摘要
目的：阐明古代细辛的基源及使用状况等。方法：查考本草中细辛的记文及附图，比较相关植物的形态及分布。结果；历代以华细辛为正品细辛，仅梁代本草和部分明清代本草亦以北细辛和汉城细辛为正品，宋代主要本草将杜衡、青城细辛之日误作细辛的图收载。细辛历代药用根部，各本草言其无毒或有毒。结论：历史上华细辛始终被认为是正品细辛，细辛品种混乱与古本草错载附图有关，应研究来源于不同植物和药用部分的细辛的疗效及毒性。
objective: To expound the origin and medicinal use of Xinxin in ancient times. Methods:Studying the records and drawings about .Xixin in ancient herbals and contrasting the morphology and distribution of related plants. Results: Asarum sieboldii was considered as the genuine Xixin (quality Xixin) in successive dynasties. Asarum heterotropoides var. mandshuricum and A. sieboldii var.seoulense were a1so considered as the genuine Xixin only in a herbal of the Liang Dynasty and several herbals of the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Several main herbals of the Song Dynasty erroneously took in the drawings of A.forbesii and A. splendens as the drawing of Xixin. In successive dynasties, the root was maintained as the medicinal part of Xixin,and Xixin was said to be poisonous or nonpoisonous in different herbals.Conclusion: Asarum sieboldii was considered as the genuine Xixin throughout history. The confusion in the origin of Xixin relates to the fact that some ancient herbal8 had wrong1y recorded the drawings about Xixin. The effects and toxicity of Xixin derived from different plants or different parts of the same plant should be studied.
出处
《北京医科大学学报》
CSCD
1997年第3期233-235,共3页
Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences)
基金
国家"八五"攻关
关键词
细辛
中药鉴定
本草考证
Asarum heterotropoides var. mandshuricum/hist
TCD identification Bencaological study
