In the present work, using as model the traditional mycological knowledge of …

• Abstract
• Background
• Methods
• Results and discussion
• Conclusion
• Abbreviation
• References
• Figures
• Tables

1.   Hunn E: The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification.American Anthropologist 1982, 84:830-847.       2.   Berlin B, Breedlove DE, Laughlin RM, Raven PH: Cultural significance and lexical retention in Tzeltal-Tzotzil Ethnobotany.In Meaning in Mayan Languages. Edited by: Edmonson MS. Mouton. The Hague; 1973:143-164.       3.   Turner NJ: Plant taxonomic systems and ethnobotany of three contemporary indian groups of the pacific northwest (Haida, Bella Coola, and Lillooet).Syesis 1974., 7(Suppl 1):       4.   Jochim MA: Hunter-gatherer subsistence and settlement: A predictive model. New York: Academic Press; 1976.       5.   Campbell SK: Summary of results, Chief Joseph Dam Cultural Resources Project, Washington. Seattle. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington; 1985.       6.   Todt DL, Hannon N: Plant food resource ranking on the upper Klamath river of Oregon and California: A methodology with archaelogical appications.Journal of Ethnobiology 1998, 18(2):273-308.       7.   Berlin B, Boster JS, O'Neil JP: The perceptual bases of ethnobiological classification: Evidence from Aguaruna Jivaro Ornithology.Journal of Ethnobiology 1981, 1(1):95-108.       8.   Turner NJ: The importance of a rose: Evaluating the cultural significance of plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish.American Anthropologist 1988, 90:272-290.       9.   Lee RB: The !Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. London: Cambridge University Press; 1979.       10.   Hays TE: Mauna: Explorations in Ndumba Ethnobotany.PhD thesis. University of Washington; 1974.       11.   Phillips OL: Some quantitative methods for analysing ethnobotanical knowledge.In Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical research: A field manual. Edited by: Alexiades MN. New York: The New York Botanical Garden; 1996:171-197.       12.   Stoffle RW, Halmo DB, Evans MJ, Olmsted JE: Calculating the cultural significance of American indians plants: Paiute and Shoshone ethnobotany at Yucca mountain, Nevada.American Anthropologist 1990, 92:416-432.       13.   Stoffle RW, Halmo DB, Evans MJ: Puchuxwavaats uapi (To know about plants): Traditional knowledge and the cultural significance of southern Paiute plants.Human Organization 1999, 58(4):416-429.       14.   Atanázio Da Silva V, De Holanda Cavalcanti AL, Paulino De Albuquerque U: Revising the Cultural Significance Index: The Case of the Fulni-ô in Northeastern Brazil.Field Methods 2006, 18(1):98-108.       15.   Phillips OL, Gentry AH: The usefull plants of Tamboata, Peru: I: Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique.Economic Botany 1993, 47:15-32.       16.   Trotter RT, Logan MH: Informant consensus: A new approach for identifying potentially effective medicinal plants.In Plants in indigenous medicine and diet. Edited by: Etkin NL. New York: Regrave; 1986:91-112.       17.   Romney AK, Weller S, Batchelder W: Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy.American Anthropologist 1986, 88:313-338.       18.   Johns T, Kokwaro JO, Kimanani EK: Herbal remedies of the Luo of Siaya District, Kenya: Establishing quantitative creteria for consensus.Economic Botany 1990, 44:369-381.       19.   Weiman C, Heinrich M: Indigenous medicinal plants in Mexico: the example of the Nahua (Sierra de Zongolica).Botanica Acta 1997, 110:62-72.       20.   Ankli A, Sticher O, Heinrich M: Medical ethnobotany of Yucatec Maya: healers' consensus as a quantitative criterion.Economic Botany 1999, 53(2):144-160.         21.   Pieroni A: Evaluation of the cultural significance of wild food botanicals traditionally consumed in Northwestern Tuscany, Italy.Journal of Ethnobiology 2001, 21(1):89-104.       