Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 A few weeks back, people were discussing the source of the standardized Latin and Chinese names of medicinals. I believe the book that provides that information for most medicinals is " The Colored Atlas of Chinese Materia Medica Specified in Chinese Pharmacopoeia. " If I recall correctly, it is put out by the Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission. The book is available in a bilingual edition, although the English is a bit off and the TCM language has been mostly turned into Western terms. The book is full of nice pictures and is probably a familiar book to many on this list. Anyway, I believe that is the source of standard names of the most common drugs (it only has like 500, so I'm not sure where the names of the others come from). Several of the officially endorsed, " correct " names differ from the common names we use in the West- Mo Han Lian vs. Han Lian Cao, etc. Most are the same. A few have an ongoing debate going as to whether the gov't is correct(Chun Gen Bai Pi, for example). Basically though, I believe that book is the state-endorsed standard in the PRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 On 21/09/2004, at 9:50 PM, smilinglotus wrote: > > A few weeks back, people were discussing the source of the > standardized Latin and Chinese names of medicinals. I believe the > book that provides that information for most medicinals is " The > Colored Atlas of Chinese Materia Medica Specified in Chinese > Pharmacopoeia. " If I recall correctly, it is put out by the Chinese > Pharmacopoeia Commission. > Yes, this is the default standard for nomeclature in CHM for registered practitioners in Australia. Ironically it is a limited edition, difficult to obtain and VERY expensive. The English (bi-lingual) version is also somewhat outdated compared to the Chinese edition which I understand is the basis for Wiseman's publications. Steve > The book is available in a bilingual edition, although the English > is a bit off and the TCM language has been mostly turned into > Western terms. The book is full of nice pictures and is probably a > familiar book to many on this list. Anyway, I believe that is the > source of standard names of the most common drugs (it only has like > 500, so I'm not sure where the names of the others come from). > Several of the officially endorsed, " correct " names differ from the > common names we use in the West- Mo Han Lian vs. Han Lian Cao, etc. > Most are the same. A few have an ongoing debate going as to whether > the gov't is correct(Chun Gen Bai Pi, for example). Basically > though, I believe that book is the state-endorsed standard in the > PRC. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 , Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > On 21/09/2004, at 9:50 PM, smilinglotus wrote: > > > > > A few weeks back, people were discussing the source of the > > standardized Latin and Chinese names of medicinals. I believe the > > book that provides that information for most medicinals is " The > > Colored Atlas of Chinese Materia Medica Specified in Chinese > > Pharmacopoeia. " If I recall correctly, it is put out by the Chinese > > Pharmacopoeia Commission. > > > > Yes, this is the default standard for nomeclature in CHM for registered > practitioners in Australia. Ironically it is a limited edition, > difficult to obtain and VERY expensive. The English (bi-lingual) > version is also somewhat outdated compared to the Chinese edition which > I understand is the basis for Wiseman's publications. > > Steve > Eric says: Indeed, it is the basis for Wiseman's publications. I suspect it is probably also the source that Bensky's new book is derived from. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see whether the primary names of a few of the drugs get changed in response to the updates by the PRC commission. It also raises the question of whether schools, prepared products, and exams will switch the names as well. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 On 22/09/2004, at 12:07 AM, smilinglotus wrote: > > , Steven Slater > <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >> >> On 21/09/2004, at 9:50 PM, smilinglotus wrote: >> >>> >>> A few weeks back, people were discussing the source of the >>> standardized Latin and Chinese names of medicinals. I believe > the >>> book that provides that information for most medicinals is " The >>> Colored Atlas of Chinese Materia Medica Specified in Chinese >>> Pharmacopoeia. " If I recall correctly, it is put out by the > Chinese >>> Pharmacopoeia Commission. >>> >> >> Yes, this is the default standard for nomeclature in CHM for > registered >> practitioners in Australia. Ironically it is a limited edition, >> difficult to obtain and VERY expensive. The English (bi-lingual) >> version is also somewhat outdated compared to the Chinese edition > which >> I understand is the basis for Wiseman's publications. >> >> Steve >> > > Eric says: > > Indeed, it is the basis for Wiseman's publications. I suspect it is > probably also the source that Bensky's new book is derived from. If > that is the case, it will be interesting to see whether the primary > names of a few of the drugs get changed in response to the updates > by the PRC commission. It also raises the question of whether > schools, prepared products, and exams will switch the names as well. > > Eric Brand > The issue of prepared products and even powdered extracts is an interesting one. One of my good friends is the sole importer of Min Tong (Taiwan) concentrated powders/granules