholar
  92. IUCN (2011) IUCN Red list of threatened species. IUCN. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 30 Sept 2011
  93. Ives IE (2006) Conservation of Sulawesi's Two Endemic Chelonians, Leucocephalon yuwonoi and Indotestudo forstenii; an Investigation into In-Situ and Ex-Situ Conservation Concerns. MSc. Thesis, Antioch University, USA Google Scholar
  94. Jenkins M (1995) Tortoises and freshwater turtles: the trade in South East Asia. Traffic International Cambridge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  95. Kakati LN, Doulo V (2002) Indigenous knowledge system of zootherapeutic use by Chakhesang tribe of Nagaland, India. J Hum Ecol 13(6):419–423Google Scholar
  96. Kakati LN, Ao B, Doulo V (2006) Indigenous knowledge of Zootherapeutic use of vertebrate origin by the Ao Tribe of Nagaland. Human Ecol 19(3):163–167Google Scholar
  97. Klemens MW, Thorbjarnarson JB (1995) Reptiles as a food resource. Biodivers Conserv 4(3):281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Lau M, Shi H (2000) Conservation and trade of terrestrial and freshwater turtles and tortoises in the People’s Republic of China. Chelonian Res Monogr 2:30–38Google Scholar
  99. Le DD, Broad S (1995) Investigations into tortoise and freshwater turtle trade in Vietnam. IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  100. Lee SKH (1999) Trade in traditional medicine using endangered species: an international context. Paper presented at the 2nd Australian symposium on traditional medicine and wildlife conservation, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  101. Lev E (2003) Traditional healing with animals (zootherapy): medieval to present-day levantine practice. J Ethnopharmacol 85:107–118. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(02)00377-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Li G, Tang D, Fang K (2000) An analysis of amino acids in the meat of Cuora trifasciata. Sichuan J Zool 19:165–166Google Scholar
  103. Lohani U (2011) Traditional uses of animals among jirels of Central Nepal. Ethno Med 5(2):115–124Google Scholar
  104. Lu CX, Nan KJ, Lei Y (2008) Agents from amphibians with anticancer properties. Anticancer Drugs 19(10):931–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. MacKinney LC (1946) Animal substances in materia medica. J Hist Med Allied Sci 1(1):149–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Magnino S, Colin P, Dei-Cas E, Madsen M, McLauchlin J, Nöckler K, Prieto Maradona M, Tsigarida E, Vanopdenbosch E, Van Peteghem C (2009) Biological risks associated with consumption of reptile products. Int J Food Microbiol 134(3):163–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Mahawar MM, Jaroli DP (2006) Animals and their products utilized as medicines by the inhabitants surrounding the Ranthambhore National Park, India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2(46):1–5Google Scholar
  108. Mahawar MM, Jaroli DP (2008) Traditional zootherapeutic studies in India: a review. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 4(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Marques JGW (1995) Pescando pescadores: etnoecologia abrangente no baixo São Francisco alagoano. NUPAUB-USP, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  110. Martínez GJ, Barboza GE (2010) Natural pharmacopoeia used in traditional Toba medicine for the treatment of parasitosis and skin disorders (Central Chaco, Argentina). J Ethnopharmacol 132:86–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. McIntyre KE Jr, Malone JM, Richards E, Axline SG (1982) Mycotic aortic pseudoaneurysm with aortoenteric fistula caused by Arizona hinshawii. Surgery 91(2):173–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Meiling H, Haitao S, Lirong F, Shiping G, Fong JJ, Parham JF (2008) Scientific refutation of traditional Chinese medicine claims about turtles. Appl Herpetol 5(2):173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Mohneke M, Onadeko AB, Rödel MO (2009) Exploitation of frogs—a review with a focus on West Africa. Salamandra 45(4):193–202Google Scholar
  114. Mohneke M, Onadeko AB, Hirschfeld M, Rödel MO (2010) Fried and dried: amphibians in local and regional food markets in West Africa. Traffic Bull 22:117–128Google Scholar
  115. Mohneke M, Onadeko AB, Rödel MO (2011) Medicinal and dietary uses of amphibians in Burkina Faso. Afr J Herpetol 60(1):78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Morris R, Morris D (1965) Men and snakes. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  117. Myers CW, Daly JW, Malkin B (1978) A dangerously toxic new frog (Phyllobates) used by Emberá Indians of western Colombia, with discussion of blowgun fabrication and dart poisoning. Bull Am Museum Nat Hist 161:309–365Google Scholar
  118. Nash SV (1997) Fin, feather, scale and skin: observations on the wildlife trade in Lao PDR and Vietnam. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  119. Negi CS, Palyal V (2007) Traditional uses of animal and animal products in medicine and rituals by the shoka tribes of district Pithoragarh, Uttaranchal, India. Ethno-Med 1(1):47–54Google Scholar
  120. Ngokwey N (1995) Home remedies and doctors’ remedies in Feira (Brazil). Soc Sci Med 40(8):1141–1153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Oza GM (1990) Ecological effects of the frog’s legs trade. Environmentalist 10(1):39–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Perry A (2000) Global survey of marine medicinals. In: Moreau M-A, Hall HJ, Vincent ACJ (eds) Proceedings of the 1st International workshop on the management and culture of marine species used in traditional medicines, Project Seahorse, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  123. Pieroni A, Giusti ME, Grazzini A (2002) Animal remedies in the folk medicinal practices of the Lucca and Pistoia Provinces, Central Italy. In: Fleurentin J, Pelt JM, Mazars G (eds) Des sources du savoir aux médicaments du futur/from the sources of knowledge to the medicines of the future, 1st edn. IRD Editions, ParisGoogle Scholar
