3. medicines of doubtful sources of knowledge INCLUDED in materia medica AND pharmacopoeia

(i) There are some medicines included in pharmacopoeias but their symptomatological indications are not found in any common and recognized book of materia medica.

(ii) There are medicines whose indications or symptomatology is found in the materia medica, Repertory or other publica­tions, but they are not mentioned in any of the national pharmacopoeias.

(iii) There never was a pharmacopoeia which contained all the medicines des­cribed in any standard homoeopathic materia medica nor was there any materia medica which contained all the medicines whose preparations were included in any one of the recognized pharmacopoeias.

(iv) It appears to be diffucult to include all medicines in one book of Pharmacopoeia or one book of Materia Medica and for a casual reader it may appear to be an impossible task but the ground reality is not so.

Among Indian publications on Pharmacopoeia, we can easily see that while the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Committee of Govt. of India took 44 years to print 8 volumes of different sizes and different faces in a total of 1481 pages containing only 916 medicines, M/s B. Jain published within 4 years a pharmacopoeia of 2 volumes of 2013+XXXVII pages including 1410 medicines. Two volumes more are under print within 3 years. USHPI 7 th edition (1961-1964) compiled under American Institute of Homoeopathy by people without any salary or perks and recognized by U.S.A. Govt. took 3 years to publish a pharmacopoeia of 735 medicines and a total of 721 pages.

4. Pharmacopoeias have included MEDICINES WHOSE symptomatology is found in languages
read by a very small minority of the homoeopathic world.

The Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (1964) mentions medicines like Abelmoschus (p. 683), Achyranthes Calea (p. 684), Agave tequilana (p. 685), Argemone mexicana (p. 687), Calea zacatechichi etc., the source of symptomatology of which is Materia Medica Homoeo­pathica de Plantas Mexicanas by Dr. Luis G. de Legarreta, the book and its SPANISH language is not known to the majority of the homoeopaths. There are many such medicines.

The new kind of proving that O. A.Julian and his colleagues have initiated and have published some drugs which are published by some homoeopaths whose bonafides as good practitioners may be marketed as hot-selling homoeopaths, who do not teach in colleges but are doyens of seminar halls with more melodrama than material in their talk, needs a thoughtful look by the eminent practitioners of Hahnemannian Homoeopathy. They are thriving on the ill-training and ignorance of homoeopathy.

The Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of India (vol. 2 , p. 51) describes the preparation of Cobaltum nitri­cum, and as a source of symptomatology under the scholarly heading of 'History and Authority' mentions G. Maring : Allgemeine Homoeopathische Zeitung, 203, 419; 1958. But the question is. How many Indian readers can put their hands on this journal? And how many of us will understand the German language of the journal?

Similarly, H.P.I. vol. IV includes six medicines about whose History and Authority it only mentions Ghose's Drugs of Hindoosthan. Can these medicines be considered homoeopathic on such poor proving, and on only clinical indications? It also includes Aristolochia clematis (p. 22), and as its source of symptomatology mentions - First proved by Jullius Messer, Gesichtete Homoeopathische Arzneimittellfhre, p. 101, 1951, a German journal, and its English translation by J. Stephenson and E. Whitmont in Journal of American Institute of Homoeopathy, 52: 172, 1959. In the whole of India only fourteen copies of this journal were imported every year and so it is beyond the reach of most of the practitioners of Homoeopathy.

The of H.P.I. is a highly frustrating experience to go through.

But the total work and seriousness of the Committee may by judged by one example. H. P. I. vol. IV (1983) has an alphabetical order of the names of medicines. In this list Ammonium Gummi is no. 9 but Ammonium Aceticum is no. 10 and Ammoninicum bromidum is 11, Arsenicum hydrogenatum is no. 21 and Aristolochia clematitis is no. 22; Kali picricum is no. 63 and Kali frerocyanatum is no. 64 and Kali nitricum is no. 66.

But English language is not our mother tongue yet we may know that F comes first, then N. and then P? The Latin name is KALIUM and not Kali, which is English. When aceticum is used, Latin KALIUM must be used. There are hundreds, if not thousands, other errors in these works. Serial no. 77 is Mercurius Cyanatus, but Mercurialis Perennis is no 78, and Mercuris vivus is 79.

Pharmacopoeia Committee for completing a monograph of 1medicine of 33-42 lines has taken 17days 15 hours 47 minutes plus and for completing ONE printed page it has taken 10 days 20 hours 26 minutes plus time. It was formed in 1962 for a term of 3 years and then changes in the panel of members have been done from time to time. In 45 years (1962 - 2007) this committee has completed 8 volumes containing a total of 916 medicines in a total of 1480 pages. The committee could complete Cadmium sulphuratum in III volume, P. 40, 1978 (40) and took only 5 years to compile another Cadmium sulphuricum in 1983 in vol. IV, on p. 31.

This writing is only putting up the question before the profession. We have discussed mainly the structural, the technical and the captional anomalies. There are constructional, principle-involving, operational and content-concerning anomalies also.

