New Bensky Materia Medica 3rd edition to be released in August

[Guest guest]

Hi All

 

I would like to inform you that the new MM from Bensky is to be

released in august.

 

http://www.eastlandpress.com/books/ht.htm

 

Preview is available from:

http://www.eastlandpress.com/preview/ht.pdf

 

I am very much interested in how you view the improvements in this

edition, especially in relation to the new Chen and Chen from earlier

this year.

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

As a teacher of herbs, I am excited about the publication of the 3rd Edition

of Bensky's MM. In looking over the preview that is available at the link

below, I am struck by what seem to be some confusing changes in terminology.

 

For example, Bensky seems to have omitted species names from his new

terminology ( " Scutellariae Radix " -- what happened to the term " baicalensis "

from the previous edition -- and since there are two different species of

Scutellaria that we use, this omission seems especially troublesome)? He

also sometimes uses a genitive form ( " Astragali Radix " ) and other times the

unaltered genus name ( " Codonopsis Radix " ). There are inconsistencies in the

naming of certain herbs (in one section, he refers to " Armeniacae Semen

amarum " (what does " amarum " mean?) and in other places he calls it just

" Armeniacae Semen " . He refers to " Ginkgo Semen " ; what happened to the term

" biloba " ? Are we not using species names any more to qualify the genus name?

 

Julie

 

 

-

<

 

Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:32 AM

New Bensky Materia Medica 3rd edition to be released in

August

 

 

> Hi All

>

> I would like to inform you that the new MM from Bensky is to be

> released in august.

>

> http://www.eastlandpress.com/books/ht.htm

>

> Preview is available from:

> http://www.eastlandpress.com/preview/ht.pdf

>

> I am very much interested in how you view the improvements in this

> edition, especially in relation to the new Chen and Chen from earlier

> this year.

[Guest guest]

, JulieJ8 <Juliej8@b...> wrote:

> Dear All,

>

> As a teacher of herbs, I am excited about the publication of the 3rd Edition

> of Bensky's MM. In looking over the preview that is available at the link

> below, I am struck by what seem to be some confusing changes in terminology.

 

 

Julie

 

I agree that the best way to identify herbs is by complete species and genus

name. The

preface to this 3rd edition states that the authors have adopted the current

international

standard in phamraceutical nomenclature, which includes putting the plant part

after the

genus name. I understand there were extensive discussions with numerous parties

about

this. You make some good points with your examples and I certainly cannot

speak to all of them.

 

>

> For example, Bensky seems to have omitted species names from his new

> terminology ( " Scutellariae Radix " -- what happened to the term " baicalensis "

> from the previous edition -- and since there are two different species of

> Scutellaria that we use, this omission seems especially troublesome)?

 

 

I assume that scutellariae barbata (ban zhi lian) is probably called

scutellariae herba in

this new system. While this does not identify the species in the name, it does

differentiate

it from scutellariae radix. Since there is no other scutellariae radix, this

nomenclature is

sufficient to distinguish the materials by those in the trade. I am not sure

why it is so

important to drop the species name in most pharmaceutical nomenclature, but

perhaps

just for the economy of words. That being said, I do think it is vital that

students

familiarize themselves with the entire botanical names of the most commonly used

species

for any chinese medicinal for which there are option. And further be able to

identify that

species in situations where discrepancies could easily arise. for example, all

mu tong

must be akebia sp., preferably trifoliatae, in order to be safe for use over a

few days (and

only legal at all in the US if taken from this genus).

 

 

He

> also sometimes uses a genitive form ( " Astragali Radix " ) and other times the

> unaltered genus name ( " Codonopsis Radix " ). There are inconsistencies in the

> naming of certain herbs (in one section, he refers to " Armeniacae Semen

> amarum " (what does " amarum " mean?) and in other places he calls it just

> " Armeniacae Semen " . He refers to " Ginkgo Semen " ; what happened to the term

> " biloba " ? Are we not using species names any more to qualify the genus name?

 

 

I will assume that either all of the above are part of this new international

nomenclature

for herb trade. or they may be typos in which case eastland should be notified.

I think

Dan monitors this list. I suspect that some of these choices were actually

made by the

international committees. For example, ginseng radix is used instead of panax

radix.

