In 1951, plant taxonomist Eduardo Quisumbing published Medicinal Plants of the Philippines, a 1,234–page volume on the palliative and curative applications of Philippine flora. Considered the standard contemporary reference on medical botany, Quisumbing’s work has informed generations of human scientists, botanists, and chemists from the archipelago. This paper, however, poses the question: What did Quisumbing, a trained orchidist, have to do with such a wide-ranging postwar publication—one quite distant from his scientific specialization—that would be (mistakenly) remembered as his magnum opus? Through a close reading of the text informed by the work’s intertextuality and Quisumbing’s personal archive, I argue that Medicinal Plants of the Philippines captures a type of encyclopedism undertaken in order to recuperate Manila’s Bureau of Science following World War ii. This encyclopedism speaks to the book’s curious character: strictly speaking, it is neither a pharmacopoeia nor a flora. Instead, it is a compendium of principally invasive species and their medicinal uses around the world that draws from over 630 academic publications. Caught within the tangle of postwar national reconstruction efforts, Quisumbing’s book evidences a considerable investment in intellectual knowledge production to assert the country’s newfound independence while shoring up public support for Philippine botanic and scientific research.
Barroga-Jamias, Serlie F.2000. “Eduardo A. Quisumbing: Botanist Par Excellence and Father of Philippine Orchidology (1885–1986).” In National Scientists of the Philippines (1978–1998), 164–174. Department of Science and Technology—National Academy of Science and Technology (Philippines). Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil.
Bonneuil, Christophe. 2002. “The Manufacture of Species: Kew Gardens, the Empire and the Standardisation of Taxonomic Practices in Late 19th Century Botany.” In Instruments, Travel and Science: Itineraries of Precision from the 17th to the 20th Century, edited by Marie-NoelleBourguet, C.Licoppe, and O.Sibum, 189–215. London: Routledge.
Carruthers, Jane, and LibbyRobin. 2010. “Taxonomic Imperialism in the Battles for Acacia: Identity and Science in South Africa and Australia.”Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa65 (1): 48–64.
Malacañang Palace. 1982. “Reorganizing the National Science Development Board and Its Agencies into a National Science and Technology Authority and for Related Purposes.”Executive Order No. 784, March 17. Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence Databank. http://www.dost.gov.ph/knowledge-resources/downloads/file/143-executive-order-no-784-reorganizing-the-national-science-development-board-and-its-agencies-into-a-national-science-and-technology-authority-and-for-related-purposes-march-171982 (accessed November 2013).
National Wages and Productivity Commission. 2017. “Summary of Current Regional Daily Minimum Wage Rates Non-Agriculture, Agriculture (in Pesos) (As of July 2017).”Department of Labor and Employment. July 7. http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_current_regional.html (accessed September 7, 2017).
Planta, Mercedes G.1999. “Traditional Medicine and Pharmacopoeia in the Colonial Philippines, 16th to the 19th Centuries.”M.A. thesis, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman.
Salaverria, Leila B.2010. “Leonard Co, son of UP, is home.”Inquirer, November21. http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20101121–304405/Leonard-Co-son-of-UP-is-home (accessed November 26, 2013).