论文部分内容阅读
(1)本文根据文献考据,认为《滇南本草,所指的漏芦,其原植物应为百合科植物聋彰H.fulva Linn.)和黄花聋草(H.flays L.),而今漏芦市售品系来源于翻叶首草(H. minorliIill.) ,今昔有所不同,从药用部分(根)的形状极易分辩。同时提出,云南人民出版社最近出版的u滇南本草”第一卷,对漏芦的整理n}V载,今昔不辨、名图不符,应当i}}正。(2)本文认为《淇南本草》所载的漏芦和砚今市售品漏芦,均非漏芦正品,其桩物来源及煞书所载效用,实同营草,故应,i}复“聋草”之名以供药用,不可再作漏芦,庶免名实相视。
(1) According to the literature review, this article considers that “Southern Materia Medica, the genus Llobo, the original plant should be Liliaceae plant H.fulva Linn.) and H. flays L., and now The commercial reed from Reed is derived from H. minorliill. It is different from the past to the present, and the shape of the medicinal part (root) can be easily distinguished. At the same time, it is proposed that the Yunnan People’s Publishing House recently published the ”Southern Materia Medica,“ the first volume, and the collection of leaky reeds, which should not be discerned and the name does not match, should be i}} positive. (2) This article believes that ”Qi “Southern Herbal Grass” contains the leaked Lulu and this commercial item, Liaolu, which is not a genuine Liao Lv. The source of the pile and the effect contained in the script are the same as that of the grass. Therefore, it should be: Name for medicinal purposes, can not be used for leaking Lu, forgiveness of name and reality.