Astrocaryum tucuma: The correct name of a socially and economically important Amazonian palm

Abstract

Tucumã is a palm of notable economic and cultural relevance in the Amazon region. Although its nomenclatural status is formally settled under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, its scientific name in the literature remains characterized by persistent misapplication. The name Astrocaryum aculeatum has been applied to this species for several decades, replacing A. tucuma, the previously accepted name. However, nearly twenty years ago, it was demonstrated that the type specimen of A. aculeatum corresponds to a distinct palm, A. gynacanthum. Considering this misapplied name, a proposal to conserve A. aculeatum with a conserved type for the tucumã was submitted in 2008, but subsequently not recommended by the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants in 2011. In the same report, this Committee suggested the reestablishment of A. tucuma as the correct name and the submission of a new proposal to deal with the names A. aculeatum and A. gynacanthum. These decisions were later evaluated and ratified by the General Committee in 2011. Despite these committees evaluations, a review of the literature from 2011 to 2025 indicates that the scientific community did not adopt the change suggested. The name A. aculeatum remains dominant for the tucumã palm, appearing 60 times more frequently than A. tucuma, which was identified in only 1.6% of the eligible records. This study elucidates the intricate nomenclatural history of the species and underscores the necessity of reaffirming A. tucuma as the correct name. The continued application of A. aculeatum to the tucumã palm, after the exhaustion of all procedures established by the Code, represents a persistent ambiguity that must be resolved to ensure nomenclatural stability and accuracy within the genus.

Keywords:
Amazon; Arecaceae; nomenclatural stability; palm; tucumã

The palm commonly known as tucumã (Fig. 1A) is a species of considerable economic and sociocultural importance throughout the Amazon basin (Smith, 2015). It is widely distributed across the region, occurring in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela (Henderson et al., 1995; Kahn, 2008; Lorenzi et al., 2010). Throughout its range, it is recognized by various local and indigenous names, including tucumá or cumare in Colombia and Venezuela, chonta in Bolivia, as well as indigenous denominations such as panima (Chácobo) and eri si (Yanomami) (Henderson, 1995; Kahn, 2008; Galeano & Bernal, 2010; Smith, 2015). The species thrives in disturbed environments and is uncommon in primary forests. Furthermore, its population appears to be increasing due to the growing demand for its diverse uses (Henderson & Scariot, 1993; Henderson et al., 1995; Kahn & Moussa, 1999; Schroth et al., 2004; Miranda & Rabelo, 2008; Barker, 2021).

Fig. 1.
A. Tucumã palm; B. fruits in a street market; C. x-caboquinho sandwich. Photographs by Juliana Lins (A), Eleano Rodrigues (B) and Fundação Manauscult (C).

Records of its use date back to pre-Columbian times, when it was extensively utilized by Indigenous peoples, a tradition that continues to the present day (Kahn & Moussa, 1997; 1999; Didonet & Ferraz, 2014). It is a multipurpose palm, with nearly all of its structures employed for a variety of applications (Costa et al., 2010; Didonet & Ferraz, 2014; Silva et al., 2021). The stem is valued in construction for its hardness and durability, serving as raw material for furniture, tables, and decorative objects (Miranda & Rabelo, 2006; 2008; Smith, 2015). The palm heart is consumed as food (Kahn & Moussa, 1999), and fibers extracted from young leaves are traditionally used in the manufacture of hammocks and other woven items (Henderson & Scariot, 1993; Miranda & Rabelo, 2006; 2008; Lorenzi et al., 2010).

The fruits of the species are widely commercialized and consumed throughout the Amazon region (Fig. 1B), either fresh or in a variety of culinary preparations (Henderson & Scariot, 1993; Kahn & Moussa, 1999; Miranda & Rabelo, 2006; 2008; Lorenzi et al., 2010). The pulp is also used by Indigenous communities as fish bait and for oil extraction (Miranda & Rabelo, 2006; 2008), while the endocarp can be polished and carved into a wide range of handcrafted products (Kahn & Moussa, 1999; Miranda & Rabelo, 2006; 2008; Smith, 2015).

