Materia Medica available in Chinese language

[Guest guest]

For purposes of quotation, does anyone know the name of the

most comprehensive Materia Medica which remains

untranslated, and the number of entries on single herbs? This is

for a presentation I am doing. I am under the impression that the

number of medicinal substances compiled in Chinese exceeds

that in Bensky.

 

In gratitude,

Gabrielle

[Guest guest]

, " gabriellemathieu "

<gabriellemathieu> wrote:

> For purposes of quotation, does anyone know the name of the

> most comprehensive Materia Medica which remains

> untranslated, and the number of entries on single herbs? This is

> for a presentation I am doing. I am under the impression that the

> number of medicinal substances compiled in Chinese exceeds

> that in Bensky.

 

 

I believe the zhong yao da ci dian lists 5767 medicinals

 

[Guest guest]

, " gabriellemathieu "

<gabriellemathieu> wrote:

> For purposes of quotation, does anyone know the name of the

> most comprehensive Materia Medica which remains

> untranslated, and the number of entries on single herbs? This is

> for a presentation I am doing. I am under the impression that the

> number of medicinal substances compiled in Chinese exceeds

> that in Bensky.

>

> In gratitude,

> Gabrielle

 

Dear Gabrielle,

 

the bigest untranslated Materia Medica in Chinese language I know

is " Zhong Hua Ben Cao " with 8980 remedies and 8542 pictures.

 

Sincerely,

Bohumil Kopac

Czech Republic

[Guest guest]

, " kobicek " <bohumilk@p...>

wrote:

> , " gabriellemathieu "

> <gabriellemathieu> wrote:

> > For purposes of quotation, does anyone know the name of the

> > most comprehensive Materia Medica which remains

> > untranslated, and the number of entries on single herbs? This is

> > for a presentation I am doing. I am under the impression that the

> > number of medicinal substances compiled in Chinese exceeds

> > that in Bensky.

> >

> > In gratitude,

> > Gabrielle

>

> Dear Gabrielle,

>

> the bigest untranslated Materia Medica in Chinese language I know

> is " Zhong Hua Ben Cao " with 8980 remedies and 8542 pictures.

>

> Sincerely,

> Bohumil Kopac

> Czech Republic

 

 

Eric writes:

 

The zhong yao da ci dian is the most famous large compliation; as Todd

says it has 5767 medicinals classified. It has been translated into

English, although it is not commercially available.

 

An herbalist here in Taiwan says that there is a mainland text

originally published around 1992/1993 that contains 8848 medicinals.

It is called zhong hua ci hai (zhong as in China, hua as in Chinese,

ci as in dictionary/encyclopedia, hai as in sea). He makes it sound

as though most of the newer additions are further differentiations and

classifications of old drugs, with the introduction of more local

remedies.

 

Chinese practioners generally are proficient with around 500-600 meds.

Many pharmacies stock around 600, and these reflect basically

everything in common use. In the US, we study 350-400 or so. Chen's

book has 670 monographs, so I think it is the biggest collection

available in English at present.

 

-Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

In my recent Taos workshop on local medicinals, we picked about thirty

local medicinal plants used in Southwestern herbal medicine. Not only

were nearly all of them represented by equivalents or close species in

the Zhong yao da ci dian (including such surprises as mullein), we

found one plant, cow parsnip/heracleum, that is one of the plants used

as du huo in China. There are a tremendous number of medicinals used

in China in one form or another in our own backyards. I also found 85

plants at the San Diego Zoo in the Zhong yao da ci dian a few years ago

as part of a joint project between PCOM and the SD Zoo.

 

 

On Sep 12, 2004, at 10:13 PM, smilinglotus wrote:

 

> The zhong yao da ci dian is the most famous large compliation; as Todd

> says it has 5767 medicinals classified. It has been translated into

> English, although it is not commercially available.

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> In my recent Taos workshop on local medicinals, we picked about

thirty

> local medicinal plants used in Southwestern herbal medicine. Not

only

> were nearly all of them represented by equivalents or close

species in

> the Zhong yao da ci dian (including such surprises as mullein), we

> found one plant, cow parsnip/heracleum, that is one of the plants

used

> as du huo in China. There are a tremendous number of medicinals

used

> in China in one form or another in our own backyards. I also

found 85

> plants at the San Diego Zoo in the Zhong yao da ci dian a few

years ago

> as part of a joint project between PCOM and the SD Zoo.