5. ERRORS & ANOMALIES IN ABBREVIATION OF THE NAMES OF MEDICINES

To abbreviateThe Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Vol. 1, p. 3 means: to shorten by omitting details, to epitomise, to speak or write briefly; to shorten by cutting off a part.

In homoeopathic literature, Abbreviations are used mainly in writing the prescriptions and writing the names of medicines in books. Abbreviated names of medicines are specially necessary for Repertories. But in this respect homoeopaths have not cared to use a particular, fixed common and universally accepted abbreviation for each medicine. Each and every author and compiler of Repertory, Materia Medica and Pharmacopoeia has used a different set of abbreviations. Each author and every book differs from the others. For example: Abies canadensis was abbreviated by T. F. Allen (Symptom Register) and Clarke (Clinical Repertory) as Ab-c., while J. T. Kent (Repertory) and Gentry (Concordance Repertory) have made it Abies c.;Abies nigra has been abbreviated as Ab-n. by Allen and Clarke but as Abies n. by Kent , Gentry and Boger, Abrotanum as Abrot. by Kent, Gentry and Boger, but as Abt. by Clarke; Bocracicumacid has been abbreviated as Brc. by Clarke, and as Bor-ac by Gentry again as Borac ac. by some Clarke (Prescriber); Carbolic acid as Cbl-X by Clarke, Carb-ac. by Gentry. Clarke's Hy. X, Gentry's Hydroc-ac and Boger's Hydro-ac are abbreviations for Hydrocyanicum acidum.

H. C. Allen in his Keynotes uses different abbreviations for the same medicines, e.g. Arum triphyllum isArum. (p. 44) but Arum t. (pp. 41, 42), Erythroxylon coca is Coca (p. 31) but Co. (p. 16), Bap. on p. 45, 207, 247, 275 is Bapt. on p. 237, Bar. c. on pp. 26, 31, 55, 179, 212, 264 is Bar. on pp. 132, 138, Lyc. on pp. 21, 33, 53, 231, 232 is Lyco. on p. 26 and Fer. on pp. 12, 31, 51, is Ferr. on p. 130. The list is endless.

There is no use of endless quotations of these disparities and arbitrary use of abbreviations by individual. Any and every reader has seen and can see it. I am sure that most of us have seen these anomalies. The situation, is that:

(i) No rule of abbreviation of names of medicines exists in Homoeopathy, and if it does it has been violated by all.

(ii) Different authors have used different abbreviations for the name of same medicine.

(iii) Same author has used different Abbreviations in his different books.

(iv) Later generation of authors on Materia Medica, Repertory and Therapeutics have not followed nor used the abbreviations used by the earlier authors.

(v) Among the Pharmacopoeias, only the British Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia (1882) has given the abbreviations of medicines under the heading of Contractions, and Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of India (all volumes) gives them under the heading List of Monographs with Abbreviations.

(vi) No author of Materia Medica, Pharmacopoeia Therapeutics and Repertory not even the H.P.I. have use a the abbreviations used by the British Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia (1882). We do not say that Abbreviations or the logic-behind the abbreviations used by B.H.P. is correct, but had it been followed, there would have been a beginning in uniformity.

Dr. C. Hering [Analytical Repertory of the Symptoms of the Mind (1881), B. Jain Print, p.56] pointed out the problems about Abbreviations in his writing "Abridgement of Names. He wrote,"

1. According to the main rule of this whole work -to enable the eye to bring to the mind with "rapidity, certainty and ease2 what is given in print - the abridgement of names had to be made different from any other similar work.

2. The rule will be to make the abridgements, in general, two syllables in length. The exception to this rule is where abridgements of two syllables through slight clerical or typographical errors may be mistaken one for another, three syllables may be given, or the name may be given in full.

3. Errors have been very frequent in such single syllable abbreviations, as Ang. , Arg. , Arn.; Bell., Hell.; Bar., Bor.; Bor., Bov.; and many others. Again some abridgements are ambiguous, as Cort. may be either Crotalus or Cxroton tiglion; Cocc. for Coccionella or Coccus cacti.

The cases in which even two syllables are not sufficient are such as the following: Anac., Anag.; Asaf., Asar.; Cinnam., Cinnab., etc., and ought to be distinguished by a third syllable, at least in the margin list or in some other way.

Dr. Hering's ideas are good, but now we have nearly 4000 medicines. We require a universally acceptable, correct and final list.

This is apparently a trivial matter, yet the difficulties of the teachers of the subject dealing with abbreviations in the classes on Homoeopathic Pharmacy and Repertory and of the students are obvious. It shows lack of uniformity and cohesion. It is against the character of science. Besides, there are serious disadvantages of these anomalies. These are:

(a) It is harmful for standardization and uniformity in teaching, literature and practice;

(b) it is against the scientific spirit and norm;

(c) it proves the lack of cohesion or negligence or ignorance of the homoeopathic authors, teachers and practitioners.

Its correction was a very big problem when the books were printed by "hand compose of letters" but in this age of computerized and DTP printing it requires an effort of 2 working days to bring uniform standard in the abbreviations used in materia medica and repertories.