Amarum is used one time with Armeniacae and I also do not know what it means in

this

context. So all good points.

 

I do like the way the new book now organizes the combinations with the single

herb

functions instead of afterwards and also includes the representative formulas

that use

these combinations. The inclusion of the mechanisms of selected herb

combinations,

provided by Steve Clavey, addresses a concern raised by Roger Wicke that many

students

select herb combinations without considering whether the actual dynamics of the

herbs

are appropriate for the case at hand. Presenting the material in this way

instead creates a

true bridge to the study of formulas. Also new is the comparison of similar

herbs within

herb monographs instead of just a summary at each chapter's end. The extensive

herb

commentaries and comparisons, as well as preparation instructions are all

provided by

Steve Clavey.

 

Mr. Clavey's substantial contributions to this new edition truly make this a

textbook of

materia medica. To me, a textbook does not just list details, it explains

things. A

reference book lists details in an orderly fashion. I believe past versions of

this book were

heavily weighted towards reference. This one is now clearly more geared towards

teaching

herbs in a dynamic way. It is no doubt a product of the highly regarded decade

long

experiment in case based learning at SIOM. In this program, cases are used to

learn even

the basic material, thus a materia medica that contextualizes the data and

comments on it

mimics more of what actually goes on in the classroom. In some ways, this style

of

presenting the information is similar to Jiao shu de. Finally, it is

interesting that Eastland

chose to cede the territory of research based data. They have chosen to devote

their

precious paper and ink to a deeper exploration of the chinese classical

literature in

presenting materia medica to students. This stands in contrast to Chen and

Chen, who

devote much space to the newer data. Since we have need of both sets of

information, the

new edition of " Bensky " has actually created an essential place in the market

for Chen's

work.

 

[Guest guest]

Julie had said:

 

> > For example, Bensky seems to have omitted species names from his new

> > terminology ( " Scutellariae Radix " -- what happened to the term

" baicalensis "

> > from the previous edition -- and since there are two different species

of

> > Scutellaria that we use, this omission seems especially troublesome)?

>

>

 

> I assume that scutellariae barbata (ban zhi lian) is probably called

scutellariae herba in

> this new system. While this does not identify the species in the name, it

does differentiate

> it from scutellariae radix. Since there is no other scutellariae radix,

this nomenclature is

> sufficient to distinguish the materials by those in the trade.

 

True, but if all we wanted was to distinguish one material from another in

the trade, we could just use " Huang Qin " and " Ban Zhi Lian " and not even

talk about " Scutellaria. " What I thought we also wanted to do was identify

the part and exact species of the plant used. Saying " Scutellaria herba "

might lead some people to think what is meant is the above-ground part of

the species that yields " Huang Qin " . Especially from the point of view of a

student; wouldn't a student be likely to conclude that " Scutellaria herba "

is the same plant as " Scutellaria radix " , just a different part?

 

I am not sure why it is so

> important to drop the species name in most pharmaceutical nomenclature,

but perhaps

> just for the economy of words.

 

I haven't looked at the entire preview, but have species names been dropped

routinely throughout the book? That would certainly save ink, but would be

quite a change.

 

That being said, I do think it is vital that students

> familiarize themselves with the entire botanical names of the most

commonly used species

> for any chinese medicinal for which there are option. And further be able

to identify that

> species in situations where discrepancies could easily arise. for

example, all mu tong

> must be akebia sp., preferably trifoliatae, in order to be safe for use

over a few days (and

> only legal at all in the US if taken from this genus).

>

 

Finally, it is interesting that Eastland

> chose to cede the territory of research based data. They have chosen to

devote their

> precious paper and ink to a deeper exploration of the chinese classical

literature in

> presenting materia medica to students.

 

And I agree with this change. I would rather read explanations of the

traditional uses and combinations than modern research, which sometimes

seemed irrelevant in Bensky's 2nd edition.

 

This stands in contrast to Chen and Chen, who

> devote much space to the newer data. Since we have need of both sets of

information, the

> new edition of " Bensky " has actually created an essential place in the

market for Chen's

> work.

 

All in all, it is an exciting publication event. I hear the book will be

almost double the cost of the 2nd edition; is this true?

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

The new edition looks incredible! Will it be available through

RedWing Books?

