[MPWG] more on Latin nomenclature

[rrr at montana.com]

Dear all,
Some further comments on the naming of medicinal plants.

Once upon a time, all botanists were herbalists. Medicines were plants and
so, botany described not only the anatomy and morphology of plants, but
also the uses of plants. The nomenclature of medicinal plants was based on
organoleptic testing: tasting and sensing the bitter, astringent, sour,
salty, and pungent qualities of a plant.

In fact, look at Native American translations of plant names. They often
describe a sense such as “bites you” for an acrid-tasting root or “fish
backbone” for Calamus root, which looks like this. Organizing (taxonomy)
and describing organisms in nature by indigenous folklore has its merits
and is important to honor and consider.

Because of modernization, botany became detached from herbalism. It is now
often the case that botanists do not know the medicinal uses of plants and
herbalists do not know how to identify plants or Latin nomenclature.

Besides Latin names, we herbalists must also face the problem of
pharmaceutical names. The chemistry can change with the part of the
product used, so it is very important to specify which part. For example,
dandelion leaf is diuretic, where dandelion root is not.
For example: Taraxacum Flos (dandelion flower), Foeniculi Fructus (fennel
or Foeniculum vulgare seed), Radix et Rhizoma Pinelliae Ternatae (root and
rhizome of Pinellia ternatae).

Modern herbal monographs use pharmaceutical names and are written for the
purpose of commerce, not for therapeutic practitioners (herbalists).

However, traditional Chinese medicine, which is thousands of years old,
has used pharmaceutical Latin for quite some time for both commercial and
therapeutic purposes. TCM has some very serious problems with this system.
For example, Radix Angelicae, refers to the roots of one of three species:
Angelica dahurica Benth. et Hook., A. anomala Lallem., and A. taiwaniana
Boiss.

Confusion of names of medicinal plants has led to some very serious
problems such as the Aristolochia misidentification on the herbal market
some years ago. In traditional Chinese medicine, there are problems with
correct identification using pinyin and other names. This is likely a
problem in any country where there are so many indigenous tribes and so
many therapeutic influences. For example,  throughout Eastern and Central
Asia, Unani Tibb, Traditional Chinese medicine, and Ayurveda may be
commonly used.

Something most American herbalists are not aware of either, is that old
herbal traditions include in their materia medica not only plants but also
insects, mineral substances, and other natural products. These also have
pharmaceutical names.
Carapax (carapace or the dorsal aspect of a turtle shell)
Colla (skin)
Concha (conch or shell, as of an oyster)
Cornu (horn)
Dens (teeth)
Gelatinum (gelatin extracted by cooking)
Nidus (nest)
Ootheca (egg case (as of an insect)
Os (bone; sometimes refers to fossilized bone)
Plastrum  (plastron (ventral aspect of a turtle shell)
Squama (scales)

It might interest you all to know that herbalists have discussed this
problem continually. This is why most herbalist teachers here in America
require their students to focus on the Latin name, not the common name of
a plant. For traditional Chinese medicine students, they must add the
Chinese name (pinyin) AND the pharmaceutical name. But there is great
variation in the pinyin names, so this is a constant problem in TCM.
Though sometimes pinyin names are more accurate than the pharmaceutical
name! Argh!

As Roy Upton, Director of the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia said:
“Ultimately, the botanical name is the only universally acceptable
nomenclature that transcends language and local.” I agree.

Robyn

-- 
Robyn Klein, MS Medical Botany
Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology
119 Plant BioScience Building
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT  59717-3150
robyn at montana.edu
http://plantsciences.montana.edu/facultyorstaff/staff.html