>

>

 

Z'ev brings up a good point here. There are abundant plants of the

same species that grow in the West. The difference in soil and

growing environment affect the constituents and the qi of any given

specimen. There is a 60-page table in a book called Chinese and

Related North American Herbs (no animals tested, apparently) by

Thomas Li that gives a brief chemical comparision of constituents in

Chinese and North American herbs with the identical Latin

binomials. Some are similar and some are dramatically different.

 

I am also unaware of whether the Chinese have been selectively

breeding any herbs for increased potency over the years. Selective

cultivation as well as wildcrafting from specific regions may

emphasize different constituents (different qi, too, of course).

 

What do people make of such issues?

 

The Chinese cultivate huge amounts of American ginseng for their

domestic market, but they regard it as an inferior product to the NA-

grown roots (and also prize Wisconsin specimens over the rest).

The zhong yao da ci dian has valerian and chili pepper and many

other imports.

 

Z'ev was able to spot 85 common varieties at the SD Zoo. Most of us

cannot even be sure of many plants unless they have nametags. It is

likely that there are dozens of plants that we are constantly around

that are at least related to familiar Chinese herbs. Most probably

differ too much to be useful medicinal substitutes, but at least

seeing similar plants brings the textbook to life a bit. Many

Chinese cities have botanical gardens which feature many common

herbs, for the botanically inclined.

 

Eric

 

 

>

> > The zhong yao da ci dian is the most famous large compliation;

as Todd

> > says it has 5767 medicinals classified. It has been translated

into

> > English, although it is not commercially available.

[Guest guest]

Actually, Eric, I used the SD Zoo data base to get all the botanical

plant names and compare them with the Zhong yao da ci dian. While

visual recognition is an important tool, accuracy increases when such

data bases are available.

 

 

On Sep 13, 2004, at 1:14 AM, smilinglotus wrote:

 

> Z'ev was able to spot 85 common varieties at the SD Zoo. Most of us

> cannot even be sure of many plants unless they have nametags. It is

> likely that there are dozens of plants that we are constantly around

> that are at least related to familiar Chinese herbs. Most probably

> differ too much to be useful medicinal substitutes, but at least

> seeing similar plants brings the textbook to life a bit. Many

> Chinese cities have botanical gardens which feature many common

> herbs, for the botanically inclined.

[Guest guest]

, " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus>

wrote:

There is a 60-page table in a book called Chinese and

> Related North American Herbs (no animals tested, apparently) by

> Thomas Li that gives a brief chemical comparision of constituents in

> Chinese and North American herbs with the identical Latin

> binomials. Some are similar and some are dramatically different.

 

That last line gets to the heart of the issue. Plants that are related

botanically typically

have visually observable characteristics in common. that was the basis of the

Linnaean

system of classification. However they may have markedly different

pharmacognosy and

thus different action. It is thus risky to use American species of genuses used

in China

wihtout some further assessment. From an organoleptic point of view, smell

would

definitely be indicative of similar pharmacognosy. However I would not be

comfortable

prescribing these substitutes to my patients wihtout doing some form of

chromatographic

comparison to the Chinse species. While in ancient times, it might have been

adequate to

just guess based on organoleptic properties (appearance, smell, taste), we have

much

more accurate methods of comparing species of plants today and I believe we

would be

remiss not to use them in this instance. In fact, organoleptic methods of

species

identification and classification of genuses has long since been displaced by

laboratory

methods in botany.

 

Linnaeus was remarkably accurate using organoleptics alone as were many

herbalists of

their day. I think few have such skills of discrimination or the discipline to

be that

accurate anymore. Clearly one can attain these skills, like wine tasting, but

will people do

it? I would thus caution people against experimenting on your patients with

local

substitutes for chinese herbs unless you have developed your herbal

organoleptics to a

very high level. I actually think the classification of well known western

herbs according to

TCM is more reasonable enterprise. Such herbs have a long history of medicinal

use. If an

American species of a chinese herb has not been used locally, even by native

Americans, I

would be curious why? It would be important to me in this effort to document

some actual

historical uses for such herbs and not just use them because of the genus they

are in.