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , @v... wrote:

> Hi All

>

> I would like to inform you that the new MM from Bensky is to be

> released in august.

>

> http://www.eastlandpress.com/books/ht.htm

>

> Preview is available from:

> http://www.eastlandpress.com/preview/ht.pdf

>

> I am very much interested in how you view the improvements in this

> edition, especially in relation to the new Chen and Chen from

earlier

> this year.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Alwin

[Guest guest]

Hi Julie

 

--- JulieJ8 <Juliej8@b...> wrote:

 

> All in all, it is an exciting publication event. I hear the book

> will be almost double the cost of the 2nd edition; is this true?

>

> Julie

 

The pre-publication price up until 8/31/2004 will be $99.00

after that it will be $ 125.00.

 

The current price of the 2nd revised edition is $ 75.00 I believe

 

Thanks for your review

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

I think that the fact that the Bensky materia medica in the past has

been the 'standard' text, and that it has been rewritten, will greatly

change the way materia medica is presently taught. By using this as

their main text, herbal medicine students will have access to digests

of classical sources, dui yao/herbal combinations, and, as you

mentioned, a more real-time, clinical and classroom-based based

approach to textbooks. I am looking forward to using this text and

seeing how the students respond.

 

 

On Jul 17, 2004, at 11:07 AM, wrote:

 

> Mr. Clavey's substantial contributions to this new edition truly make

> this a textbook of

> materia medica. To me, a textbook does not just list details, it

> explains things. A

> reference book lists details in an orderly fashion. I believe past

> versions of this book were

> heavily weighted towards reference. This one is now clearly more

> geared towards teaching

> herbs in a dynamic way. It is no doubt a product of the highly

> regarded decade long

> experiment in case based learning at SIOM. In this program, cases are

> used to learn even

> the basic material, thus a materia medica that contextualizes the data

> and comments on it

> mimics more of what actually goes on in the classroom. In some ways,

> this style of

> presenting the information is similar to Jiao shu de. Finally, it is

> interesting that Eastland

> chose to cede the territory of research based data. They have chosen

> to devote their

> precious paper and ink to a deeper exploration of the chinese

> classical literature in

> presenting materia medica to students. This stands in contrast to

> Chen and Chen, who

> devote much space to the newer data. Since we have need of both sets

> of information, the

> new edition of " Bensky " has actually created an essential place in

> the market for Chen's

> work.

[Guest guest]

Alwin, how does one get the pre-publication price? From what I have seen, I

say: sign me up!

 

Julie

 

 

 

 

> The pre-publication price up until 8/31/2004 will be $99.00

> after that it will be $ 125.00.

>

> The current price of the 2nd revised edition is $ 75.00 I believe

>

> Thanks for your review

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Julie

 

It's quite simple. Order directly from Eastland Press and do so

before August 31st.

 

The instructions and orderform is available on their website:

http://www.eastlandpress.com/Ordering/order.htm

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

 

--- JulieJ8 <Juliej8@b...> wrote:

> Alwin, how does one get the pre-publication price? From what I have

seen, I

> say: sign me up!

>

> Julie

>

>

>

>

> > The pre-publication price up until 8/31/2004 will be $99.00

> > after that it will be $ 125.00.

> >

> > The current price of the 2nd revised edition is $ 75.00 I believe

> >

> > Thanks for your review

> >

[Guest guest]

I thought some of you might have wondered the same thing, so Ill post

this for all:

 

Oren,

 

Work on the new edition of Formulas & Strategies has been ongoing for

a few years now, but the authors elected to bring on board two more

co-authors and make some more fundamental changes to the content and

design of the new edition than was originally envisioned.

 

We hope to finish the new edition the second half of next year. Like

the new edition of the Materia Medica, it will be worth the wait!

 

Thanks for your interest in our publications.

 

Sincerely,

John O'Connor

Eastland Press

info

[Guest guest]

It's simplest to add it to your shopping cart from this link:

 

http://www.eastlandpress.com/books/chinese_herbal_medicine_materia_medica_3r

d_edition.php

 

-Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

Monday, July 19, 2004 11:10 AM

 

Re: New Bensky Materia Medica 3rd edition to be released in

August

 

Hi Julie

 

It's quite simple. Order directly from Eastland Press and do so before

August 31st.

