| 摘要: | 臺灣市售艾屬藥材之本草考察 及臺灣特有艾屬植物資源之研究 研究生 謝雲忠 中國醫藥學院中國藥學研究所 摘 要 神農本草經以降，載於本草的蒿類藥材有草蒿、茵陳、白蒿、馬先蒿、牡蒿、艾葉，劉寄奴草、角蒿、?蒿、邪蒿、同蒿、九牛草、花蒿、?蒿、米蒿、野同蒿、野艾蒿、紫香蒿、鐵桿蒿、大蓬蒿、抱娘蒿、蘄艾、千年艾、黃花蒿等。其入藥有上品、有中品、有下品；其入湯液、見解表劑、祛溼劑、和解劑、理血劑；其於食飲，或炙、或蒸、或醯、或淹、或麴、或瀹、或羹；其成分或黃酮類、或揮發油、或香豆素類，或?類。其中同名異物、同物異名有之，初步考證，察覺台灣市售蒿類藥材混用、誤用、代用普遍，不符藥典規範之基原植物。存在本草綱目、植物名實圖考之青蒿植物寫生圖，狀類果實之疑懸而未解。台灣本土特有、稀有之蒿類植物亦未見植物組織之研究，本論文以文獻考察，植物考察、切片、顯微照相、弱倍照相、SEM、及TLC、HPLC作成分之檢測，獲致以下之結論： 1.青蒿生藥藥材，不完全符合藥典規定青蒿Artemisia annua L.之基原，混用、代用皆可見到，古本草之草蒿仍今之青蒿。 2.科學藥青蒿，標示之生藥名錯誤，產品亦檢測不出青蒿之指標成分青蒿素。 3.藥材市場販售之劉寄奴，絕大多數為誤用之北劉寄奴，正品為南劉寄奴(奇蒿)，偽品為陰行草。 4.蘄艾亦錯誤使用菊科不同屬之芙蓉菊屬芙蓉菊，古本草以艾為正名，宋時以胡艾為道地，迄綱目則以蘄艾為道地。 5.青蒿植物圖上疑為果實者，在本土特有種細葉山艾上得到解答，經解剖確認為雙翅目、癭蚋科之蟲癭。 6.經考證，載於本草典籍之蒿類藥材，其原植物之嫩葉大部份可食，今收錄在救荒本草、食物本草、廣群芳譜，常供藥用者有青蒿、茵陳蒿、艾、劉寄奴等。 7.台灣產艾屬植物15種，除供藥用者外，尚有7種特有、稀有之蒿屬植物其根、根莖或莖之組織剖檢，詳附圖及比較表。; The Pentsao study on the Medicinal Material of Artemisia Sold on Taiwan Market and Research of the Endemic Artemisia Plant Resource Hsieh, Yun-Chung Graduate Institute of Chinese Pharmaceutical Sciences China Medical College ABSTRACT Since Sheng-Nung Pentsao Ching(神農本草經), the species of Hao (蒿) plants as recorded in the Pengtsao of the individual dynasties have included: Pai Hao (白蒿), Yin Chen Hao (茵陳蒿), Tzao Hao (草蒿), Ma-Sien Hao (馬先蒿), Ai Yeh (艾葉), Mu Hao (牡蒿), Giao Hao (角蒿), Sieh Hao (邪蒿), Tung Hao (同蒿), Fu-Liang Hao (扶娘蒿), Pao-Liang Hao (抱娘蒿), Lu Hao (?蒿), Mi Hao (米蒿), Tze-Siang Hao (紫香蒿), Tei-Kan Hao (鐵桿蒿), Yeh-Ai Hao (野艾蒿), Yeh-Tung Hao (野茼蒿), Hwa Hao (花蒿), Ta-Peng Hao (大蓬蒿), Hwang-Hwa Hao (黃花蒿), Liou-Yeh Hao (柳葉蒿) and Chi Hao (奇蒿). Those included as drugs include Song-Pin (上品) Chung Pin (中品) and Shia Pin (下品). Those included in soup or liguid contain exterior-resolving formula (解表劑), dispel dampness formula (祛溼劑), harmonize resolution formula (和解劑), and rectify the blood (理血劑). Those included in food and drink can be burned, steamed, diluted, soaked, or curded (羹). The ingredients include Flavonoids (黃酮類), Volatile oil (揮發油), Coumarins (香豆素類) Terpenes (?類)Among them, there are species with the same names but meaning different items, and there are different items but with the same names. According to the initial discovery, I found there are widespread mixed uses, abuses and substitute uses of the Artemisia sold in Taiwan market. These uses do correspond with the original plants within the scope and range of Pharmacopoeia. The drawing sketch of Chin Hao(青蒿) in Pentsao-Kang-Mu(本草網目) and Chi-Wu-Ming-Shih-Tu-Kau(植物名實圖考) looks like fruit, but this remains an unsolved puzzlement. There is no research on the plant tissues of the endemic and rare Artemisia in Taiwam. This research is to deal with the three aforementioned problems by literature investigation, plant investigation, slicing, microscopic photography, low proportion magnifying photography, SEM, TLC and HPLC ingredient (component) tests, from which I get the conclusions as follows: 1. The raw medicinal materials of Artemisia do not completely correspond to the original of Artemisia annua L. as set forth in the pharmapoeia, so the mixed use and substitute use can always be seen. 2. According to the prescription, the pharmacognasy name of Artemisia as indicated in it is mistaken. The test of its product does not indicate the index component of artemisinin. 3. A great majority of the Liu-Chi-Nu(劉寄奴) as sold in the medicinal material market are the misused Pei-Liu-Chi-Nu.(北劉寄奴) 4. Although Crossostphium and Artemisia belong to Compositae, Artemisia is the real Chi-I(蘄艾)instead of Crossostphium commonly used in the market. 5. The answer to the question about those on the drawing sketch looking like fruit can be obtained from Artemisia morrisonensis HAYATA. which through dissection is confirmed as Diptera(雙翅目) Cecidomyiidae(癭蚋科). 6.Through study, most of t |