The fruits of the tucumã palm have become an emblematic symbol of the city of Manaus, consolidating this species as one of the most representative palms of the capital of the state of Amazonas, Brazil (Kahn & Moussa, 1997; Costa et al., 2010). The increasing popularity of the fruit is closely associated with its culinary and cultural value, particularly in the preparation of the traditional sandwich “X-Caboquinho” (Fig. 1C), which is highly appreciated by the local population and officially recognized as part of the city’s Intangible Cultural Heritage (Kahn & Moussa, 1999; Miranda & Rabelo, 2006; Costa et al., 2010; Smith, 2015; Manaus, 2019).

As a result of its cultural and economic prominence, the tucumã supports an important local market, contributing significantly to employment and income generation for a substantial portion of the population in Manaus and other municipalities of the central Amazon region (Kahn & Moussa, 1997; 1999; Schroth et al., 2004; Costa et al., 2010; Kieling et al., 2019; Martins & Ferreira, 2022). It is estimated that in 2012, 367 tons of tucumã fruits were traded in Manaus (Didonet & Ferraz, 2014). By 2017, an assessment of the production chain reported an average monthly commercialization of 86,066 kg, surpassing 1,000 tons annually (Kieling et al., 2019). This volume represents an increase of 168% within five years. In recent years, several studies have evaluated the bioactive composition of the fruits, their potential health benefits, and their biotechnological applications, reinforcing the increasing demand for this palm (Silva et al., 2021; Machado et al., 2021).

Despite its ecological, economic, and cultural relevance, the correct scientific nomenclature of this species has been the subject of extensive debate. The name Astrocaryum aculeatum G.Mey. has been adopted over the past six decades as the accepted name (Wessels Boer, 1965; Lima & Almeida Jr., 2024), replacing A. tucuma Mart., which had been considered correct for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Lima & Almeida Jr., 2024). Following the rediscovery of the original herbarium specimens of A. aculeatum and the clarification of the true identity associated with that name (Bernal, 2008; Lima & Almeida Jr., 2024), the present study aims to elucidate and summarize the complex nomenclatural history of this palm, and to reaffirm A. tucuma as the correct name for the tucumã, as suggested by specialists of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (Brummitt, 2011).

Regarding the nomenclatural trajectory of the tucumã, multiple independent descriptions in the nineteenth century marked the beginning of the scientific naming of this palm. The first description was provided by Martius (1824) under A. tucuma, based on specimens observed along several rivers of the Amazon basin. The specific epithet adopted by Martius reflected the vernacular name used throughout the region. Grisebach (1864) subsequently described A. aureum Griseb. & H.Wendl. from specimens collected in Trinidad and Tobago. Later, Barbosa Rodrigues published a series of binomials (Barbosa Rodrigues, 1875; 1888; 1891), occasionally associated with varietal names, to refer to this palm and its morphological forms, including A. caudescens Barb.Rodr., A. manaoense Barb.Rodr., A. princeps Barb.Rodr., A. princeps var. aurantiacum Barb.Rodr., A. princeps var. flavum Barb.Rodr., A. princeps var. sulphureum Barb.Rodr., and A. princeps var. vitellinum Barb.Rodr.

Among these names, A. tucuma became the most widely accepted and consistently applied to the tucumã palm throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This usage is corroborated by multiple works available through the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL, 2025), including those of Wallace (1853), Burret (1934), and Dahlgren (1936). As taxonomic knowledge advanced, the remaining names, as well as several others described during the twentieth century, were subsequently treated as heterotypic synonyms of A. tucuma. This pattern is recurrent among palm species exhibiting broad distributions and abundant populations across the Amazon region (Stropp et al., 2025). Within this area, taxonomic consolidation through synonymization has been particularly frequent, resulting in an 82% reduction in the total number of accepted names over recent decades (Stropp et al., 2025).

From the 1960s onward, however, a significant shift occurred in the binomial used to designate this palm. In his taxonomic study of the palms of Suriname, Wessels Boer (1965) interpreted A. aculeatum, based on the fruit description provided in the protologue, as conspecific with A. tucuma. By establishing this equivalence, he concluded that the name A. aculeatum also applied to the palm commonly known as tucumã. Based on this interpretation and the principle of nomenclatural priority [Art. 11.4 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) - Madrid Code; Turland et al., 2025], Wessels Boer placed A. tucuma in synonymy, since A. aculeatum had been described earlier.

