Identity & origin
BOTANICAL IDENTITY
The right name is the first step.
Ficus racemosa belongs to Moraceae. The Mizoram survey records it as collected from the wild, under the local designation “Thei chek (Lushai)”. The studied material is documented by voucher MZU/BOT/248, deposited in the Mizoram University herbarium. Reported parts: root, bark, fruit. This is a documentary identity record, not a field identification key.
Also known as: Covellia glomerata (Roxb.) Miq., Covellia mollis Miq., Ficus acidula King, Ficus chittagonga Miq., Ficus glomerata Roxb.
Use the full name Ficus racemosa L. and voucher MZU/BOT/248 when consulting the source. Local names may denote other plants. A photograph is insufficient to identify material for consumption.
An illustration is not enough to identify a plant for consumption. Do not forage for a species based solely on this profile.
Uses & evidence
UNDERSTANDING THE USES
Properties & uses.
Reported local uses — documentary record
Table 2 reports local use of root, bark, fruit for: dysentery, diabetes, diarrhoea, stomachache. These are statements collected from participants, not measured treatment outcomes. This record neither establishes effectiveness nor recommends use for these conditions.
Use reported in a survey or inventory. This establishes neither benefit nor safety.
Read the sourceThe traditional uses described are not clinical proof of effectiveness. Evidence for one preparation cannot automatically be applied to another.
Precautions before use
BEFORE ANY USE
Precautions & contraindications.
This guidance does not cover every individual situation. Missing information is not a guarantee of safety.
The following warnings do not constitute a complete review of interactions or contraindications. An unstudied combination cannot be considered compatible.
Contraindications & precautions
- Insufficient safety assessment in the cited sources: no self-medication or homemade medicinal preparation is recommended.
- Do not replace or delay medical treatment, particularly for the serious illnesses mentioned in the source.
Medicine interactions
- Interactions have not been adequately assessed in this documentary source. This is not evidence of compatibility with medicines.
“Reported” does not prove causality; “possible” may reflect indirect evidence. “None reported” means none in the cited source, not that all combinations have been studied. Do not stop a prescribed treatment based on this profile.
Adverse effects
- The survey is not a safety monitoring study; it cannot establish the frequency or absence of adverse effects.
Pregnancy & breastfeeding
No medicinal use during pregnancy or breastfeeding can be recommended on this evidence.
Children & adolescents
No validated paediatric use or dose in this source, including for ages 6–12. Do not extrapolate an adult traditional practice to children.
If symptoms persist, worsen or are unusual, consult a healthcare professional. In an emergency, contact the emergency services.
Available evidence
EXPLORE THE EVIDENCE
The available evidence.
Documented traditional practice in Mizoram. This entry distinguishes an ethnobotanical use report from a demonstrated pharmacological action. The cited survey does not test this species in a clinical trial.
Reported local uses — documentary record
Table 2 reports local use of root, bark, fruit for: dysentery, diabetes, diarrhoea, stomachache. These are statements collected from participants, not measured treatment outcomes. This record neither establishes effectiveness nor recommends use for these conditions.
Use reported in a survey or inventory. This establishes neither benefit nor safety.
Read the referenceLimitations to keep in mind.
Insufficient safety assessment in the cited sources: no self-medication or homemade medicinal preparation is recommended.
Studies, findings & limitations
THE RESEARCH
What the research shows.
A laboratory or animal result alone does not demonstrate a benefit in humans. Each result must be read alongside the preparation studied and its limitations.
Ralte & Singh (2024) — Mizoram
Use reported in a survey or inventory. This establishes neither benefit nor safety.
- Type of research
- Field observations, group discussions and semi-structured interviews, September 2022–January 2023; herbarium voucher MZU/BOT/248.
- Preparation concerned
- Reported plant material: root, bark, fruit. No clinically standardized preparation is evaluated here.
- Observed results
- Table 2 reports local use of root, bark, fruit for: dysentery, diabetes, diarrhoea, stomachache. These are statements collected from participants, not measured treatment outcomes. This record neither establishes effectiveness nor recommends use for these conditions.
- Limitations to consider
- The survey interviewed 128 people across several ethnic communities and documented 102 species. Its cultural indices measure reported use, not therapeutic benefit. It does not establish a safe dose, a mechanism of action, or a benefit–risk balance for this plant.
What can we take from this?
The survey interviewed 128 people across several ethnic communities and documented 102 species. Its cultural indices measure reported use, not therapeutic benefit. It does not establish a safe dose, a mechanism of action, or a benefit–risk balance for this plant.
Documentary review dated 09/10/2026. The references remain available to check the context.
Sources & last review
CHECKING REFERENCES
Sources for this profile.
- Ralte & Singh (2024) — Ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plants used by various ethnic tribes of Mizoram, India — Table 2, row 67. Ficus racemosa L.; voucher MZU/BOT/248Accessed on 09/10/2026
- GBIF Backbone Taxonomy — Ficus racemosa L.Accessed on 09/10/2026
Image: Raja bandi · CC BY 4.0. View the original image and its licence. Image resized and converted to WebP.