Dioscorides' Plants, Then and Now
μολόχη

Common mallow

Malva sylvestris L. · Malvaceae
Identification: ProbableNot endemic to GreeceConservation status not assessedLow-confidence model
Risk rank
19 of 32 (15–19)
Risk score
0.29(0.29–0.29)2 · Moderate
Low-confidence modelCommon mallow (Malva sylvestris) has 1734 occurrence records after cleaning; we require 30 for a reliable model. Maps are exploratory outlines only, and its rank carries a wide interval (15–19).

Then and now

2050 · moderate emissions. SSP2-4.5, 2041-2060, 3 climate models; ranges show the spread.

The plant
μολόχη
Photograph of Malva sylvestris
Photo: Alvesgaspar · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons (photo of Common mallow)
2050 · moderate emissions
Natural Earth (PD) · model output · ~10 km cells
Loading map layers (0 of 1)
Layers
Range keptLost by 2050Gained by 2050Cultivation zoneNatura 2000Occurrence cellCells ≈ 10 × 10 km

Exploratory map (low-confidence model). Occurrences are aggregated to ~10 km cells; exact points are never published. View range data as a table

De Materia Medica · Book II · ch. 118c. 50–70 CE
μολόχη
molochē
μολόζη· ἐδωδιμωτέρα ἡ κηπευτὴ μᾶλλον τῆς χερσαίας, κακοστόμαχος δὲ καὶ εὐκοίλιος …
Modern identification
Malva sylvestrisL. · MalvaceaeProbable

Source: Osbaldeston 2000.

Full citation and quoted evidence

Wellmann (ed.) 1906, DMM II 118 (Greek text + RV synonyms: μαλάχη κηπαία, Ῥωμαῖοι μάλβα ὁρτένσε; μαλάχη ἀγρία χερσαία, μάλβα ῥούστικα); Osbaldeston 2000, On Medical Matters, ch. 2-144 (Goodyer numbering): "Malva sylvestris [Linnaeus] — Common Mallow".

Opening words of the chapter (Wellmann numbering). Edition: Wellmann 1906-1914 (Weidmann, Berlin), public domain; digitised by First1KGreek (Harvard/Leipzig, CC BY-SA 4.0), urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0656.tlg001.1st1K-grc1. See the page scan.

Modern official status

European Medicines Agency herbal monograph

Malvae sylvestris flos; Malvae folium (Malva sylvestris L. / Malva neglecta Wallr.) · category: traditional

We report regulatory status only and make no claim about effects. Read the monograph for its exact wording.

Open the monograph on ema.europa.eu

Projected range change by 2050

2050 · moderate (SSP2-4.5)+77% (+73 to +78%)
2050 · high (SSP5-8.5)+81% (+77 to +81%)

Median and spread across 3 climate models. Whisker axis −80% to +20%, dashed tick at 0; a chevron means the value runs beyond the axis.

Suitable cultivation area, 2050 moderate0 km² (0–0 km²)

Risk score breakdown

0.29 (0.29–0.29)Moderate risk class 2
00.51.0
  • Range loss 0.00 of max 0.40 · (0.00–0.00)
  • Endemism 0.00 of max 0.20 · not endemic
  • Conservation status 0.10 of max 0.20 · not assessed
  • Harvest pressure 0.19 of max 0.20

Stays in the top 10 in 0% of 1,000 random weightings.

How the score is built, and how sensitive it is to weights

Model quality

Low grade
AUC (spatial block CV)
0.67 ± 0.03
Distance-only baseline AUC
0.62 ours is higher
Boyce index
0.87 ± 0.06
TSS
0.27 ± 0.05
Occurrence records
1,734 after cleaning (of 2,391)

5-fold spatial block cross-validation (~25 km blocks); ± is one standard deviation across folds. Null model AUC 0.50. The baseline scores each held-out point by its distance to the nearest training record, on the same folds. "Standard" grade means ≥ 30 records, AUC ≥ 0.75 and above the baseline; fewer than 10 records is a data gap; anything else is low grade.

Suggested action

Monitor

Stable or expanding; keep watching harvest and status. Resolve the data first.

Rule: Gains or keeps habitat · no 2050 cultivation zone.

See the action plan

Identification through time

Who has matched μολόχη to which modern plant, from the Renaissance to today.

All names through time
Cited for the identification we modelProposed an alternativeAlternative preferred by our sourceAlternative rejected by our sourceCommonly proposed, not verified by us
Renaissance commentators
Linnaean botany & Flora Graeca
Edition
Modern
150016001700180019002000

Select a mark to read who proposed which plant, and the source we read it in.

Dates are each authority's main herbal or commentary (approximate, "c."), used to order the timeline. Claims are parsed from our curated identification table; every quote links back to a page scan or edition on the plant page.

Caveats

  • Identification is probable; results describe Malva sylvestris L., which may not be the plant Dioscorides meant.
  • Low-confidence model: 1734 thinned records (we require 30) or AUC below 0.75.

Range data (map alternative)

ScenarioSuitable ~10 km cellsChangeShare in Natura 2000
Now1307—22.4%
2050 moderate1,764 (1,756–1,768)+77% (+73 to +78%)24% (24–24%)
2050 high1,773 (1,764–1,774)+81% (+77 to +81%)25% (24–25%)