Were you able to find such data (Eric, Z'ev)? In China, quite a few herbs are

selected from

multiple species of different genuses. So the crux of the determination of herb

function is

observed activity, not necessarily botanical similarities.

 

[Guest guest]

>>> Some are similar and some are dramatically different.

>

> That last line gets to the heart of the issue. Plants that are

related botanically typically

> have visually observable characteristics in common. that was the

basis of the Linnaean

> system of classification. However they may have markedly

different pharmacognosy and

> thus different action. It is thus risky to use American species

of genuses used in China

> wihtout some further assessment. From an organoleptic point of

view, smell would

> definitely be indicative of similar pharmacognosy. However I

would not be comfortable

> prescribing these substitutes to my patients wihtout doing some

form of chromatographic

> comparison to the Chinse species. While in ancient times, it

might have been adequate to

> just guess based on organoleptic properties (appearance, smell,

taste), we have much

> more accurate methods of comparing species of plants today and I

believe we would be

> remiss not to use them in this instance. In fact, organoleptic

methods of species

> identification and classification of genuses has long since been

displaced by laboratory

> methods in botany.

>

> Linnaeus was remarkably accurate using organoleptics alone as were

many herbalists of

> their day. I think few have such skills of discrimination or the

discipline to be that

> accurate anymore. Clearly one can attain these skills, like wine

tasting, but will people do

> it? I would thus caution people against experimenting on your

patients with local

> substitutes for chinese herbs unless you have developed your

herbal organoleptics to a

> very high level. I actually think the classification of well

known western herbs according to

> TCM is more reasonable enterprise. Such herbs have a long history

of medicinal use. If an

> American species of a chinese herb has not been used locally, even

by native Americans, I

> would be curious why? It would be important to me in this effort

to document some actual

> historical uses for such herbs and not just use them because of

the genus they are in.

> Were you able to find such data (Eric, Z'ev)? In China, quite a

few herbs are selected from

> multiple species of different genuses. So the crux of the

determination of herb function is

> observed activity, not necessarily botanical similarities.

>

 

 

To further add complexity to the issue, modern botanical

classifications are not made entirely on morphology anymore.

Chemotaxonomy, classification based on constituents, is not the most

prominent method of classification, but the current system of naming

uses genetic information, chemical information, and morphology when

decisions on new species and debates on old species take place.

Many plants have synonyms in different genera to reflect the ongoing

debates in the botanical world. The various medicinal Chinese and

Western botanicals are just a tiny piece of the botanical puzzle.

 

I agree with Todd's point that it is wise to be cautious in light of

the minimal organoleptic experience we have with most plants

(especially with plants from afar that few of us have actually

seen). Finding data on what constituents exist in plants is easy

enough, but to find quantitative data about HOW MUCH they contain of

each substance is hard to find, and is a subject of great variance

even among the same species in the same area.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

The workshop that I gave in Taos was just a beginning towards

developing a native approach to Chinese medicine, and getting

herbalists in touch with their environment in terms of local

medicinals. The process towards identifying wild (and eventually

cultivated) Chinese medicinals in the West has to begin with

wildcrafting and looking up the source materials both in Western herbal

and Chinese sources. Then we can take the next steps towards

identifying constituents and determine similar plants that could be

used as substitutes or even the same medicinal. I would never suggest

that people use local medicinals at face value as replacements for the

Chinese materia medica. However, for the long-term survival of Chinese

herbal medicine in the west, we need to evolve beyond being simple

consumers of Chinese product.

 

Although Chinese medicinals continued to dominate herbal medicine in

such locales as Japan, Korea, and SE Asia, they also developed local

herbal resources as well and blended them in.

 

 

On Sep 16, 2004, at 9:34 AM, wrote:

 

> , " smilinglotus "

> <smilinglotus> wrote:

> There is a 60-page table in a book called Chinese and

>> Related North American Herbs (no animals tested, apparently) by

>> Thomas Li that gives a brief chemical comparision of constituents in

>> Chinese and North American herbs with the identical Latin

>> binomials. Some are similar and some are dramatically different.

>

> That last line gets to the heart of the issue. Plants that are

> related botanically typically

> have visually observable characteristics in common. that was the

> basis of the Linnaean

> system of classification. However they may have markedly different

> pharmacognosy and

> thus different action. It is thus risky to use American species of

> genuses used in China

> wihtout some further assessment.

>

>

>

>

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122