 

The instructions and orderform is available on their website:

http://www.eastlandpress.com/Ordering/order.htm

 

Best wishes

[Guest guest]

On 18/07/2004, at 4:07 AM, wrote:

> I agree that the best way to identify herbs is by complete species

> and genus name.  The

> preface to this 3rd edition states that the authors have adopted the

> current international

> standard in phamraceutical nomenclature, which includes putting the

> plant part after the

> genus name.  I understand there were extensive discussions with

> numerous parties about

> this.  You make some good points with your examples and I certainly

> cannot

> speak to all of them.

>

Hi

 

I have never heard of this new international standard in nomenclature.

Is it included in the Chinese pharmacopeia? Have the Chinese lost the

authority to the correct names of the Chinese herbs now? Certainly

reducing most herbal pharmaceutical names to 2 instead of 3 words will

lesson the memory burden; but at what cost?

 

As part of the upcoming standards of practice for registered Chinese

herbalists in Australia we must FULLY identify each herb in each

prescription we supply patients. We can not use only pinyin or English

for this purpose. We must ID the herb in full standards of Chinese or

pharmaceutical names from the Chinese pharmacopeia and this means

species name, genus name plus the part/s of plant used AND processing

if relevant. If pinyin or English is used it must be accompanied by

either the FULL pharmaceutical name or Chinese.

 

I feel the Australian approach is slight overkill and will be quite a

burden for practitioners who do not write Chinese; however, this

two-term supposed 'standard' seems severe under-kill to me in a world

where accurate species ID is becoming more and more important for

legal, insurance and standards of practice.

 

On a slight side note.......Steven Clavey is an Australian practitioner

and I wonder how or why he has agreed to this shortening of terminology

to be published partly in his name when it is not sufficient for for

non-chinese-character writers to actually practice in his own country.

 

I look forward to your thoughts on the subject....

 

Best Wishes,

 

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Steve Slater <dragonslive@h...>

wrote:

 

>

> I have never heard of this new international standard in nomenclature.

> Is it included in the Chinese pharmacopeia? Have the Chinese lost the

> authority to the correct names of the Chinese herbs now? Certainly

> reducing most herbal pharmaceutical names to 2 instead of 3 words will

> lesson the memory burden; but at what cost?

 

 

Steve

 

The chinese never controlled the latin naming of their own herbs. 100 years

ago, they

adopted prevailing international standards, which change over time. You'll have

to contact

Bensky or clavey for details, but the pharmaceutical standard has always been

plant part

and genus as far as I know. Bensky included species last time, but this has

never been

standard. However, Bensky will continue to include full species and genus names

for every

mateiral used. As for 2 part names being insufficient for ID, can you give me an

example?

With rare exceptions, there are few examples of multiple species of the same

genus being

used as different chinese herbs. When so, they are often not the same plant

part. While

ban zhi lian is called Scutellaria Barbatae Herbae, Scutellariae herba would

suffice. In other

cases, there is only one species used, so no confucion is possible. Please keep

in mind, all

this has to do with is the use of properly labeled herbs by clinicians. A

supplier has a

greater responsiblity to insure accurate species ID, but once that has been

insured, the

term ephedrae sinensis radix is only less economical than ephedrae radix and

and

provides no additional details for the clinician.

 

Being able to actually idea the plant material is far more important. What good

is it to

know that sheng ma is called cimicifuga foetida rhizoma or dahurica, when in

fact most

sheng ma on the market is a sub called serrulata radix. If you know what

cimicifuga

rhizoma is supposed to look like, then no error is possible.

 

>

> On a slight side note.......Steven Clavey is an Australian practitioner

> and I wonder how or why he has agreed to this shortening of terminology

> to be published partly in his name when it is not sufficient for for

> non-chinese-character writers to actually practice in his own country.

>

[Guest guest]

On 18/08/2004, at 6:35 AM, wrote:

> Steve

>

> The chinese never controlled the latin naming of their own herbs. 

> 100 years ago, they

> adopted prevailing international standards, which change over time. 

> You'll have to contact

> Bensky or clavey for details, but the pharmaceutical standard has

> always been plant part

> and genus as far as I know. Bensky included species last time, but

> this has never been

> standard.  However, Bensky will continue to include full species and

> genus names for every

> mateiral used.

