The first video shows the leaves of some kind of shrub, with no evidence to link it to the thick, fleshy stem to that plant.
The second video shows a food market selling the snack and displaying a web page printout about Maerua oblongifolia. Also not evidence.
Clearly you did not read the article. The food vendors claim it is Maerua oblongifolia. The whole point is that it cannot possibly be, as Maerua does not have fleshy, edible roots or trunks, and DNA testing points to a different botanical family.
Interesting; don't speak the language but the first video showa a plant, and then a root/stem, without a link bewteen the two (i.e. harvesting). And the second shows just the stem. So still could go both ways?
The second video shows a food market selling the snack and displaying a web page printout about Maerua oblongifolia. Also not evidence.
Clearly you did not read the article. The food vendors claim it is Maerua oblongifolia. The whole point is that it cannot possibly be, as Maerua does not have fleshy, edible roots or trunks, and DNA testing points to a different botanical family.
Wikipedia is not a credible source here.