Testing of Rudrakshas

[Guest guest]

Syzenith:

There are Pharmacopoeial standards for botanicals, primarily

considered medicinal, set by the governing body in each country. In

India, this research comes under the purview of the Central Council

for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. They have designated 30 odd

independent labs to "develop" pharmacopoeial standards. There is now

a "standard" for about 150 odd plants, so for example if someone

hands you an Ashwagandha root and you want to make sure it's not a

lemon, you can do so because your sample has to fit certain

characteristics set by the standard within a certain tolerance. You

can imagine how long it will take for standards to be developed for

the many other plants (and as far as i know there have been no such

standards set for rudrakshas yet)

What does this have to do with rudrakshas? So far there have been a

few papers published on "suspected activity" of certain compounds of

the species E.ganitrus. But there is nothing yet to inconclusively

determine through bioassays. So the only way to determine

the "genuineness" of a sample of rudraksha is by what's fancily

called organoleptics. There is nothing wrong with this and it has

been done for several thousand years in India, China and many other

countries. What Neetaji and others of her caliber are doing at this

point is basically what i have just described. However within the

same species (this is true not just for rudrakshas but many

botanicals) there are many morphological variations based on where

they're found i.e, environment, soil pH, temperature etc. So my point

is, to say that an X mukhi bead must have X locules with X seeds is

ONLY A CLAIM UNTIL IT IS PROVEN and by extension you can't refute any

specimen that fails to fit this claim.

 

Suraj

[Guest guest]

Namaste Suraj

 

Thank you for all this. Of course everthing is a "claim" until

proven.

 

Om Namah Shivaya

Sy

 

--- In

, "surajraghavan2002"

<suraj_raghavan@h...> wrote:

> Syzenith:

> There are Pharmacopoeial standards for botanicals, primarily

> considered medicinal, set by the governing body in each country.

In

> India, this research comes under the purview of the Central

Council

> for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. They have designated 30 odd

> independent labs to "develop" pharmacopoeial standards. There is

now

> a "standard" for about 150 odd plants, so for example if someone

> hands you an Ashwagandha root and you want to make sure it's not a

> lemon, you can do so because your sample has to fit certain

> characteristics set by the standard within a certain tolerance.

You

> can imagine how long it will take for standards to be developed

for

> the many other plants (and as far as i know there have been no

such

> standards set for rudrakshas yet)

> What does this have to do with rudrakshas? So far there have been

a

> few papers published on "suspected activity" of certain compounds

of

> the species E.ganitrus. But there is nothing yet to inconclusively

> determine through bioassays. So the only way to determine

> the "genuineness" of a sample of rudraksha is by what's fancily

> called organoleptics. There is nothing wrong with this and it has

> been done for several thousand years in India, China and many

other

> countries. What Neetaji and others of her caliber are doing at

this

> point is basically what i have just described. However within the

> same species (this is true not just for rudrakshas but many

> botanicals) there are many morphological variations based on where

> they're found i.e, environment, soil pH, temperature etc. So my

point

> is, to say that an X mukhi bead must have X locules with X seeds

is

> ONLY A CLAIM UNTIL IT IS PROVEN and by extension you can't refute

any

> specimen that fails to fit this claim.

>

> Suraj

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:14:04 +0000, surajraghavan2002

<suraj_raghavan wrote:

 

> Syzenith:

> There are Pharmacopoeial standards for botanicals...

> (and as far as i know there have been no such

> standards set for rudrakshas yet)

 

Whatever may be the state of the pharmaceutical standards, from the

standpoint of plant morphology and taxonomy this doesn't matter. We

identify Eleocarpus spp. the same way we identify Brassica spp., using a

simple dichotomous key. I don't think the Eleocarpus nomenclature is in

question, this being a plant that has had an extensive human culture for

millennia. "Genuineness" of course is another matter.

 

> However within the

> same species (this is true not just for rudrakshas but many

> botanicals) there are many morphological variations based on where

> they're found i.e, environment, soil pH, temperature etc.

 

The rudraksha variants are all found on the same tree. (I wonder if this

is true, however, for one-mukhi crescent shape? What species is that, is

it the same as the commonly-seen multi-faced round seeds?)

Characteristics of the reproductive structures are generally highly stable

under varying conditions, that's why they are used in formal taxonomy for

classification.

 

> So my point

> is, to say that an X mukhi bead must have X locules with X seeds is

> ONLY A CLAIM UNTIL IT IS PROVEN and by extension you can't refute any

> specimen that fails to fit this claim.

 

This X-ovary, X-locule, X-embryo (and X-mukhi) correlation is basic to our

concept of the character of plant structure and development. Both in

terms of tissue development and functional correlation, the one arises

from the other, hence the rather obstinate insistence from some of us.

Nature does not ordinarily put a duplex, triplex, or five-plex facade

around a one-room flat! It is hard to imagine the tissue processes that

would give rise to, for example, a five-fold symmetry on the outside and

something entirely different within. Apart from such causes as disease

pathology, insect activity, mechanical injury, genetic tampering or

high-tech intervention, the occurrence of such a development (if genuine)

would be an inexplicable botanical freak - a sort of teratoma of the plant

world.

