Abbreviations

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I am hoping one of you can either explain, or provide a link, the proper

abbreviation

technique for the latin pharmaceutical nomenclature of herbs. Not so much the

Rx. for Radix

kinda thing, but more on abbreviating the species when used in conjunction with

the genus

name.

 

TIA,

Paul Gamache

[Guest guest]

, " pdgamache2 "

<pdgamache wrote:

>

> Hi All,

> I am hoping one of you can either explain, or provide a link, the

proper abbreviation

> technique for the latin pharmaceutical nomenclature of herbs. Not so

much the Rx. for Radix

> kinda thing, but more on abbreviating the species when used in

conjunction with the genus

> name.

 

As a general rule, the pharm names are derived from the official

pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China. There is a new

edition of this text that was released in the past year or so in

China, but it costs about $900 and isn't yet as prominent as the older

version from a few years ago. Consequently, it may have a few changes

that haven't made it into all the books.

 

Basically, there are Latin rules that turn the botanical names into

genitive forms (I think that's what they are called), and these are

the basis for the pharmaceutical names. Most of the names that we use

come straight from the Chinese pharmacopoeia, but there are a few

Latin errors within the original pharmacopoeia that tend to get

corrected by Latin scholars like Nigel Wiseman or others. I think

pharm names are relatively standard because of team review by Nigel

Wiseman with Erich Stoger; Erich is a prominent expert on issues of

pharmacy and species identification, and I believe that he is the main

botanical expert for Bensky's 3rd edition materia medica. Because he

and Nigel collaborated on the pharmaceutical nomenclature (and the PRC

sets a base standard already), it seems to be fairly standard across

publishers.

 

The species name tends to be dropped on the pharm names when we only

use one prominent species from the family. Such herbs have a pharm

name that is just the plant part and the genus. Herbs that have two

separate drugs derived from different species in the same genus have

pharm names consisting of three words instead of two (part, genus, and

species). An example would be Rx Angelica Sinensis (dang gui) vs. Rx

Angelica Dahuricae (bai zhi). If one plant produces two medicinal

substances but different parts are used, there is no need for the

third name (for example, yu jin and e zhu can both come from the same

plant, but e zhu is the rhizome and yu jin is the root, they are known

simply as Curcumae Radix and Curcumae Rhizoma).

 

The main areas that are not standardized are word order and

capitalization. The PRC pharmacopoeia puts the plant part first,

while the new trend in the West is to put the plant part last. If the

plant part is put at the end, it improves the index of a book- one can

find the medicinal without knowing the plant part, and the entries are

not all clustered together in the index under Rhizoma A, B, C, D, etc.

As far as capitalization goes, some sources (notably the new Bensky

MM) tend to leave the species name in lower case, while other

publishers use all initial capital letters in pharm names. In botany,

there is an absolute rule that the genus is capitalized and the

species is lower case, but there is not a similar standard for

pharmaceutical names to my knowledge. Thus, there remains a

difference in opinion about whether that third name (species level)

needs to be lower case or capitalized in pharm names.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the background, Eric. But my question remains- what is the

standard for abbreviating the species? Is it first letter, first

syllable, or?

 

I notice that Blue Poppy, GFC, and Mayway don't abbreviate on their

labels, anyone know why not?

 

Thanks,

Paul

[Guest guest]

, " Paul Gamache "

<pdgamache wrote:

>

> Thanks for the background, Eric. But my question remains- what is the

> standard for abbreviating the species? Is it first letter, first

> syllable, or?

 

Paul, I'm not sure that there IS a standard for abbreviating the

species name. In the Chinese pharmacopoeia, full names are used.

Given the apparent lack of standards for capitalization and word

order, I'm guessing that there aren't standards for abbreviations.

