c) The root of Aspalathus indicus (Fabaceae) was cited as a cure for tooth ache (Jagga Rao et al., 1933). Aspalathus is a large African genus with no representatives in India. Therefore, this is a case of botanical misidentification, yet there must have been some reason for using the generic name Aspalathus. The samskirt and telugu names for the plant are the same, shiva nimba. The word nimba has misdirected the search to the citrus family, but the descriptions of the plant do not tally. Species of Aspalathus are described as ‘heath-like’ plants. How does a heath plant look like was not solved till a visit to England. A few visits to the east coastal sandy areas finally helped to determine the identity of the plant as Indigofera aspalathoides, a heath-like plant, whose root has a local anaesthetic effect.

d) The samskrit names tavakshira and tvaksira are orthographic variants of the same name applied to two different species. One is Bambusa arundinacea (a bamboo) and the other is the unrelated Curcuma angustifolia, a relative of the turmeric plant. The rhizomes of the two species which are used in medicine look alike when dry. Arguments persist in this case, though the bamboo rhizomes do not contain any essential oils, while those of the other species do, which should be of help.

e) The samskrit name svarna kshira (golden milk) refers to the golden yellow milky latex, basing on which two unrelated species are cited for use: Euphorbia thomsoniana (Euphorbiaceae) and Argemone mexicana (Papaveraceae). Euphorbia thomsoniana is native to India while Argemone mexicana is an introduction from south America, less than two hundred years ago, and so could not have been incorporated into the samhithas. This is an easier issue, yet many do not agree, probably because the exotic species is abundant, easily available and cheaper.

        There are several such problems in Indian medicinal plants. The question of the identity of medicinal plants is a serious one requiring very concerted efforts. A little bit of skepticism on the decisions, till repeated efforts lead to the same conclusion, is a sensible option.

STANDARDISATION AND QUALIFTY CONTROL OF MEDICINAL PLANTS AND HERBAL MEDICINES

        Standardisation of indigenous herbal drugs is a vexing problem in most countries. There are very stringent procedures for pharmaceutical standardisation in biomedicine. The international pharmacopoeia (Anonymous, 1991) sets standards for several chemical constituents. It is near impossible to apply a similar rigour to indigenous herbal drugs, for various reasons.

The WHO has issued the following guidelines for the assessment of herbal medicine (WHO, 1991):

a) Quality assessment: crude plant material, plant preparation and finished product;

b) Stability: shelf life;

c) Safety assessment: documentation of safety based on experience or toxicology studies; and

d) Assessment of efficacy: documented evidence of traditional use and/or activity determination on animal or human models.

        Unless a suitable legislation is put in place, no amount of recommendation, from whosoever, will be enforceable.

The steps in standardisation and quality control are:

a) determining the identity of the plants from classical texts and equating it to scientific botanical identity;

b) ensuring that the correctly identified raw material is supplied and used;

c) ensuring that the correct formulation and the correct quantities, are used; and

d) ensuring that the correct procedures of preparation, storage and packaging are adopted.

Problems exist at each one of the above phases. The remedies are;

a) adequately trained Ayurvedists and plant taxonomists should be involved in establishing the identity of plants;

b) the identity of the crude drugs supplied should be checked by reference to pharmacognostic data (for example, Narayana Aiyer and Lokammal, 1963);

c) herbal formulations should be based on authentic and recognised documents available for different indigenous systems (Ayurveda-Anonymous, 1978; Siddha-Anonymous 1989; Unani-Daljithsimha, 1974; Eastern medicine-Said, 1969). Any formulation outsides the recognised documents should be approved by a recognised body;