|
Rubia cordifolia
Linn.
(Manjistha) – Controversial Identity |
|
S.K.
Mitra and R. Kannan R&D Center, The
Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore-562123.
India. |
|
Keywords: |
|
Rubia
cordifolia, Rubia tinctorium,
Manjistha, authentic source, controversy, polymorphism,
pharmacognosy. |
|
Abstract: |
|
In
indigenous systems of medicine, Rubia cordifolia Linn. is the
accepted source for Manjistha. A recent research found that market samples
of R. cordifolia from south India were derived from R.
tinctorium. However, R. tinctorium is not a south Indian plant.
A plant, which is not found in south India, might not be a source of the
adulterant. Polymorphism and geographical variations were reported in
R. cordifolia. We concluded that the south Indian sources of R.
cordifolia might be derived from a different subspecies or
geographical type or plants with different polymorphism and never be from
R. tinctorium. |
|
Introduction: |
|
Indigenous
systems of medicine play a vital role in rural health populations.
Complexities in herbal nomenclature system in indigenous systems of
medicine lead to misidentification of plants. Identifying the exact plant
mentioned in traditional literature and identifying the adulterants or
substitutes are major tasks in basic research. There are controversies between
researchers in identifying the source of plants. This article enumerates
about the controversial identifications/comments made in the botanical
sources of a popular herb Rubia
cordifolia. |
|
Rubia
cordifolia
Linn. (Manjistha): |
|
A
recent research article was published (Pathania et al., 2006) on the
authentication of market samples of R. cordifolia. Authors
purchased the samples from 5 different places and compared them with the
field-collected, botanically-identified authentic plant. It was found that
samples purchased from north Indian markets were authentic and samples
purchased from south Indian markets (Coimbatore and Thiruvananthapuram)
were spurious. Based on the presence of specific flavonoid (Dengre et al.,
1993), they concluded that the spurious samples were derived from R.
tinctorium. |
|
Habitat
of R. cordifolia and other species: |
|
R.
cordifolia is
found throughout the hilly districts of India from N.W. Himalayas
eastwards, ascending to 8000 ft and southwards to Ceylon. R.
tinctorium is restricted to the Himalayas (Hooker,
1882). |
|
R.
cordifolia
is a common plant in almost all parts of south India. R. tinctorium
is not reported from south India (Gamble, 1921; Ramaswamy & Razi,
1973; Saldanha & Nicolson, 1976; Mathew, 1983 & 1999; Nair &
Nayar, 1987; Singh, 1988; Keshavamurthy & Yoganarasimhan, 1990;
Pallithanam, 2001). |
|
Adulteration
and Polymorphism in R. cordifolia: |
|
Sarin
(1996) mentioned that stem pieces are adulterants, and samples derived
from Sikkim and NE hills are originated from R. Sikkimensis Kurz.
|
|
Anonymous
(1995), mentioned that R. cordifolia is a complex group, exhibiting
a wide range of morphological characters. Santapau & Henry (1973)
mentioned that R. cordifolia group consists of several distinct
species and in India this group is very polymorphic with several
recognizable geographical races. |
|
Controversy
& Conclusion: |
|
1.
Rubia
cordifolia
is the only species found in south India. R. tinctorium is
restricted to the Himalayas. |
|
A
plant, which is not found in wild or in cultivation in south India, may
not be the source of the adulterant in south India.
|
|
2.
If
we believe that R. tinctorium is the source of adulterant in south
Indian markets, then it might have originated from the Himalayas.
|
|
However,
it is unbelievable that an adulterant sold in south Indian markets,
originated from the Himalayas, was not sold in north Indian markets.
|
|
3.
In
general, morphological and geographical variations alter the phytochemical
constituents of plants. |
|
It
is concluded that the market samples sold in south Indian markets may be
originated from a different polymorphic plant or a geographical race and
never from R. tinctorium. |
|
It
is recommended that all forms, types and sub-species of R.
cordifolia should be studied for its correct botanical identity and
phytochemical constituents. |
|
Reference: |
|
1.
Pahania,
S., Daman, R., Bhandari, S., Singh, B. and Brij Lal, 2006, Comparative
studies of Rubia cordifolia L. and its commercial samples,
Ethnobotanical Leaflets, http://www.siu.edu/~ebl/leaflets/rubia.htm.
|
|
2.
Dengre,
R.G., Patel, K.N. and Chauhan, M.B., 1993, Comparative studies of Rubia
cordifolia Linn. and Rubia tinctorum Linn. (Rubiaceae), Ancient
Science of Life, V.13 (1&2), pp: 165-179. |
|
3.
Hooker,
J.D., 1882, he Flora of British India, Vol III, L. Reeve & Co, London.
pp: 202-204. |
|
4.
Gamble,
J.S., 1921, Flora of the Presidency of Madras, London. pp:
654-655. |
|
5.
Mathew,
K.M., 1983, The Flora of the Tamilnadu Carnatic, Vol III, Part 2, The
Rapinat Herbarium, Tiruchirapalli. Pp: 741. |
|
6.
Ramaswamy,
S.V. and Razi, B.A., 1973, Flora of Bangalore, Prasaranga, University of
Mysore, Mysore, India. pp: 590-591. |
|
7.
Mathew,
K.M., 1999, The flora of the Palni hills, south India, Part 2, The Rapinat
Herbarium Tiruchirapalli, India. pp: 630-631. |
|
8.
Pallithanam,
J.M., A pocket flora of the Sirumalai Hills, south India, the Rapinat
Herbarium, Tiruchirapalli, India. pp: 127. |
|
9.
Singh,
N.P., 1988, Flora of Eastern Karnataka, Vol I, Mittal publications, Delhi,
India. pp: 356-357 |
|
10.Kesavamurthy,
K.R. and Yoganarasimhan, S.N., 1990, Flora of Coorg (Kodagu), Karnataka,
India, Vimsat Puslishers, Bangalore, India. pp:
232-233. |
|
11.Saldana,
J. & Nicolson, H, 1976, Flora of Hassan District, Karnataka, India,
Amerind publishing co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India. pp:
590. |
|
12.Nair,
K.K.N. and Nayar, M.P., 1987, Flora of Courtallum, Vol 2, Botanical Survey
of India, Calcutta, India. pp: 325. |
|
13.Sarin,
Y.K., 1996, Illustrated Manual of Herbal Drugs used in Ayurveda, CSIR
& ICMR, New Delhi. Pp: |
|
14.Anonymous,
1972, Wealth of India, Vol. IX, PID, CSIR, New Delhi, India. pp:
82. |
|
15.Santapau,
H. and Henry, A.N., A dictionary of the flowering plants in India, NISCOM,
New Delhi, India. pp: 148. |