Become A Member

Sandigdha dravya are Ayurvedic drugs whose botanical identity is disputed, either because classical descriptions are insufficient or because different regions use different plants under one name. The problem affects research, manufacture and practice. A study of one plant cannot be generalised to another plant sold under the same name, and a formulation made from the wrong source may be ineffective or unsafe. This review examines representative disputed drugs and appraises the methods used to resolve disputes. Pashanabheda is supplied by Bergenia ligulata, Kalanchoe pinnata, Coleus aromaticus and Rotula aquatica. In a comparative rat study, all three tested sources were diuretic, Coleus aromaticus most strongly. Murva has five proposed sources, with only preliminary pharmacognostic data for each. The name Brahmi is applied to both Bacopa monnieri and Centella asiatica, and historical analysis suggests that the classical Brahmi was Centella. All market samples of Bala labelled Sida cordifolia in one survey were Sida acuta, and Guduchi is substituted by Tinospora sinensis. Five methods have been used to address such disputes: textual and lexicographic analysis, pharmacognosy, chemical fingerprinting, DNA-based identification, and comparative pharmacology. Each answers a different question. Textual analysis addresses what a text meant, DNA and chemistry what a sample is, and pharmacology which source works best. No single method is sufficient. We propose a structured multi-method protocol, with explicit separation of historical identity from therapeutic choice, and recommend a national register of disputed drugs linked to pharmacopoeial standards.