Until that time, the precise identity of A. aculeatum had remained uncertain for more than two centuries following its publication by Meyer (1818), despite several attempts by prominent botanists to clarify it. Martius (1824), Drude (1881), Barbosa Rodrigues (1903), and Burret (1934) all discussed the identity of the taxon but reached no definitive conclusion. The absence of traceable type specimens or other original material contributed to the uncertain status conferred upon the name by these authors. Martius (1824) prepared a diagnosis based on Meyer’s original description and suggested that the species resembled his A. gynacanthum Mart. and A. mumbaca Mart., both names associated with the palm commonly known as mumbaca, a hypothesis later followed by Barbosa Rodrigues (1903). Drude (1881) classified A. aculeatum as incertae sedis (“of uncertain position”). Burret (1934), while maintaining this status, proposed that the taxon might belong to A. subg. Monogynanthus Burret, though he noted inconsistencies in Meyer’s description of the fruits, particularly regarding their shape and size, which he regarded as atypical for that subgenus. Moreover, Burret (1934) hypothesized that the fruits described in the protologue might not correspond to the inflorescence cited by Meyer, but rather to material originating from A. tucuma.

Despite these earlier uncertainties concerning the identity of A. aculeatum, the circumscription proposed by Wessels Boer (1965) was widely accepted and subsequently consolidated within the taxonomic literature. Since then, the binomial A. aculeatum has been extensively adopted to designate the tucumã palm in taxonomic revisions, floristic treatments, and a wide range of scientific studies, including those addressing the bioactive composition of its fruits and their biotechnological applications (Wessels Boer, 1971; Kahn & Millán, 1992; Henderson et al., 1995; Küchmeister et al., 1999; Kahn, 2008; Miranda & Rabelo, 2008; Lorenzi et al., 2010; Moraes, 2014; Smith, 2015; Moraes, 2020; Silva et al., 2021; Machado et al., 2021). Consequently, A. tucuma came to be treated as a synonym in most literature referring to the species, with only a few exceptions in which this binomial was retained as the accepted name (Schroth et al., 2004; Costa et al., 2010). It is important to emphasize that when proposing this circumscription, still followed today, Wessels Boer (1965) did not have access to the original material of A. aculeatum, basing his interpretation solely on part of the protologue.

The discovery by Bernal (2008) of an original herbarium specimen of A. aculeatum at the GOET herbarium (E. Rodschied s.n., GOET), which had been mentioned by Meyer in the protologue and was previously presumed lost, revealed a historical misapplication of the name. As previously suggested by Burret (1934), the protologue of A. aculeatum was based on a fruitless, flower-bearing specimen corresponding to A. gynacanthum, supplemented by second-hand information on fruits most likely belonging to A. tucuma. This combination led to the long-standing incorrect application of the name A. aculeatum to the palm known as tucumã. According to Bernal (2008), it is probable that Meyer’s (1818) description of the fruits was based on reports by E. Rodschied, who had observed them but was uncertain whether they belonged to the same individual as the specimen described, thus reinforcing the hypothesis that the protologue merged traits from distinct species.

Bernal’s (2008) analysis indicated that the binomial A. aculeatum should in fact apply to the mumbaca palm, currently recognized as A. gynacanthum. This conclusion was based on the original specimen (later designated as the lectotype by Lima & Almeida Jr. (2024) and the information in the protologue, while disregarding Rodschied’s second-hand information about the fruits. This interpretation would represent the correct application of the name A. aculeatum. Following the rule of priority (Art. 11.4 of the ICN), the correct name for A. gynacanthum would therefore be A. aculeatum, whereas the species presently known as A. aculeatum should be reinstated as A. tucuma, thereby recovering the original and proper usage of that name for the tucumã palm.

Considering the nomenclatural changes that could result from the rediscovery of the type, Bernal (2008) proposed conserving the name A. aculeatum with a conserved type, as provided under Art. 14.9 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), assigning it to the tucumã palm. This proposal sought to prevent disruptive name changes affecting two widely distributed and well-known species in the Amazon basin (the mumbaca and tucumã palms) by applying one of the mechanisms provided in the ICN (Turland et al., 2025) to avoid undesirable nomenclatural instability arising from strict enforcement of the Code. However, the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants, which initially reviewed the proposal following its submission, did not recommend its approval (Brummitt, 2011). In its report, it considered an alternative solution, suggested by Wendy L. Applequist, proposing that A. tucuma should be reinstated in its original and correct sense to designate the tucumã palm, since this name had been in long-standing use for more than a century and a half (Brummitt, 2011). This Committee also suggested that it might be desirable either to reject A. aculeatum or to conserve A. gynacanthum against it, thereby maintaining the established use of A. gynacanthum for the mumbaca palm (Brummitt, 2011). Subsequently, the General Committee voted in accordance with the report from the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants, not recommending Bernal’s proposal (Barrie, 2011).