 

Regards,

Ramlal

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramlal:

Thanks for your erudite post. I'm not a botnist but as someone

interested in medicinal plants, i have a decent understanding of

basic botany. You're of course right about plant morphology and

taxonomy not being dependent on pharmacoepial standards however i

said this for a reason. I never said that by examining the pericarp

you couldn't make the X-ovary, X-mukhi connection. My point was that

the abscence of a well developed locule and seed may not prove

the "mukhiness" of a bead as you yourself have tested and found that

some of the embryonic development was less pronounced. I understand

your point about there being some trace despite lack of maturity.

This has been my experience also but i admit i have only opened one

bead. In the absence of inconclusive evidence, what other tests do we

have except to do biochemical analysis? This, of course will not

prove the "mukhiness" of a bead but might indicate whether a sample

is of E.ganitrus (were such parameters to exist)etc. As far as

variants on the same tree, yes of course. I was just making the point

that variants exist. If i remember correctly there was a post

(possibly by Chandrashekhar) about the one mukhi boat shape and he

suggested that it might be a different species. I'll look in the

archives. I do have a question for you. Is it possible that a 3 mukhi

of a different species in the same genus can exhibit markedly

different characteristics? I say this because in one of

Chandrashekar's posts at the beginning of all this discussion, he

does say that a 3 mukhi indian bead and a 3 mukhi nepali bead (if i

read his post correctly these were both Rudra Center's beads)

exhibited 1 pronounced locule with one seed and 3 with 3 seeds

respectively.

Regards,

Suraj

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:04:25 +0000, surajraghavan2002

<suraj_raghavan wrote:

 

> Namaste Ramlal:

> Thanks for your erudite post. I'm not a botnist but as someone

> interested in medicinal plants, i have a decent understanding of

> basic botany. You're of course right about plant morphology and

> taxonomy not being dependent on pharmacoepial standards however i

> said this for a reason. I never said that by examining the pericarp

> you couldn't make the X-ovary, X-mukhi connection. My point was that

> the abscence of a well developed locule and seed may not prove

> the "mukhiness" of a bead as you yourself have tested and found that

> some of the embryonic development was less pronounced. I understand

> your point about there being some trace despite lack of maturity.

> This has been my experience also but i admit i have only opened one

> bead.

 

Right, we agree.

 

> In the absence of inconclusive evidence, what other tests do we

> have except to do biochemical analysis? This, of course will not

> prove the "mukhiness" of a bead but might indicate whether a sample

> is of E.ganitrus (were such parameters to exist)etc.

 

I'm not sure biochem analysis would be particularly helpful in taxonomy -

sclerenchyma is after all sclerenchyma, no matter what species produced

it, and sclerenchyma is just a carbohydrate.

 

However, microscopy could help because different taxa likely have

different arrangements and different ratios of the various types of

sclerenchyma cells such as sclereids, stone cells, astrosclereids,

filiform sclereids, macro-sclereids, etc.

 

Also the degree of lignification may vary - but I suspect that would be

more a matter of maturity than species variation. (Your most highly

lignified rudrakshas are the beads that are flint-like in hardness and

very shiny.)

 

> As far as

> variants on the same tree, yes of course. I was just making the point

> that variants exist. If i remember correctly there was a post

> (possibly by Chandrashekhar) about the one mukhi boat shape and he

> suggested that it might be a different species. I'll look in the

> archives.

 

Thanks.

 

> I do have a question for you. Is it possible that a 3 mukhi

> of a different species in the same genus can exhibit markedly

> different characteristics?

 

Species within the same genus can be quite different as, e.g., Prunus

persica (the peach) differs from Prunus avium (the sweet cherry). Even

sub-species can vary markedly, as Brassica oleracea capitata (cabbage)

differs from Brassica oleracea gemmifera (Brussels sprouts).

 

> I say this because in one of

> Chandrashekar's posts at the beginning of all this discussion, he

> does say that a 3 mukhi indian bead and a 3 mukhi nepali bead (if i

> read his post correctly these were both Rudra Center's beads)

> exhibited 1 pronounced locule with one seed and 3 with 3 seeds

> respectively.

 

If the observation depends on sectioning a total sample of 2 seeds, it is

probably not a valid generalization based on an adequate sample.

 

But if it is valid, it's possible that the variations in the three-mukhi

beads may derive from any number of features. Perhaps variations in

flower morphology, e.g., maybe the shape of the Nepali flower facilitates

the pollination of all 3 locules whereas the Indian flower may favor only

one fertilization? Or some such scenario, you get the idea. I can only

speculate.

 

But the truly important point is to realize that the botanical odds VERY

heavily favor there being 2 rudimentary locules with diminutive embryos

along with the 1 pronounced locule in the Nepali seed. They would be easy

to overlook - the inside of a rudraksha is often chaotic from the

perspective of plant anatomy.

 

Regards,

Ramlal