This archive is a working document, not a finished one. Its entries are dated where they can be dated, sourced where a source exists, and explicit about what remains contested. That method only holds if the record can be corrected — so corrections are as welcome here as additions, and are treated with the same seriousness.
Corrections. A misattributed citation, a superseded botanical name, a date that overstates what the evidence carries, a DOI that resolves to the wrong record, a broken image credit. Point to the entry and the specific line; a source for the correction is more useful than a general objection.
Additions. Sources absent from a bibliography — particularly regional scholarship, non-anglophone literature, and primary ethnography that the standard reading lists omit. New species entries and cultural complexes are commissioned rather than submitted unsolicited, but proposals are read.
Images. Botanical plates, artefact photography and historical illustration, with licensing clear enough to publish: public domain, an explicit Creative Commons licence, or the rights-holder's permission. Provenance matters as much as resolution.
Language and orthography. Vernacular plant names, ritual vocabulary and people-names carry real disagreement between transliteration systems and between communities. Where a spelling here is wrong, or a term is used in a way its speakers would not recognise, we would rather be told.
Objections from source communities. Where this archive describes a living tradition, the people who carry it have standing to say that a description is wrong, that material is not ours to publish, or that knowledge recorded here should not circulate. Such messages are read first and acted on before any other correction.
— Send to the editor via Lila · Submissions