Use of <i><img src='/image/spc_char/kshirvidari.gif' border=0></i> as a substitute for <i><img src='/image/spc_char/vidari.gif' border=0></i> as per <i style="">Ayurvedic</i> descriptions

Abstract

310-318 The classical texts of Ayurveda incorporate multiple names for most of the plant drugs described for their medicinal use. As a result, the correct identification of related botanical source, many a times, becomes ambiguous. Extensive background work on nomenclature correlation can be assumed in the scholarly works of several authors of twentieth century including those of the official formularies and pharmacopoeias of Ayurveda of India. However, the works do not describe the research methodology and findings that led to the correlations. There is an urgent need to revisit this issue systematically and to publish the same through books and articles in peer-reviewed journals. Owing to several reasons, including availability of the required plant raw drugs, there are controversies relating to use of more than one botanical entity by the Ayurvedic manufacturing units. () is one such example where at least four different botanical entities have been recorded in use by the industry. Pueraria tuberosa (Roxb. ex Willd.) DC. is the only accepted candidate for as per official pharmacopoeias. (), a well documented type of as per the classical Ayurveda texts, finds no mention as in these pharmacopoeias. The study, through etymological analysis of Sanskrit synonyms, formulations and verses, indicates that two distinct botanical entities were used as , even during the period of Caraka. Both these entities have been described as having similar properties and actions, thus making them eligible to be used as substitutes of one another. The two botanical entities that merit acceptance as sources of the classical Ayurvedic plant drug are Pueraria tuberosa (Roxb. ex Willd.) DC. and Ipomoea mauritiana Jacq., though the later is better known as . </smarttagtype