胡麻是亚麻,非脂麻辨——兼论中草药名称混乱的根源和《神农本草经》的成书年代及作者.pdfVIP

植 物 分 类 学 报 45 (4): 458–472 (2007) doi:10.1360/aps06196 Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica 胡麻是亚麻, 非脂麻辨 ——兼论中草药名称混乱的根源和《神农本草经》 的成书年代及作者 1 2 * 2 吴征镒 王锦秀 汤彦承 1 ( 中国科学院昆明植物研究所 昆明 650204) 2 (系统与进化植物学国家重点实验室, 中国科学院植物研究所 北京 100093) Huma should be Linum usitatissimum, not Sesamum indicum —With special reference to the source of confusion of names for traditional Chinese medicine and the written time and author of Shên Nung Pên Ts’ao Ching 1WU Zheng-Yi 2WANG Jin-Xiu* 2TANG Yan-Cheng 1(Kunming Institute of Botany, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650204, China) 2(State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China) Abstract The confusion of Huma ( 胡麻) in Chinese history was discussed after an introduction of Chih Wu Ming Shi T’u K’ao of the Qing Dynasty and its author—Wu Qijun’s contribution to Chinese botany. The morphological characters and distribution of Huma and Jusheng ( 巨胜) documented in ancient Chinese literature were comparatively studied. Simultaneously, other questions about the Chinese medicament and medicine were inspected in the backgrounds of historical development and social stratum differentiation. We concluded that the earliest recorded Huma in Chinese literature should be Linum usitatissimum . The Chinese name for this plant has been used by the folks until well into modern tim