Maybe others know more.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

> --- In

<%40>,

> " pdgamache2 "

> <pdgamache wrote:

> >

> > Hi All,

> > I am hoping one of you can either explain, or provide a link, the

> proper abbreviation

> > technique for the latin pharmaceutical nomenclature of herbs.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that it would help if you can define " proper " . One " proper " use of

Latin pharmaceutical nomenclature for herbs is in reference to labeling of

" dietary supplements. "

 

In this case, the FDA defaults to two sources for " official " names.

 

According to the FDA website <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/fr03828b.html>,

the current regulation (Aug. 2003) incorporates the references

available in Herbs

of Commerce

(2000)<http://www.amazon.com/Herbs-Commerce-Michael-McGuffin/dp/0967871905>and

the International

Code of Botanical

Nomenclature<http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/Contents.htm>(To\

kyo

Code) 2000.

 

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In the botanical name, the first word is the genus. That can be

abbreviated with the first letter of the word if it has been

previously mentioned. For example, if you mention Angelica sinensis,

later on you can abbreviate it as A. sinensis. The second word in

the botanical name (in this case, sinensis) is actually called the

specific epithet, but most people refer to it as the " species name " .

It is not usually abbreviated.

 

- Bill

 

 

, " Eric Brand "

<smilinglotus wrote:

>

> , " pdgamache2 "

> <pdgamache@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi All,

> > I am hoping one of you can either explain, or provide a link, the

> proper abbreviation

> > technique for the latin pharmaceutical nomenclature of herbs.

Not so

> much the Rx. for Radix

> > kinda thing, but more on abbreviating the species when used in

> conjunction with the genus

> > name.

>

> As a general rule, the pharm names are derived from the official

> pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China. There is a new

> edition of this text that was released in the past year or so in

> China, but it costs about $900 and isn't yet as prominent as the

older

> version from a few years ago. Consequently, it may have a few

changes

> that haven't made it into all the books.

>

> Basically, there are Latin rules that turn the botanical names into

> genitive forms (I think that's what they are called), and these are

> the basis for the pharmaceutical names. Most of the names that we

use

> come straight from the Chinese pharmacopoeia, but there are a few

> Latin errors within the original pharmacopoeia that tend to get

> corrected by Latin scholars like Nigel Wiseman or others. I think

> pharm names are relatively standard because of team review by Nigel

> Wiseman with Erich Stoger; Erich is a prominent expert on issues of

> pharmacy and species identification, and I believe that he is the

main

> botanical expert for Bensky's 3rd edition materia medica. Because

he

> and Nigel collaborated on the pharmaceutical nomenclature (and the

PRC

> sets a base standard already), it seems to be fairly standard

across

> publishers.

>

> The species name tends to be dropped on the pharm names when we

only

> use one prominent species from the family. Such herbs have a pharm

> name that is just the plant part and the genus. Herbs that have

two

> separate drugs derived from different species in the same genus

have

> pharm names consisting of three words instead of two (part, genus,

and

> species). An example would be Rx Angelica Sinensis (dang gui) vs.

Rx

> Angelica Dahuricae (bai zhi). If one plant produces two medicinal

> substances but different parts are used, there is no need for the

> third name (for example, yu jin and e zhu can both come from the

same

> plant, but e zhu is the rhizome and yu jin is the root, they are

known

> simply as Curcumae Radix and Curcumae Rhizoma).

>

> The main areas that are not standardized are word order and

> capitalization. The PRC pharmacopoeia puts the plant part first,

> while the new trend in the West is to put the plant part last. If

the

> plant part is put at the end, it improves the index of a book- one

can

> find the medicinal without knowing the plant part, and the entries

are

> not all clustered together in the index under Rhizoma A, B, C, D,

etc.

> As far as capitalization goes, some sources (notably the new

Bensky

> MM) tend to leave the species name in lower case, while other

> publishers use all initial capital letters in pharm names. In

botany,

> there is an absolute rule that the genus is capitalized and the

> species is lower case, but there is not a similar standard for

> pharmaceutical names to my knowledge. Thus, there remains a

> difference in opinion about whether that third name (species level)

> needs to be lower case or capitalized in pharm names.

>

> Eric Brand

>