中国药典2020年版中药材基原问题探究

    Textual Research on the Origins of Chinese Medicinal Materials in Chinese Pharmacopoeia 2020 Edition

    • 摘要: 目的 查找中国药典2020年版中药材基原存在的问题,为完善修订中国药典药材基原内容奠定基础。方法 针对所有中国药典2020年版一部药材标准和四部附录基原内容,查询《中国植物志》(中英文版)、《中国动物志》等权威著作,中国自然标本馆等专题数据库和相关研究文献,对发现的问题进行考证或药材商品考察研究。结果 中国药典2020年版一部和四部附录中,存在中药材基原物种问题的品种共计10个,药材基原拉丁学名问题4个,药材基原中文名称问题3个;另基原有争议的品种3个。结论 经研究考订,中国药典2020年版上述涉及基原物种、拉丁学名和中文名称问题的共计17个品种均需修订完善,并提出了初步的修改建议;另外3个品种基原虽有争议,但认为不需修改。

       

      Abstract: OBJECTIVE To discover the problems of origins to Chinese medicinal materials in Chinese Pharmacopoeia 2020 Edition(ChP 2020), and to lay a foundation for improving and revising the contents in origins of Chinese Pharmacopoeia. METHODS For all the origins in ChP 2020(Volume Ⅰ and Volume Ⅳ Appendix) consult authoritative works such as Flora of China(Chinese and English version), Fauna of China, Chinese Field Herbarium special databases and relevant research literatures. Conduct textual research or commodity investigation on the problems found. RESULTS There were 10 species with the problems of Chinese medicinal materials origins, 4 species with the problems of Latin scientific names and 3 species with the problems of the Chinese names, and also there were 3 species with the original controversy in ChP 2020(Volume Ⅰ and Volume Ⅳ Appendix). CONCLUSION Through research and textualization, the above-mentioned 17 species involving the problems of species of origins, Latin scientific names and Chinese names in ChP 2020 all need to be revised and improved. And put forward the preliminary modification suggestion. The other three species don't need to be modified although their species of origins are controversial.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回