This article compares recent multilingual (auto)ethnobotanical books from Tanzania, Thailand, and Taiwan in terms of the role that the "insider translator" might play in linguistic, cultural, or environmental conservation or development. The books were motivated by similar concerns, but differed in the backgrounds of the authors, including translators and compilers. How did the backgrounds of the authors -- as cultural outsiders or insiders -- condition the form and content of the (auto)ethnobotanical books? What approach to authorship might be most effective for achieving the intended aims of the (auto)ethnobotanists? Based on textual analysis, interviews, and fieldwork, the main findings are as follows. The interlingual translation in the Tanzanian and Thai cases was unidirectional out of the local language, because the compilers, who were outsiders, were more concerned about the conservation of endangered languages, cultures, and environments. There was no division of labor between compiler and translator in the Taiwanese case, and the translation was bidirectional, because the authors were committed to the development of their language. It stands to reason that an autoethnobotanical effort, one made by cultural insiders, to conserve traditional plant knowledge or develop an ancestral language would be more effective than an ethnobotanical one; but the long-term effectiveness of any of the multilingual (auto)ethnobotanical books needs further comparative research.