  124. Pough FH, Andrews RM, Cadle JE, Crump ML, Savitsky AH, Wells KD (2004) Herpetology, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  125. Quave CL, Lohani U, Verde A, Fajardo J, Rivera D, Obón C, Valdes A, Pieroni A (2010) A comparative assessment of zootherapeutic remedies from selected areas in Albania, Italy, Spain and Nepal. J Ethnobiol 30(1):92–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Riley KB, Antoniskis D, Maris R, Leedom JM (1988) Rattlesnake capsule–associated Salmonella arizona infections. Arch Intern Med 148(5):1207–1210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Rowley J, Brown R, Bain R, Kusrini M, Inger R, Stuart B, Wogan G, Thy N, Chan-Ard T, Trung CT (2010) Impending conservation crisis for Southeast Asian amphibians. Biol Lett 6(3):1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Rubio M (1998) Rattlesnake. Portrait of a predator. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  129. Seixas C, Begossi A (2001) Ethnozoology of caiçaras from Aventureiro, Ilha Grande. J Ethnobiol 21(1):107–135Google Scholar
  130. SEMARNAP-PROFEPA (1998) Memorias del curso taller de identificación de productos y subproductos de fauna silvestre de México. Diaproy. CREDES, MazatlánGoogle Scholar
  131. Shao-Ke L, Ka-Lok W, Ming L, Paul B, Stephen T, Pang-Chui S (2010) Base: MMDBD (medicinal materials dna barcode database). BMC Genomics 11:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Shaw C (2009) Advancing drug discovery with reptile and amphibian venom peptides: venom-based medicines. Biochem Soc 31:34–37Google Scholar
  133. Silva MLV, Alves ÂGC, Almeida AV (2004) A zooterapia no Recife (Pernambuco): uma articulação entre as práticas e a história. Biotemas 17(1):95–116Google Scholar
  134. Smart R, Whiting MJ, Twine W (2005) Lizards and landscapes: integrating field surveys and interviews to assess the impact of human disturbance on lizard assemblages and selected reptiles in a savanna in South Africa. Biol Conserv 122(1):23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Sodeinde OA, Soewu DA (1999) Pilot study of the traditional medicine trade in Nigeria. Traffic Bull 18(1):35–40Google Scholar
  136. Somaweera R, Somaweera N (2010) Serpents in jars: the snake wine industry in Vietnam. J Threatened Taxa 2(11):1251–1260Google Scholar
  137. Speck FG (1946) Ethnoherpetology of the Catawba and Cherokee Indians. Wash Acad Sci, J 36:355–360Google Scholar
  138. Still J (2003) Use of animal products in traditional Chinese medicine: environmental impact and health hazards. Complement Ther Med 11:118–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Stuart BL (2004) The harvest and trade of reptiles at U Minh Thuong National Park, Southern Vietnam. Traffic Bull 20(1):25–34Google Scholar
  140. Stuart SN (2008) Threatened amphibians of the world. Lynx Edicions, SpainGoogle Scholar
  141. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306(5702):1783–1786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. The Reptile Database (2011) The Reptile database version 2011. Peter Uetz/Jirí Hošek/Jakob Hallerman. http://www.reptile-database.org/. Accessed 27 Aug 2011
  143. Turtle Conservation Fund (2002) A global action plan for conservation of tortoises and freshwater turtles, vol 2007. Strategy and funding prospectus, vol Strategy and funding prospectus 2002–2007. Conservation International and Chelonian Research Foundation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  144. Tyler MJ, Wassersug R, Smith B (2007) How frogs and humans interact: influences beyond habitat destruction, epidemics and global warming. Appl Herpetol 4(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. van Dijk PP, Stuart BL, Rhodin AGJ (2000) Asian turtle trade. Chelonian Research Foundation, LunenburgGoogle Scholar
  146. Vázquez PE, Méndez RM, Guiascón ÓGR, Piñera EJN (2006) Uso medicinal de la fauna silvestre en los Altos de Chiapas, México. Interciencia 31(7):491–499Google Scholar
  147. Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP (2009) Herpetology: an introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles, 3rd edn. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  148. Warkentin TE (1998) Limitations of conventional treatment options for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Semin Hematol 35:17–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Warkentin IG, Bickford D, Sodhi NS, Bradshaw CJA (2009) Eating frogs to extinction. Conserv Biol 23(4):1056–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Whitaker Z (1989) Snakeman. India Magazine Books, BombayGoogle Scholar
  151. Zheng H, Zhang Q (2000) Medicinal using status and conservation strategy of snakes in China. In: Zhang E, Zheng H (eds) Conservation of endangered wild medicinal fauna and flora resources in China. The Second Military Medical University Press, Shanghai, pp 96–101Google Scholar
  152. Zhou Z, Jiang Z (2004) International trade status and crisis for snake species in China. Conserv Biol 18(5):1386–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Zhou Z, Jiang Z (2005) Identifying snake species threatened by economic exploitation and international trade in China. Biodivers Conserv 14(14):3525–3536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Ziemendorff S (2008) Sustancias estimulantes y brebajes afrodisíacos en la tradición de la Amazonía peruana. Culturas populares 7:1–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves
    • 1
    Email author
  • Washington Luiz Silva Vieira
    • 3
  • Gindomar Gomes Santana
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kleber Silva Vieira
    • 2
    • 3
  • Paulo Fernando Guedes Pereira Montenegro
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual da ParaíbaCampina GrandeBrazil
  2. 2.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Biológicas (Zoologia), Departamento de Sistemática e EcologiaUniversidade Federal da ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil
  3. 3.Laboratório de Ecofisiologia Animal, Departamento de Sistemática e EcologiaUniversidade Federal da ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil

Personalised recommendations