into Australia and he has mentioned increased difficulties with clearing his shipments through Australian customs and the TGA (therapeutic goods administration). The labelling of several of the herbs is outdated and sometimes slightly bizarre eg. long yean row (long yan rou), huan lian (huang lian).........and the latin is certainly not standard as far as recent texts go. The legislation is tightening a lot recently regarding ID of herbs and such mistakes result in delays and confusion for importer, customs, and the TGA alike. A particularly bizarre recent example of what is happening here is that his importation of hong zao (da zao) was refused on the basis of it being an endangered species!!! Of course, you can walk into any Chinese grocery store and many health-food stores and buy a bag of fresh da zao for a few a pittance. Ironic. I advised him to request updated labelling across the product line from MinTong to match the Australian TGA standards (which is not so easy to discover in itself). But he expressed doubt they would go to such trouble due to the size of the Australian market which is gradually being over-run with Chinese products recently. Best Wishes, Steve 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 September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 > >Steve says: > The issue of prepared products and even powdered extracts is an > interesting one. One of my good friends is the sole importer of Min > Tong (Taiwan) concentrated powders/granules into Australia and he has > mentioned increased difficulties with clearing his shipments through > Australian customs and the TGA (therapeutic goods administration). > > The labelling of several of the herbs is outdated and sometimes > slightly bizarre eg. long yean row (long yan rou), huan lian (huang > lian).........and the latin is certainly not standard as far as recent > texts go. The legislation is tightening a lot recently regarding ID of > herbs and such mistakes result in delays and confusion for importer, > customs, and the TGA alike. > > A particularly bizarre recent example of what is happening here is that > his importation of hong zao (da zao) was refused on the basis of it > being an endangered species!!! Of course, you can walk into any Chinese > grocery store and many health-food stores and buy a bag of fresh da zao > for a few a pittance. Ironic. > > I advised him to request updated labelling across the product line from > MinTong to match the Australian TGA standards (which is not so easy to > discover in itself). But he expressed doubt they would go to such > trouble due to the size of the Australian market which is gradually > being over-run with Chinese products recently. > > Best Wishes, > > Steve- Eric says: To further complicate the issue, Min Tong and most other major granule exporters to the West are based in Taiwan, which has its own standards in nomenclature, which is to say that they largely ignore the issue when it comes to English and Latin. Taiwan is reluctant to follow the PRC government on any issues, and the street signs in Taiwan are riddled with all manners of bizarre romanization techniques that aren't pinyin, but aren't really Wade- Giles, either. The metro signs all converted to pinyin to at least give mass transit some consistency where foreigners are concerned, but this change created an uproar in the community because the Taiwanese don't like following mainland standards. There is no one to enforce any regulations on English labeling, and there probably are no regulations since the Taiwanese all pay attention to what is written in Chinese and don't bother looking at the English on the label. I can only imagine how many errors in characters would go unnoticed if products produced in America had Chinese labels thrown on them. Nobody cares what the Latin says because nobody is reading it. Eric -- In , Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > On 22/09/2004, at 12:07 AM, smilinglotus wrote: > > > > > , Steven Slater > > <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >> > >> On 21/09/2004, at 9:50 PM, smilinglotus wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> A few weeks back, people were discussing the source of the > >>> standardized Latin and Chinese names of medicinals. I believe > > the > >>> book that provides that information for most medicinals is " The > >>> Colored Atlas of Chinese Materia Medica Specified in Chinese > >>> Pharmacopoeia. " If I recall correctly, it is put out by the > > Chinese > >>> Pharmacopoeia Commission. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, this is the default standard for nomeclature in CHM for > > registered > >> practitioners in Australia. Ironically it is a limited edition, > >> difficult to obtain and VERY expensive. The English (bi-lingual) > >> version is also somewhat outdated compared to the Chinese edition > > which > >> I understand is the basis for Wiseman's publications. > >> > >> Steve > >> > > > > Eric says: > > > > Indeed, it is the basis for Wiseman's publications. I suspect it is > > probably also the source that Bensky's new book is derived from. If > > that is the case, it will be interesting to see whether the primary > > names of a few of the drugs get changed in response to the updates > > by the PRC commission. It also raises the question of whether > > schools, prepared products, and exams will switch the names as well. > > > > Eric Brand > > > Dr. Steven J Slater > Practitioner and Acupuncturist > Mobile: 0418 343 545 > chinese_medicine@m... 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.