:::::I concur with users Rppeabody, First Light, Peter coxhead, Stemonitis, and Simon Burchell in upholding the validity of Cahill (2003) and see no conflict with WP:V.  In fact, WP:V is a de-facto description of this type of source - an accessible, published, secondary-source reputable-academic-journal article in English who's author's concentration is within the scope of the material (ethnobotany/ist).  Any user wishing to remove this reference must present specific evidence to the contrary in order to impune this or any other reference.  Reversions based on expressions of unsubstantiated skepticism and invective is simply bullyish and cannot stand as a valid reason to remove sourced material.  István