Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Steve The issue of best herb naming has much to do with the end user. A physician needs to know the minimum nomenclature necessary to prescribe. So in WM, a generic or brand name will do. One does not need to know the chemical name of a drug to know what it does. Now if modern physicians compounded their own drugs, it would be a different story. The peculiarity of herbology is that for many the roles overlap. So in order to be safe, one must be able to identify the materials one is prescribing from one's own office. This will necessitate knowing the names of species and the ability to spot subs and adulterants visually. Chinese physicians practiced for generations with no latin at all and I assume they relied largely on visual ID to insure they got what they ordered. For most, this role is now actually played by the companies that supply the various prepared meds they use. Most folks use prepared meds and the trend will ever more in that direction. Only a small % of people (px and pt) will ever adhere to raw herb prescribing and ingestion. In the case of prepared meds, even granules, one merely must be able to distinguish between finished goods by name. There is no plant left to see, per se. In my powder pharmacy, the only regular issue is between the angelicas (bai zhi, du huo, dang gui), which must be identified by species when using latin since all are radix. However, of the other 90 or so herbs that make up 90% or so of the ingredients of the most common classical formulas, I believe there is little other overlapping. Even going beyond this list below, I can only think of 4-5 citri, 2 paeoniae, 3 amomi, 3 curcuma (probably 15-20 of the 200 or so I ever use). What else comes up commonly besides those that are easily differentiated by plant part and/or appearance such as he shou wu and ye jiao teng or yu zhu and huang jing? Including the whole species name for such herbs is vital, but arguably not for most others, unless one is actually handling raw herbs and must make the primary ID amongst samples that may include adulterants in the form of other species of the same genus which are NOT used medicinally or have different properties. An issue of the latter sort exists with much of the dang gui in the US. But when a textbook author writes mori folium, I know they mean the leaf of the plant morus alba, because the binomial term mori folium tells me all I need to know. What else could it be? Relieve Wind Chill Angelicae, Rx [bai/ zhi~] Asari, Hb cum Radice [xi\ xin-] Cinnamomi, Rml [gui\ zhi-] Ephedrae, Hb [ma/ huang/] Ledebouriellae, Rx (= Sileris, Rx) [fang/ feng-] Notopterygii, Rz et Rx [qiang- huo/] Schizonepetae, Hb seu Fl [jing- jie\] Zingiberis Recens, Rz [sheng- jiang-] Relieve Wind Heat Bupleuri, Rx [chai/ hu/] Cimicifugae, Rz [sheng- ma/] Menthae, Hb [bo\ he/] Puerariae, Rx [ge/ gen-] Sojae Praeparatum, S [dan\ dou\ chi~] Purge Fire Anemarrhenae, Rx [zhi- mu~] Gypsum [shi/ gao-] Gardeniae, Fr [zhi- zi~] Lophatheri, Hb [dan\ zhu/ ye\] Cool Blood Moutan Radicis, Cx [mu~ dan- pi/] Rehmanniae Glutinosae (dried), Rx [sheng- di\ huang/] Bubali, Cornu [shui~ niu/ jiao~] (substitute for Cornu Rhinoceri) Scrophulariae, Rx [xuan/ shen-] Clear Damp Heat Coptidis, Rz [huang/ lian/] Phellodendri, Cx [huang/ bai~] Scutellariae, Rx [huang/ qin/] Clear Heat Toxins Forsythiae, Fr [lian/ qiao/] Lonicerae Japonicae, Fl [jin- yin- hua-] Purge-Attack Rhei, Rz [da\ huang/] Mirabilitum (= Magnesia Sulfaricum; Natrum Sulfaricum) [mang/ xiao-] Drain Dampness Alismatis, Rz [ze/ xie\] Coicis, S [yi\ yi~ ren/] Mutong, Caulis [mu\ tong-] Plantaginis, S [che- qian/ zi~] Poriae Cocos Paradicis, Sclerotium [fu/ shen-] Poria, Sclerotium [fu/ ling/] Expel Wind Dampness Duhuo, Rx [du/ huo/] Transform Hot Phlegm Fritillariae Cirrhosae, Bulbus [chuan- bei\ mu~] Fritillariae Thunbergii, Bulbus [zhe\ bei\ mu~] Trichosanthis, Rx [tian- hua- fen~] Transform Cold Phlegm Pinelliae, Rz [ban\ xia\] Platycodi, Rx [jie/ geng~] Relieve cough Mori Albae Radicis, Cx [sang- bai/ pi/] Pruni Armeniacae, S (= Armeniacae Amarae, S) [xing\ ren/] Aromatic- transform Dampness Amomi, Fr seu S [sha- ren/] Atractylodis, Rz [cang- zhu/] Magnoliae Officinalis, Cx [hou\ po\] Relieve Food Stagnation Fermentata, Massa [shen/ qu-] Regulate Qi Aquilariae, Lignum [chen/ xiang-] Citri Reticulatae, Pc [chen/ pi/] Citri seu Ponciri, Fr (= Aurantii, Fr) [zhi~ qiao\] Citri seu Ponciri Immaturus, Fr (= Aurantii Immaturus, Fr) [zhi~ shi/] Cyperi, Rz [xiang- fu\] Linderae, Rx [wu- yao\] Meliae Toosendan, Fr [chuan- lian\ zi~] Saussureae seu Vladimirae, Rx (= Aucklandiae, Rx) [mu\ xiang-] Hemostatic Pseudoginseng, Rx [san- qi/] Invigorate Blood Achyranthis Bidentatae, Rx [niu/ xi-; huai/ niu/ xi-] Curcumae, Tuber [yu\ jin-] Ligustici Wallichi, Rx [chuan- xiong-] Myrrha [mo\ yao\] Olibanum, Gummi [ru~ xiang-] Paeoniae Rubra, Rx [chi\ shao/] Persicae, S [tao/ ren/] Salviae Miltiorrhizae, Rx [dan- shen-] Warm Interior Foeniculi, Fr [xiao~ hui/ xiang-] Piperis Nigri, Fr [hu/ jiao-] Zingiberis, Rz [gan- jiang-] Tonify Qi Astragali, Rx [huang/ qi/] Atractylodis Macrocephalae, Rz [bai/ zhu/] Codonopsis, Rx [dang~ shen-] Dioscoreae Oppositae, Rx [shan- yao\] Ginseng, Rx [ren/ shen-] Glycyrrhizae, Rx [gan- cao~] Tonify Blood Angelicae Sinensis, Rx [dang- gui-] Asini, Gelatinum [e- jiao-] Lycii, Fr [gou~ qi~ zi~] Paeoniae Lactiflorae, Rx [bai/ shao/] Rehmanniae Glutinosae Conquitae, Rx [shu/ di\ huang/] Tonify Yang Cuscutae, S [tu~ si- zi~] Eucommiae, Cx [du\ zhong\] Tonify Yin Amydae, Carapax [bie- jia~] Ophiopogonis, Tuber [mai\ men/ dong-] Testudinis, Plastrum [gui- ban~] Astringe Corni, Fr [shan- zhu- yu/] Pruni Mume, Fr [wu- mei/] Schizandrae, Fr [wu~ wei\ zi~] Calm Spirit Draconis, Os [long/ gu~] Nourish Heart and calm Spirit Polygalae, Rx [yuan~ zhi\] Open Orifices Acori Graminei, Rz [chang- pu/] Extinguish Internal Wind Bombyx Batryticatus [jiang- can/] Gastrodiae, Rz [tian- ma/] Expel Parasites: Arecae, S [bin- lang/] Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 On 18/08/2004, at 8:24 AM, wrote: > Steve > > The issue of best herb naming has much to do with the end user. A > physician needs to know the minimum nomenclature necessary to > prescribe. So in WM, a generic or brand name will do. One does not > need to know the chemical name of a drug to know what it does. Now if > modern physicians compounded their own drugs, it would be a different > story. The peculiarity of herbology is that for many the roles > overlap. So in order to be safe, one must be able to identify the > materials one is prescribing from one's own office. This will > necessitate knowing the names of species and the ability to spot subs > and adulterants visually. This is the reason the professional standards of practice developed in Australia are so specific and seemingly strict. The quicker any mistakes, adverse reactions etc can be traced the better reputation our profession will maintain. > > In the case of prepared meds, even granules, one merely must be able > to > distinguish between finished goods by name. There is no plant left to > see, per se. In my powder pharmacy, the only regular issue is between > the angelicas (bai zhi, du huo, dang gui), which must be identified by > species when using latin since all are radix. However, of the other > 90 > or so herbs that make up 90% or so of the ingredients of the most > common classical formulas, I believe there is little other > overlapping. I agree with all this. The issue however is not what the practitioner " knows " they are prescribing. This issue is that the prescription be as transparent as possible if something happens to the patient and their medications can be traced in both content and source as easily as possible (probably by physicians not familiar with TCM). Is the standard of practice in America to give a written list of all herbs and dosages to the patient with their herbs? That is what we must do now in Australia for the above reasons. Dr. Steven J Slater Practitioner and Acupuncturist Mobile: 0418 343 545 chinese_medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 , Steve Slater <dragonslive@h...> wrote: This issue is that the prescription be as > transparent as possible if something happens to the patient and their > medications can be traced in both content and source as easily as > possible (probably by physicians not familiar with TCM). Is the > standard of practice in America to give a written list of all herbs and > dosages to the patient with their herbs? That is what we must do now in > Australia for the above reasons. Steve For the purpose you describe, complete species identification is necessary. Our federal government may have the authority to enforce such recordkeeping as you describe in small clinics. It is certainly their goal. I was primarily speaking to clinical and educational purposes. While the official name for those purposes is now this binomial, the reference texts will still include the full genus and species names of various sources of any given material under a separate heading. I have seen a new materia medica from redwing that will use this system and the Jiao shu de book has already adopted it. As for the safety issue in house, that demands that suppliers vouch for their materials and clinicians be able to spot adulterations, etc. But few people would be able to visually spot adulterants in dang gui in the form of other angelicas. So the suppliers must insure proper species somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 On 20/08/2004, at 2:37 AM, wrote: > , Steve Slater > <dragonslive@h...