Following this scenario and in accordance with the suggestions outlined by Brummitt (2011), we subsequently submitted a formal proposal to conserve the name A. gynacanthum against A. aculeatum (Lima & Almeida Jr., 2024), under Art. 14 of the ICN. This proposal aimed to ensure nomenclatural stability and to safeguard the traditional and well-established use of the name A. gynacanthum for the mumbaca palm, a scientific name that has been consistently applied since the nineteenth century (Lima & Almeida Jr., 2024). The proposal was recommended by the Nomenclatural Committee for Vascular Plants (Applequist, 2026) and will be evaluated by the General Committee.

Regarding the binomials A. aculeatum and A. tucuma, it should be emphasized that, following the rejection of Bernal’s (2008) proposal, no further legal mechanisms remain available to maintain the use of A. aculeatum for the tucumã palm. All procedures provided and permitted under the ICN have already been executed with the purpose of protecting the traditional use of A. aculeatum over the past decades, even though it conflicts with the identity of the rediscovered type specimen (Bernal, 2008). Therefore, the only viable alternative is the reestablishment of A. tucuma as the accepted name for this palm, as already suggested by Brummitt (2011).

Despite Brummitt’s (2011) suggestion to reinstate the use of A. tucuma, the current situation still reveals a nomenclatural impasse. More than a decade after that suggestion, persistent inconsistencies remain across nomenclatural indexing platforms such as POWO (2025), Tropicos (2025), and Flora e Funga do Brasil (2025), where A. aculeatum continues to be listed or applied to the tucumã. Likewise, recent articles still employ A. aculeatum to refer to the species. To document this scenario of the misapplication of the names involved, we conducted a survey partially following the PRISMA 2020 protocol (Page et al., 2021). We consulted the Scopus (2025) and Web of Science (Clarivate, 2025) databases in the survey, selected for their comprehensive coverage and relevance as primary indexing platforms for high-impact scientific journals.

The investigation was restricted to the interval from September 1, 2011, to December 31, 2025. This starting date was selected to immediately follow the publication of the General Committee report in August 2011 (Barrie, 2011). We used the scientific names Astrocaryum aculeatum and Astrocaryum tucuma as primary descriptors. To ensure that retrieved records referred precisely to the same biological entity, we used the vernacular name “tucumã” as a secondary descriptor with the Boolean operator “AND”. Despite the vast diversity of regional and indigenous names identified for the species, this selection is justified by the prevalence of “tucumã” as the primary social and trade name, as well as its consistent application in scientific indexing to identify the taxon under study. Search strings consisted of the combinations (“Astrocaryum aculeatum” AND “tucumã”) and (“Astrocaryum tucuma” AND “tucumã”), applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords.

Data collection was strictly limited to peer-reviewed articles. Duplicate records between the databases were identified and removed. Additionally, during the screening stage, we verified the records for biological consistency; those clearly referring to distinct or ambiguous taxa were excluded.

The database search yielded a total of 110 records (Table 1). After screening, 61 eligible articles remained. Of these, 60 articles identified the species as A. aculeatum, with its use clearly referring to the tucumã palm. In contrast, the name A. tucuma was employed in only one study (Stachiw et al., 2016), representing 1.6% of the total eligible articles (a frequency 60 times lower than that observed for A. aculeatum).

Table 1.
Number of articles using the names Astrocaryum aculeatum and Astrocaryum tucuma identified through a survey in Scopus and Web of Science databases (2011-2025).

	Astrocaryum aculeatum	Astrocaryum tucuma
Records in Scopus	58	1
Records in Web of Science	50	1
Total eligible articles	60	1

This situation recalls a case discussed by Baker (1997), a renowned palm specialist, in his article “Name changes - a necessary nuisance.” The author reported the strong negative reaction that followed the revision of the circumscription of the genus Dypsis Noronha ex Mart., which resulted in the transfer of numerous species previously assigned to other palm genera into Dypsis. According to Baker (1997), the change was so poorly received that one author published an essay in The Palm Journal vehemently criticizing the practice of botanists who implement nomenclatural changes precisely when long-established names begin to gain widespread acceptance among the scientific community and among applied users such as horticulturists, ecologists, biochemists, conservationists, and natural resource managers.

