in medicine: the origins of pharmacognosy

Chapter 1 Plants in medicine


the origins of pharmacognosy


The universal role of plants in the treatment of disease is exemplified by their employment in all the major systems of medicine irrespective of the underlying philosophical premise. As examples, we have Western medicine with origins in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the Unani (Islamic) and Ayurvedic (Hindu) systems centred in western Asia and the Indian subcontinent and those of the Orient (China, Japan, Tibet, etc.). How and when such medicinal plants were first used is, in many cases, lost in pre-history, indeed animals, other than man, appear to have their own materia medica. Following the oral transmission of medical information came the use of writing (e.g. the Egyptian Papyrus Ebers c. 1600 BC), baked clay tablets (some 660 cuneiform tablets c. 650 BC from Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh, now in the British Museum, refer to drugs well-known today), parchments and manuscript herbals, printed herbals (invention of printing 1440 AD), pharmacopoeias and other works of reference (first London Pharmacopoeia, 1618; first British Pharmacopoeia, 1864), and most recently electronic storage of data. Similar records exist for Chinese medicinal plants (texts from the 4th century BC), Ayurvedic medicine (Ayurveda 2500–600 BC) and Unani medicine (Kitab–Al–Shifa, the Magnum Opus of Avicenna, 980–1037 AD).


In addition to the above recorded information there is a great wealth of knowledge concerning the medicinal, narcotic and other properties of plants that is still transmitted orally from generation to generation by tribal societies, particularly those of tropical Africa, North and South America and the Pacific countries. These are areas containing the world’s greatest number of plant species, not found elsewhere, and with the westernization of so many of the peoples of these zones there is a pressing need to record local knowledge before it is lost forever. In addition, with the extermination of plant species progressing at an alarming rate in certain regions, even before plants have been botanically recorded, much less studied chemically and pharmacologically, the need arises for increased efforts directed towards the conservation of gene pools.


A complete understanding of medicinal plants involves a number of disciplines including commerce, botany, horticulture, chemistry, enzymology, genetics, quality control and pharmacology. Pharmacognosy is not any one of these per se but seeks to embrace them in a unified whole for the better understanding and utilization of medicinal plants. A perusal of the monographs on crude drugs in a modern pharmacopoeia at once illustrates the necessity for a multidisciplinary approach. Unlike those who laid the foundations of pharmacognosy, no one person can now expect to be an expert in all areas and, as is illustrated in the next chapter, pharmacognosy can be independently approached from a number of viewpoints.


The word ‘pharmacognosy’ had its debut in the early 19th century to designate the discipline related to medicinal plants; it is derived from the Greek pharmakon, ‘a drug’, and gignosco, ‘to acquire a knowledge of’ and, as recorded by Dr K. Ganzinger (Sci. Pharm., 1982, 50, 351), the terms ‘pharmacognosy’ and ‘pharmacodynamics’ were probably first coined by Johann Adam Schmidt (1759–1809) in his hand-written manuscript Lehrbuch der Materia Medica, which was posthumously published in Vienna in 1811. Schmidt was, until his death, professor at the medico-surgical Joseph Academy in Vienna; interestingly he was also Beethoven’s physician. Shortly after the above publication, ‘pharmacognosy’ appears again in 1815 in a small work by Chr. Aenotheus Seydler entitled Analecta Pharmacognostica.


Pharmacognosy is closely related to botany and plant chemistry and, indeed, both originated from the earlier scientific studies on medicinal plants. As late as the beginning of the 20th century, the subject had developed mainly on the botanical side, being concerned with the description and identification of drugs, both in the whole state andin powder, and with their history, commerce, collection, preparation and storage. In his series A History of British Pharmacognosy (1842–1980), E. J. Shellard (Pharm. J., 1980, 225, 680) wrote:



It is a recognised fact that in the historical development of any subject the role of certain individuals is of considerable importance. This is true in pharmacognosy. The first British pharmacognosist was Jonathan Pereira (1804–1853), who as the first teacher of the subject gave it its pharmaceutical basis. He may be considered as the founder of British pharmacognosy. Daniel Hanbury (1825–1875) was the most outstanding applied pharmacognosist while the contribution made by E. M. Holmes (1843–1930) as an applied pharmacognosist stands out both in quality and quantity. H. G. Greenish (1855–1933), and T. E. Wallis (1876–1973) transformed the old academic pharmacognosy by their contribution to the elimination of adulteration from powdered drugs. Their exploitation of the microscope in pharmacognosy ensures their position as the pillars of the halcyon days (of pharmacognosy).

< div class='tao-gold-member'>

Related posts:

  1. and antiviral drugs
  2. of natural origin
  3. products
  4. glycosides, glucosinolate compounds, cysteine derivatives and miscellaneous glycosides

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Tags:
Jul 18, 2016 | Posted by in PHARMACY | Comments Off on in medicine: the origins of pharmacognosy

Full access? Get Clinical Tree
Get Clinical Tree app for offline access