 

So there has been a drastic change to the previous decision? This makes

all these arguments irrelevant then I suppose. Pharmaceutical standards

are only standards if they are freely available and adopted in our

profession; this doesn't fit with what we normally use or what is

normally published. ie. Blue Poppy, Clavey's Fluid Physiology, Chen's

new text, Wang and Xu's text and Bensky's previous edition etc.

 

It seems this mysterious standard is not standard in TCM herbology at

all.

 

 

> As for 2 part names being insufficient for ID, can you give me an

> example? 

 

You are correct confusion would be the exception rather than the rule;

but a quick look throught the index of Xu and Wang shows:

 

Aconiti, Radix Wu Tou

Aconti, Carmichaeli, Radix Chuan Wu

 

Allii Fistulosi, Bulbus Cong Bai

Allii Macrostemi, Bulbus Xie Bai

 

Amomi, Fructus Sha Ren

Amomi Tsaoko, Fructus Cao Guo

 

Angelicae Dahuricae, Radix Bai Zhi

Angelicae Pubescentis, Radix Du Huo

Angelicae Sinensis, Radix Dang Gui

 

Artemisiae Anomalae, Herba Lui Ji Niu

Artemisiae ChingHao, Herba Qing Hao

Artemisiae Scopariae, Herba Yin CHen Hao

 

Atractylodis, Rhizoma Cang Zhu

Atractlylodis Macrocephalae, Rhizoma Bai Zhu

 

I won't go on....but while not extremely common, as can be seen from

this index of " A " ; there are enough similarities to justify the ID of

species for reference texts in my opinion as these are all the same

part of different species; not different parts of of a different

species.

 

Personally in clinic, I previously used pinyin and found this

sufficient if FULL names were used eg. Qing mu xiang, chuan mu tong

etc.....but this is no longer sufficient for profession practice here

 

 

> Please keep in mind, all

> this has to do with is the use of properly labeled herbs by

> clinicians.  A supplier has a

> greater responsiblity to insure accurate species ID, but once that

> has been insured, the

> term ephedrae sinensis radix is only less economical than ephedrae

> radix and  and

> provides no additional details for the clinician. 

>

> Being able to actually idea the plant material is far more

> important.  What good is it to

> know that sheng ma is called cimicifuga foetida rhizoma or dahurica,

> when in fact most

> sheng ma on the market is a sub called serrulata radix.  If you know

> what cimicifuga

> rhizoma is supposed to look like, then no error is possible.

>

 

These are all valid points. However most clinician's here run there own

pharmacy and professional practice here dictates that all herbs in all

prescriptions can be traced to their source as easily and quickly as

possible. As I said in my previous post, the Australian approach seems

to be overkill as every patient must be given a full prescription for

each formula they receive......a lot of extra work for the

practitioner.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Steve Slater <dragonslive@h...>

wrote:

 

However, Bensky will continue to include full species and

> > genus names for every

> > mateiral used.

 

>

> So there has been a drastic change to the previous decision? This makes

> all these arguments irrelevant then I suppose.

 

 

please clarify. what decision? what change?

 

 

Pharmaceutical standards

> are only standards if they are freely available and adopted in our

> profession; this doesn't fit with what we normally use or what is

> normally published. ie. Blue Poppy, Clavey's Fluid Physiology, Chen's

> new text, Wang and Xu's text and Bensky's previous edition etc.

 

 

I guess they are all outdated, but this should not matter. Using a trinomial

term like

codonopsitis pilosulae radix is just overkill when codonopsitis radix is

sufficient. but the

trinomial term will not confuse anyone. It is just extraneous detail for

clinical purposes,

but not a factual error of any sort.

 

 

> It seems this mysterious standard is not standard in TCM herbology at

> all.

 

we are not much standards, though, are we? It was my understanding that various

book

publishers are trying to unify around this herb naming if nothing else.

 

 

>

> I won't go on....but while not extremely common, as can be seen from

> this index of " A " ; there are enough similarities to justify the ID of

> species for reference texts in my opinion as these are all the same

> part of different species; not different parts of of a different

> species.

