1. Introduction Wild edible plants have been a popular research subject in ethnobotany. Numerous recent publications have reflected on the use of edible plants in Europe through historical research based on archival data (for example see Luczaj 2008, Luczaj and Szymanski 2007), modern fieldworks conducted in indigenous, isolated, rural or even urbanized regions (Tardio et al. 2005, Redzic 2010, Pieroni et al. 2005). Several regional and national European, but also international reviews of edibles have also been recently published (Redzic 2006, Tardio et al. 2006, Tardio 2010, Turner et al. 2011, Luczaj 2012, Denes et al. 2012, Kalle and Soukand 2012, Molina et al. 2014). Altogether, the number of articles in all data-bases of the Web of Science that return to the search topic wild edible plants ethnobotany is to 122 titles (28.04.2014). Scientific books (for example Etkin 1994, Etkin 2006) and special issues of journals are dedicated to the subject. The interest toward food plants is well justified, as they can provide valuable nutrients and several health benefits (Sanchez-Mata et al. 2012). Hence the studies of edibles are often merged with the studies of medicinal plants (Pieroni et al. 2002a, Pieroni and Quave 2006, Soukand and Kalle 2013, Pieroni et al. 2014, Quave and Pieroni 2014). The majority of ethobotanical studies define the domain of edible plants through the etic perspective, in order to be understandable within the discipline, to other researchers. Often, such definition is made to simply underline the principles of inclusion of plants into this particular study. For example, plant is defined through the habitat without secondary disturbance (Logan and Dixon 1994) or as being neither managed nor cultivated (Dufour and Wilson 1994, Molina et al. 2014), often acknowledging the situation of 'wild' on just one side of the continuum of plant-human relationship, e.g. the level of the domestication of the plants. On the other hand, in their review on the literature of internationally used food plants, Turner et al. (2011) consider 'wild edibles' only those plants that are gathered without 'particular manipulation', admitting however, that all resources are manipulated at least in some extent. In case of participatory research, e.g. face-to face fieldworks, which is classical research method in ethnobotany, the explicit need for the understanding of folk perception of edible plant barely exists. In the field, the interviewed persons guide researchers to the plants they use, rarely attributing it routinely into specific domains which do not relate to its use, unless it is explicitly asked. It is the responsibility of the researcher to determine whether a definite plant belongs to or cultivated category based on the flora of a specific region and disciplinarily agreed etic perception of what can be considered a edible plant. Research on food plants, which is the part of Local Ecological Knowledge, is, among other goals, intended to help local communities to value and preserve their knowledge, develop better practices in environment conservation and foster economic development of the communities (for example by promoting small-scale enterprises based on the use of natural resources). Understanding the perception of plants within specific researched population would add an important insight onto the cognition of the domain and would help the researchers to formulate the questions in order to receive maximal results from the interview. Hence there have been few attempts to add to the etic domain of edible plants some emic perspective, including native and also naturalized species, but also providing some emic insights of lay folk perceptions of 'wildness' of specific species, associating it rather with gathering, not farming (for example see Euczaj et al. 2012, Menedez-Baceta et al. 2012) or on specific category within the domain of edible plants, like ta chorta (wild edible greens) in Graecanic area in Calabria, Southern Italy (Nebel et al. …