4.5 Article

How Many Edible Insect Species Are There? A Not So Simple Question

Journal

DIVERSITY-BASEL
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/d14020143

Keywords

food insect; medicinal insect; insect resource; inventory; biodiversity; entomophagy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Insects used as food and medicine have gained attention, but there are inappropriate assessments and overestimations in recent estimates. This study scrutinized a widely used list of edible insects and provided a critical assessment and lower estimate of the number of food and medicinal insects.
Insects used as food and medicine are receiving increased attention. There is a need to scrutinise recent estimates of which and how many insect species are used as we have noticed inappropriate assessments and overestimations. We review the contemporary list of edible insects of the world published online by Wageningen University and compiled by Ijde Jongema since it is widely used in the literature. Each of the 2403 entries were scrutinised, including checking name validity, verifying insect usage in cited references, and categorising each entry. Our revision indicates inappropriate assessments and inclusions such as spiders (not insects) and insect products (e.g., honeydew) when the insect itself is not used. With relevant and accepted definitions, we provide a critical assessment and estimate of the number of food insects (1611) and medicinal insects (81), which is lower than Wageningen University and Jongema's estimate of 2111 edible insects. We acknowledge that our critical assessment may also be an overestimate or an underestimate and deserves further scrutiny, and we encourage a more practical use of a database of food and medicinal insects with our suggestion for a querying online curated database. We conclude that making accurate estimates is a difficult feat but that inappropriate assessments can and need to be avoided.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available