नामरूपज्ञानम् (Characterization of Medicinal Plants) /20

- VIII -
 
8,16,39). Suśruta also reads them together separately.

(see U. 40.69). but later on nighantus confused the
ṇṭus confused the
issue by making them synonymous. Similar is the

case of 'amṛtaā' which originally denoted guḍūcī but

gradually was extended to harītakiī and āmalaki also
ī also
by Dhanvantarinighaṇṭu and Rajanighaṇṭu respec-

tively. 'Amrṛtādvaya' of suśrutasamhita is interpreted
ṃhitā is interpreted
as guḍūci and hariītaki by DalhanḌalhaṇa. Similar is the

case of 'vijayaā' which initially meant harītakī but later
on bhanga
on bhaṅgā and many other plants. In such cases, the

correct identity-could be decided only by the con-

text and the physician's wisdom. Thus irrational
coining of inaccurate synonyms confused the issue

coining of inaccurate synonyms confused the issue
of identification rather than solving it which further

resulted in creating a group of so-called controver-
sial plants.
 

sial plants.
 
In this situation, two-pronged strategy has to be

adopted-
-
1. In modern times, when plant is described in

detail botanically, dependance on synonyms is almost

over. Thus in order to restore accuracy and to estab-
lish global uniformity only the basonyms should be

lish global uniformity only the basonyms should be
used parallel to the Latin names scraping all syno-

nyms which became superfluous as they are not re-

quired for identification of plants now.
 

 
2. One has to be selective and cautious and

choose only those synonyms which are meaningful
and significant for identification.
 

and significant for identification.