However, as Baker (1997) emphasized, although such changes may initially be perceived as inconvenient by both the scientific community and applied users of taxonomy, they are intrinsic to the advancement of systematic knowledge. The author also highlighted the importance of effective communication regarding these changes to minimize negative impacts and to ensure that accurate information is disseminated and integrated into the various disciplines that depend on precise taxonomic data. Thus, the careful publication and appropriate dissemination of new names or combinations represent not merely a technical procedure but also an ethical responsibility, essential to maintaining clarity and the functional integrity of botanical nomenclature.

Within this context, the present study aligns with this broader commitment to scientific communication by advocating the reestablishment and correct use of the name Astrocaryum tucuma Mart. for the tucumã palm. The rediscovery of the type material of A. aculeatum by Bernal (2008) demonstrated that the long-standing application of this name to the tucumã palm was based on a misinterpretation. Furthermore, following the rejection of the conservation proposal submitted by Bernal (2008), no legal mechanisms remain available to maintain the use of A. aculeatum for this species. Its continued use therefore constitutes a nomenclatural error that must be rectified (Lima & Almeida Jr., 2024).

The adoption of the name A. tucuma, in addition to conforming to the provisions of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland et al., 2025), represents an essential measure to restore taxonomic accuracy and to promote nomenclatural stability within the genus Astrocaryum G.Mey. This article therefore contributes to the ongoing dialogue surrounding nomenclatural correction and scientific transparency, recognizing the challenges inherent in taxonomic name changes while reaffirming the ethical and scientific commitment to their appropriate communication within the botanical community and among all users of taxonomic information.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for providing open access to essential historical literature, CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) for access to its Portal de Periódicos da CAPES, the Postgraduate Program in Biodiversity and Biotechnology of the BIONORTE Network, and the reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