 

 

actually if you go through the rest of that index, besides the herbs you listed

and those I

already mentioned like citri, the only other herbs that could not be identified

by a binomial

term of genus and plant part are several dioscorea rhizomes. The list is

heavily weighted

in the A section, thus not representative of the entire alphabet..

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 20/08/2004, at 2:20 AM, wrote:

 

> , Steve Slater

> <dragonslive@h...> wrote:

>

> However, Bensky will continue to include full species and

> > > genus names for every

> > >  mateiral used.

>

> >

> > So there has been a drastic change to the previous decision? This

> makes

> > all these arguments irrelevant then I suppose.

>

>

> please clarify.  what decision?  what change?

>

 

Earlier in this thread I believe you stated that Bensky would use only

genus and part as part of some yet undisclosed international standard.

:

" I agree that the best way to identify herbs is by complete species and

genus name.  The preface to this 3rd edition states that the authors

have adopted the current international

standard in phamraceutical nomenclature, which includes putting the

plant part after the

genus name. "

 

 

Did this statement only refer to changing part name to follow genus and

not the ommision of species? If so I was on the wrong track. If not,

your last past indicated that full species and genus will be used which

did seem to please both of us.

 

 

> > It seems this mysterious standard is not standard in TCM herbology

> at

> > all.

>

> we are not much standards, though, are we?  It was my understanding

> that various book

> publishers are trying to unify around this herb naming if nothing

> else.

>

>

 

I hope unification does happen. There is certainly a need for it when

comparing recent texts.

 

I have just completed updating my database with the pharmaceutical

names from the Cheng text and the Wang/Xu text. Cheng seems to use only

genus and part when possible; while Wang uses the errs on the side of

caution giving genus, species and part more often. Some medicinals have

completely different pharmaceutical names though or differing species

names.....eg.

 

Pinyin Wang/Xu vs Cheng

bai hua she she cao - herba hedyotidies diffusae vs herba oldenlandia

bai shao yao - radix paeoniniaae lactiflorae - radix paeoniniae alba

bai zi ren - semen biotae orientalis - semen platycladi

di long - lumbricus - pheretima

fu shen - sclerotium poriae cocos cum ligno hospite - poria pararadicis

hai piao xiao - os sepiae seu sepiellae - endoconcha sepiae

ju he - semen citri reticulatae - semen citri rubrum

long yan rou - arillus euphoriae longanae - arillus longan

mang xiao - mirabilitum - natrii sulfas

sang ji sheng - ramulus loranthi - herba taxilli

xing ren - semen pruni armeniacae - semen armeniacae amarum

 

These last four are listed as they seem to omitt genus name altogether.

Perhaps omitting species in pursuit of a 2 name converntion is not the

only stategy being used. Here keeping species and ommitting genus seems

to be Cheng's policy..

 

da zao - fructus ziziphi jujubae - fructus jujubae

wu mei - fructus prunis mume - fructus mume

zhi ke - fructus citri aurantii - fructus aurantii

zhi shi - fructus immaturus citri aurantii - fructus aurantii immaturus

 

 

> >

> > I won't go on....but while not extremely common, as can be seen from

> > this index of " A " ; there are enough similarities to justify the ID

> of

> > species for reference texts in my opinion as these are all the same

> > part of different species; not different parts of of a different

> > species.

>

>

> actually if you go through the rest of that index, besides the herbs

> you listed and those I

> already mentioned like citri, the only other herbs that could not be

> identified by a binomial

> term of genus and plant part are several dioscorea rhizomes.  The

> list is heavily weighted

> in the A section, thus not representative of the entire alphabet..

>

>

 

I honestly didn't choose " A " to make a case for myself; it is simply

the start of the index:P.

 

Regardless, in reality it will not be possible to restrict the names of

the entire pharmacopoeia we have previously studied into genus and part

only unless the genus name is changed.....

 

I guess the most efficient solution is to only use part and genus when

no confusion is possible; adding species when more than one herb has

the same genus and part used.

 

This does not change my stance however on the idea of this mystery

standard of genus and part......one exception is enough to make this an

unworkable standard.

 

I would still like to know where this standard is available......any

ideas? If not, then I don't see how it is a standard......just a

proposed one.

 

 

 

Best Wishes,

 

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine