The classification of the Piperales still needs further work, but they are an important group in our practice. They are needed for neglected children, children been left alone. The cases in this edition will show these aspects clearly.
The Piperales have been mostly unknown in homeopathy. The best known is Piper methysticum. It was difficult to bring them into order. In Wonderful Plants the Piperales had 3 families: Piperaceae in Subphase1, Saururaceae in Subphase 6 and Hydnoraceae in Subphase 7. It was a very imbalanced classification, as Piperaceae includes more than 99% of all species of Piperales and Subphase 2, 3, 4, and 5 were empty.
Later in DNA analysis it became clear that Hydnoraceae belongs more to Aristolochiaceae. Saururaceae were then shifted to Subphase 7, and turned out to be a good choice. The Phase 7 quality is well confirmed with cases by now. But then Piperaceae had to be split into subfamilies to fit the other Subphase. Some small genera could be placed in Manekioideae. They were placed in Subphase 1, but unconfirmed as the Manekioideae are not available as remedies yet in homeopathy. The next step was to split off the Peperomia genus and place that in Subphase 2. It fits the quality of Peperomia being creeping herbs. That has turned out to be a very good choice, which has been confirmed with many cases. Martin Jakob has done a very good job in placing many of the Peperomia’s in Stages. The Piper genus was then split in 4 Subfamilies: Micropiperoideae, Pothomorphoideae, Macropiperoideae and Piperoideae in respectively Subphase 3 to 6. This combined gave the second version of the Plant theory classification of Piperales. The split of the Piper though did not turn out to be very fertile.
The next step were provings of Piper friedrichsthalii and Piper auritum done in Costa Rica. This shed a good light on the picture of Piperales in general. Both remedies had strongly the feeling of being neglected and left alone, for instance being left alone in a hospital as a child.
Peperomiaceae in Subphase 2 has been very well confirmed by cases as will be shown in this edition of the Qjure journal. Saururaceae are confrimed in Subphase 7,, Saururaceae is the first branch of Piperales and is placed in Subphase 7 by cases where violence and destruction are major themes.
DNA studies of Jamarillo and others showed further classification of Piperaceae: a south pacific clade, a south-east asian clade and a neotropical clade. The neotropical clade is by far the greatest.
Jamarillo shows several clades in the American clade: Schilleria, Enckea and Ottonia, Potomorphe, Peltobryon, Radula and Macrostaychys. Fitting those clades into Subphase according to the boatnic, DNA and homeopathic information led to the following classification:
Subphase 1: Potomorphe with 10 species.
Subphase 3: Enckea with 120 and Ottonia with 50 species.
Subphase 4: Macrostaychys with 250 species.
Subphase 5: Radula with 450 species.
Subphase 6: Schilleria with 200 species.
The above names have been given in the past to genera of the Piperaceae and were sometimes seen as subgenera of Piper, or genera split off of Piper. It shows that some botanist made distinctions of species on a deeper level than Piper. In the modern classification and name giving Piper has become almost synonym with Piperaceae.
The problem is then where to place the Old world Piperaceae, the Pacific with about 10 species and the south-east Asian pipers with about 300 species. Here the principle was used that DNA analyses give incorrect classifications for clades from different continents. Then the “regional” DNA can split groups which are in essence having the same quality. The first instance of this principle was found in the split of Pedaliaceae from the old world and Martyniaceae form the America’s. They are very similar, both in botany and homeopathy, but their DAN analyses classifies them into 2 families. It can be expected that all basic qualities will be present and available in both worlds.
The same we see with the south pacific clade around Piper methysticum and the Potomorphe clade form the neotropics. They are similar, but according to DNA analyses different. SO they were combined and placed in Subphase 1.
The south-east Asian clade with Piper nigrum in it is then split into 4 clade around Piper fragile, Piper caninum, Piper nigrum and Piper betle and combined with the combined neotropical clades in respectively Subphase 3, 4, 5 and 6. This split is tentative, but gets good confirmation so far. Piper friedichsthalii has strong Phase 5 qualities , both in the proving and case and turned out to be member of the Raduloideae. Case doing well with Piper aduncum also have a strong Phase 5 quality as in Raduloideae. Piepe amalago in Enckeoideae has Phase 3 qualities. Piper betle has strong Phase 6 qualities and is thus combined in Schellerioideae. Phase 5 and Stage 8 are confirmed by a case of Piper nigrum.
The resulting classification becomes:
1. Macropiperioideae: Macropiper, Pothomorphe, Piper.
2. Peperomioideae, Peperomiaceae: Peperomia, Piper.
3. Enckeoideae: Enkea, Ottonia, Piper fragile clade.
4. Macrostachioidea: Macrostachys, Piper caninum clade.
5. Raduloideae: Radula, Piper nigrum clade
6. Schillerioideae: Schilleria, Piper betle clade.
7. Saururaceae: Anemopsis, Gymnotheca, Houttuynia, Saururus; included is Manekioideae: Zippelia, Manekia, Verhuellia.
This result is of course a next step in the development of the Plant theory. But so far the therapeutic results are becoming better.
Jaramilloz, M Alejandra & Manos Paul, S; Phylogeny and Patterns of floral diversity in the genus Piper (Piperaceae); American Journal of Botany 88.4, pages 706–716; 2001.
Jaramilloz, Alejandra & others; Phylogeny of the Tropical Genus Piper Using ITS and the Chloroplast Intron psbJ–petA; Systematic Botany, 33(4), pages 647–660; 2008.
Scholten, J.; Costa Rica provings; Stichting Alonnissos, Utrecht; 2017.
Tucker, Shirly & Douglas, Andrew; Utility of Ontogenetic and Conventional Characters in Determining Phylogenetic Relationships of Saururaceae and Piperaceae (Piperales); Systematic Botany, 18.4, pages 614-611; 1993.
Year 2019, Issue 1, Article 3Author: Jan Scholten