• Applequist WL. 2026. Report of the nomenclature committee for vascular plants: 77. Taxon 75: e70118. doi: 10.1002/tax.70118
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.70118
• Baker WJ. 1997. Name changes - A necessary nuisance. Principes 41: 177-178.
• Barbosa Rodrigues J. 1875. Enumeratio palmarum novarum: quas valle fluminis Amazonum inventas et ad sertum palmarum: collectas, descripsit et iconibus illustravit. Sebastianópolis, Brown & Evaristo.
• Barbosa Rodrigues J. 1888. Palmae Amazonensis novae. Vellosia 1: 33-56.
• Barbosa Rodrigues J. 1891. Palmae Amazonensis novae - 2nd edn. Vellosia 1: 91-112.
• Barbosa Rodrigues J. 1903. Sertum Palmarum Brasiliensium, ou relation des palmiers noveaux du Bresil, découverts, déscrits et dessinés d'après nature. vol. 2. Brussels, Veuve Monnom.
• Barker A. 2021. Astrocaryum aculeatum The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T67531313A67531316. doi: 10.2305/iucn.uk.2021-2.rlts.t67531313a67531316.en
  » https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.uk.2021-2.rlts.t67531313a67531316.en
• Barrie FR. 2011. Report of the general committee: 11. Taxon 60: 1211-1214. doi: 10.1002/tax.604026
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.604026
• Bernal R. 2008. (1837) Proposal to conserve the name Astrocaryum aculeatum (Palmae) with a conserved type. Taxon 57: 997-998. doi: 10.1002/tax.573035
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.573035
• BHL - The Biodiversity Heritage Library. 2025. <Available at: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ >. Accessed on 18 Apr 2025.
  » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/
• Brummitt RK. 2011. Report of the nomenclature committee for vascular plants: 62. Taxon 60: 226-232. doi: 10.1002/tax.601024
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.601024
• Burret M. 1934. Die Palmengattung Astrocaryum G.F.W. Meyer. Repertorium novarum specierum regni vegetabilis 35: 114-158. doi: 10.1002/fedr.19340350802
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.19340350802
• Clarivate. 2025. Web of Science. <Available at: https://www-webofscience-com.ez14.periodicos.capes.gov.br/ >. Accessed on 18 Apr 2025.
  » https://www-webofscience-com.ez14.periodicos.capes.gov.br/
• Costa JR, van Leeuwen J, Costa JA. 2010. Tucumã-do-amazonas: Astrocaryum tucuma Martius. In: Shanley P, Serra M, Medina G (eds.). Frutíferas e plantas úteis na vida amazônica. Belém, CIFOR, Imazon. pp. 221-228.
• Dahlgren BE. 1936. Index of American palms. Field Museum of Natural History, Botanical Series 14: 1-456.
• Didonet AA, Ferraz IDK. 2014. O comércio de frutos de tucumã (Astrocaryum aculeatum G. Mey - Arecaceae) nas feiras de Manaus (Amazonas, Brasil). Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 36: 353-362. doi: 10.1590/0100-2945-108/13
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-2945-108/13
• Drude O. 1881. Palmae. In: Martius CFP von & Eichler AW (eds.). Flora Brasiliensis 3(2). Munich and Leipzig, F. Fleischer. pp. 251-460.
• Flora e Funga do Brasil. 2025. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. <Available at: http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/ >. Accessed on 19 Apr 2025.
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/
• Galeano G, Bernal R. 2010. Palmas de Colombia: Guía de campo. Bogotá, Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
• Grisebach AHR. 1864. Flora of the British West Indian islands. London, L. Reeve. doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.143
  » https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.143
• Henderson A, Scariot A. 1993. A flórula da Reserva Ducke, I: Palmae (Arecaceae). Acta Amazonica 23: 349-369. doi: 10.1590/1809-43921993234369
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-43921993234369
• Henderson A. 1995. The Palms of the Amazon. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Henderson A, Galeano G, Bernal R. 1995. Field Guide to the Palms of the Americas. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
• Kahn F, Millán B. 1992. Astrocaryum (Palmae) in Amazonia. A preliminary treatment. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d'Études Andines 21: 459‒531. doi: 10.3406/bifea.1992.1071
  » https://doi.org/10.3406/bifea.1992.1071
• Kahn F, Moussa F. 1997. Uso y potencial económico de dos palmas, Astrocaryum aculeatum Meyer y A. vulgare Martius, en la Amazonía brasileña. In: Rios M, Pedersen HB (eds.). Uso y manejo de recursos vegetales. Quito, Abya-Yala. pp. 101-116.
• Kahn F, Moussa F. 1999. Economic importance of Astrocaryum aculeatum (Palmae) in central Brazilian Amazonia. Acta Botanica Venezuelica 22: 237-245.
• Kahn F. 2008. The genus Astrocaryum (Arecaceae). Revista Peruana de Biología 15: 31-48.
• Kieling AC, Santana GP, Santos MC, Jaqtinon HCC, Monteiro CCP. 2019. Cadeia do tucumã comercializado em Manaus-AM. Scientia Amazonia 8: B1-B9.
• Küchmeister HC, Hopkins MJG, Henderson A, Scariot A. 1999. Arecaceae. In: Ribeiro JELS, Hopkins MJG, Vicentini A, Sothers CA, Costa MAS, Brito JM, et al (eds.). Flora da Reserva Ducke: Guia de identificação das plantas vasculares de uma floresta de terra-firme na Amazônia. Manaus, INPA. pp. 653-668.
• Lima GP, Almeida Jr. EB. 2024. (3030) Proposal to conserve the name Astrocaryum gynacanthum against A. aculeatum (Arecaceae). Taxon 73: 910-911. doi: 10.1002/tax.13190
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13190
• Lorenzi H, Noblick LR, Kahn F, Ferreira E. 2010. Flora Brasileira: Arecaceae (Palmeiras). Nova Odessa, Instituto Plantarum.