> wrote: > > This issue is that the prescription be as > > transparent as possible if something happens to the patient and > their > > medications can be traced in both content and source as easily as > > possible (probably by physicians not familiar with TCM). Is the > > standard of practice in America to give a written list of all herbs > and > > dosages to the patient with their herbs? That is what we must do > now in > > Australia for the above reasons. > > Steve > > For the purpose you describe, complete species identification is > necessary. Our federal > government may have the authority to enforce such recordkeeping as > you describe in > small clinics. It is certainly their goal. I was primarily speaking > to clinical and educational > purposes. I certainly can see why shortening names is useful for clinic and education; I concentrated almost solely on pinyin when an undergraduate and found this completely sufficient once I learn the common variations used by clinicians from different parts of China (mostly during my clinical stint in China itself). However, I don't have any other option now than to learn full pharmaceutical names for practice purposes. I guess leaving learning full pharmaceutical names until later in education or beginning practice is possible here, but the burden of this extra learning is essential now in Australia with the new standards of practice; it just a matter of what standard is used and when you put in the hard yards now. By the by, the standard referred to for Australian practice is the published Chinese Pharmacopeia of the PRC. > While the official name for those purposes is now this binomial, the > reference > texts will still include the full genus and species names of various > sources of any given > material under a separate heading. I have seen a new materia medica > from redwing that > will use this system and the Jiao shu de book has already adopted it. > Can you please direct me to a source for this " official " binomial standard? I am not being pedantic here; I honestly would like to have access to it for my own education;) > As for the safety issue in house, that demands that suppliers vouch > for their materials and > clinicians be able to spot adulterations, etc. But few people would > be able to visually spot > adulterants in dang gui in the form of other angelicas. So the > suppliers must insure > proper species somehow. > > Todd > Dr. Steven J Slater Practitioner and Acupuncturist Mobile: 0418 343 545 chinese_medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 Todd and all, It seems if we're going to use genus name and then plant part, it would be much better to avoid the " genetive " form altogether, and say " Codonopsis root " or " Angelica Duhuo root " -- especially when the genetive form is quite altered as in Rhei radix instead of Rheum. Can't we do this? > As for the safety issue in house, that demands that suppliers vouch for their materials and > clinicians be able to spot adulterations, etc. But few people would be able to visually spot > adulterants in dang gui in the form of other angelicas. Are you saying we cannot spot the difference among the three angelicas we use for medicine? or are you talking about substitutions? I haven't seen this. Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2004 Report Share Posted August 20, 2004 , JulieJ8 <Juliej8@b...> wrote: and all, > > It seems if we're going to use genus name and then plant part, it would be > much better to avoid the " genetive " form altogether, and say " Codonopsis > root " or " Angelica Duhuo root " -- especially when the genetive form is quite > altered as in Rhei radix instead of Rheum. Can't we do this? I think the way we speak and technical nomenclature are often quite different. But I basically agree with you. those are the terms I first learned myself. I think this debate goes on at a level far over our heads where the tiny american market is a small player. I am not sure we can influence the outcome. My main interest is in insuring accuracy in prescribing. > Are you saying we cannot spot the difference among the three angelicas we > use for medicine? or are you talking about substitutions? I haven't seen > this. It is supposedly impossible to visually differentiate the roots of the herb angelica sinensis from that of angelicae archangelicae, I believe. Or some other species not commonly used in TCM but growing in Western china. It is easy to distinguish bai zhi, dang gui and du huo. But people may be dispensing what they think is dang gui and it is not. According to Andy Ellis, the way to avoid the substitute species is to use only small dang gui roots. The sub species apparently produces a very large root. Small roots are almost always the correct species. I believe this has been proven by gas chromatography. See Andy or springwind for details. BTW, I noticed in researching this nomenclature issue that the term amarum when applied to xing ren refers to the " ku " or bitter xing ren. Merely writing Armeniacae semen is less specific and refers to all xing ren variants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.