22.   Montoya A, Hernández-Totomoch O, Estrada-Torres A, Kong A, Caballero J: Traditional knowledge about mushrooms in a Nahua community in the state of Tlaxcala, Mexico.Mycologia 2003, 95(5):793-806.       23.   Valdés M, Córdova J, Gómez M, Fierros A: Understory vegetation and ectomycorrhizal sporocarp diversity response to pine regeneration methods in Oaxaca, México.Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2003, 18(2):101-108.       24.   Garibay-Orijel R, Cifuentes J, Estrada-Torres A, Caballero J: People using Macro-Fungal diversity in Oaxaca, Mexico.Fungal Diversity 2006, 21:41-67.       25.   INEGI: XII Censo general de población y vivienda; Oaxaca, perfil sociodemográfico. Mexico, D.F; 2002.       26.   Mendieta N: Los zapotecos. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, UNAM; 1949.       27.   Whitecotton W: Los zapotecos, príncipes, sacerdotes y campesinos. Mexico, D.F.: FCE; 1985.       28.   Vázquez DM: Sierra Norte.In Revista Oaxaca. Volume 2. Población y Futuro; 1991:5.       29.   Bernard HR: Research methods in Anthropology. California: Altamira Press; 1995.       30.   Guzmán G: Los hongos y líquenes en la medicina tradicional.In Atlas de las plantas de la medicina tradicional mexicana III. Edited by: Argueta V, Cano A, Rodarte M. Mexico, D.F.: INI; 1994:1427-1487.       31.   Ying JZ, Mao XL, Ma QM, Zong YC, Wen HA: Icones of medicinal fungi from China. Edited by: X. Yuehan. Beijing: Science Press; 1987.       32.   Bodley JH: Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States and the global system. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005.       33.   Boa E: Los hongos silvestres comestibiles; Perspectiva global de su uso e importancia para la población. Rome: FAO; 2004.       34.   Ryan GW, Nolan JM, Yoder PS: Successive free listing: Using multiple free lists to generate explanatory models.Field Methods 2000, 12(2):83-107.       35.   Zar JH: Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1984.       36.   StatSoft Inc: Statistica 5.1 for Windows. Tulsa; 1997.       37.   Mc Aleece N: Biodiversity Pro 2. The natural history Museum and the Scottish association for marine science; 1997.       38.   Garibay-Orijel R: Análisis de la relación entre la disponibilidad del recurso fúngico y la importancia cultural de los hongos en los bosques de pino-encino de Ixtlán, Oaxaca; Cap. 2, Ecología de las especies de hongos comestibles silvestres.PhD thesis. UNAM, PC Biológicas; 2006.       39.   Rozin P, Fallon A: Psychological categorization of foods and non-foods: A preliminary taxonomy of food rejections.Appetite 1980, 1:193-201.       40.   Ruán-Soto F, Garibay-Orijel R, Cifuentes J: Conocimiento micológico tradicional en la planicie costera del Golfo de México.Revista Mexicana de Micologia 2004, 19:57-70.       41.   Ruán-Soto F, Garibay-Orijel R, Cifuentes J: Process and dynamics of traditional selling wild edible mushrooms in tropical Mexico.Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2006, 2(3):1746-4269.       42.   Lincoff GH: National Audubon Society field guide to mushrooms. New York: Alfred A Knopf; 1981.       43.   García RM: Guía fácil de las mejores setas. Madrid: Ediciones Mundi Prensa; 2004.       44.   Barron G: Mushrooms of northeast North America; Midwest to New England. Edmonton: Lone Pine; 1999.       45.   Montoya A, Kong A, Estrada-Torres A, Cifuentes J, Caballero J: Useful wild fungi of La Malinche Nacional Park, Mexico.Fungal Diversity 2004, 17:115-143.       46.   Garibay-Orijel R: Análisis de la relación entre la disponibilidad del recurso fúngico y la importancia cultural de los hongos en los bosques de pino-encino de Ixtlán, Oaxaca; Cap. 4, La significación cultural de los hongos comestibles de Ixtlán de Juárez, Oaxaca.PhD thesis. UNAM, PC Biológicas; 2006.       47.   Weller SC, Romney AK: Systematic data collection. Newbury Park: Sage University Press; 1988.