• Machado APF, Nascimento RP, Alves MR, Reguengo LM, Marostica Junior MR. 2021. Brazilian tucumã-do-Amazonas (Astrocaryum aculeatum) and tucumã-do-Pará (Astrocaryum vulgare) fruits: bioactive composition, health benefits, and technological potential. Food Research International 151: 110902. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110902
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110902
• Manaus. 2019. Lei nº 2.525, de 23 de outubro de 2019. <Available at: https://leismunicipais.com.br/a/am/m/manaus/lei-ordinaria/2019/253/2525/lei-ordinaria-n-2525-2019-institui-como-patrimonio-cultural-imaterial-da-cidade-de-manaus-o-sanduiche-x-caboquinho-e-da-outras-providencias >. Accessed on 18 Apr 2025.
  » https://leismunicipais.com.br/a/am/m/manaus/lei-ordinaria/2019/253/2525/lei-ordinaria-n-2525-2019-institui-como-patrimonio-cultural-imaterial-da-cidade-de-manaus-o-sanduiche-x-caboquinho-e-da-outras-providencias
• Martins TB, Ferreira FM. 2022. Comercialização, preferências de consumo e diversidade de frutos de tucumã no município de Itacoatiara-AM. Research, Society and Development 11: e1311729512.
• Martius CFP von. 1824 (1823-1837). Historia Naturalis Palmarum 2: Genera et species. Leipzig, Weigel.
• Meyer GFW. 1818. Primitiae Florae Essequeboensis: adjectis descriptionibus centum circiter stirpium novarum, observationibusque criticis. Göttingen, Sumptibus H. Dieterich.
• Miranda IPA, Rabelo A. 2006. Guia de identificação das palmeiras de um fragmento florestal urbano. Manaus, Editora da Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Instituto de Pesquisas Nacional da Amazônia.
• Miranda IPA, Rabelo A. 2008. Guia de identificação das palmeiras de Porto Trombetas - PA. Manaus, Editora da Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Instituto de Pesquisas Nacional da Amazônia .
• Moraes M. 2014. Palmeras útiles de Bolivia: las especies mayormente aprovechadas para diferentes fines y aplicaciones. La Paz, Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, Plural editores.
• Moraes M. 2020. Flora de palmeras de Bolivia. 2nd edn. La Paz, Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, Instituto de Ecología, Carrera de Biología, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés.
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• POWO - Plants of the World online. 2025. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. <Available at: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/ >. Accessed on 18 Apr 2025.
  » http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/
• Schroth G, Mota MSS, Lopes R, Freitas AF. 2004. Extractive use, management and in situ domestication of a weedy palm, Astrocaryum tucuma, in the central Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 202: 161-179. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.026
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.026
• Scopus. 2025. Scopus. <Available at: https://www-scopus-com.ez14.periodicos.capes.gov.br/search/ >. Accessed on 19 Apr 2025.
  » https://www-scopus-com.ez14.periodicos.capes.gov.br/search/
• Silva AJB, Sevalho ES, Miranda IPA. 2021. Potencial das palmeiras nativas da Amazônia Brasileira para a bioeconomia: análise em rede da produção científica e tecnológica. Ciência Florestal 31: 1020-1046. doi: 10.5902/1980509843595
  » https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509843595
• Smith N. 2015. Palms and people in the Amazon. Switzerland, Springer.
• Stropp J, Pereira ASS, Emilio T, Meyer L, Trad RJ, Alves-Martins F, et al 2025. The impact of taxonomic change on the Amazonian palm flora. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 292: 20242738. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2024.273
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.273
• Stachiw R, Ribeiro SB, Jardim MAG, Possimoser D, Alves WC, Cavalheiro WCS. 2016. Potencial de produção de biodiesel com espécies oleaginosas nativas de Rondônia, Brasil. Acta Amazonica 46: 81-90. doi: 10.1590/1809-4392201501151
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201501151
• Tropicos. 2025. Tropicos.org. Missouri Botanical Garden. <Available at: https://tropicos.org/name/2400183 >. Accessed on 18 Apr 2025.
  » https://tropicos.org/name/2400183
• Turland NJ, Wiersema JH, Barrie FR, Gandhi KN, Gravendyck J, Greuter W, et al 2025. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Madrid Code). Regnum Vegetabile 162. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226839479.001.0001
  » https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226839479.001.0001
• Wallace AR. 1853. Palm trees of the Amazon and their uses. London, Taylor and Francis.
• Wessels Boer JG. 1965. Flora of Suriname. Palmae. Leiden, E.J. Brill.
• Wessels Boer JG. 1971. Clave descriptiva de las palmas de Venezuela. Acta Botanica Venezuelica 6: 297-362.

Data Availability

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Funding information

To Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Maranhão (FAPEMA) for the PhD’s scholarship of the first author (BD-02304/20); to Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for the productivity fellowship of the third author (process 309885/2025-6) and the Technological Development and Innovative Extension Grant (SET-D, process 352992/2025-5) to the first author, linked to the FitoAmazônia Research Network (Pró-Amazônia/CNPq process 445615/2024-9); to Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) (Finance Code 001).

*

Corresponding Author: [e-mail]

Editor-in-Chief:

Thais Elias Almeida

Associate Editor:

Matheus Colli-Silva

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to the publication of this manuscript.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  07 Sept 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  21 Oct 2025
• Accepted
  24 June 2026