BIKHMA AND JADWAR. : | 123 
specifique des Aconites de Pinde (im the Bulletin des Scienc. Pharmacol, 1901, No. 4) 
and more than anywhere else in Watt's sketch of The Indian Aconites : ‘their vorióiió 
their distribution, and their uses in the Agricultural Ledger (1902), No. 8, which 4% 
based chiefly оп Brühl work. Every one of the three authors felt obliged to make 
reservations or to doubt whether this or that form would not be better treated as an 
independent and distinct unit. Such was the condition of our knowledge of the poisonous 
Aconites of India when the circumstances wlich I have explained in the preface to 
this paper caused me to take up the study of the Indian Aconites on the broad 
basis of а monograph. 
IL-—BIKHMA. 
The history of Bikhma is very short. It is, so far as I know, mentioned for the 
first time by Kirkpatrick (Account of Nepal, p. 182) who enumerates it among the 
medicines of Nepal. Judging from its intense bitterness, he took it to be a Gentian. 
Hamilton (Account of Nepal, p. 99) also mentions it as a strong bitter, very powerful 
in the cure of fevers. He obtained samples of it, which he named and described as 
Сайда Bisma (Edinb. Journ. Se., i, 1824, p. 251). This determination is very strange 
even if we take into consideration that he saw only young or abnormal flowers. 
Wallich, more fortunate in this case than with Hamilton’s other two Calthas, reduced it 
rightly to his Aconitum palmatum, of which he himself had obtained complete specimens 
from Gossainthan. How after that doubts concerning the origin of the Bikhma should 
have arisen is difficult to understand. Through the erroneous combination of flowering 
specimens of А. palmatum with roots of A. spicatum in J. D. Hooker’s collection, Bikhma 
acquired for a time the reputation of being poisonous; but Dymock (Mat. Med. Western 
India, 1883, p. 6) pointed out that it was one of the non-poisonous kinds of Bish or Jadwar 
of the Arabian and Persian Pharmacopoeas. Не also suggested (l. c., p., 7) that the bitter 
alkaloid of the Bikima was “possibly identical with that contained in Atees,” which has since 
been proved to be the case; but in spite of its containing Atisin, it never was so much аррте- 
ciated as the root of A. heterophylium. 
IIL—JADWAR. 
In quoting from Frater Angelus Persian Pharmacopeea, I referred to the strange story 
the Tatta people told him about the mice who live with impunity on the roots of the Bish 
plant. The tale is, however, much older.  Hobaish has it already (Ebn Baithar, Transl. 
Sontheimer, i, p. 199), adding also the quails as immune devourers of the poisonous root. 
Muwaffak (Transl. Achudnow, p. 169) records it in connection with “ Halahil,” and Avicenna 
repeats it under the headings “Bish (de Napello)” and “Bish mus (de Napello Moysi)." 
He says (Lib. Canon. Lat. Transl. Ger. Carmon. corr. Alp. Bellun. П. сар. 499): 
‘“‘Theriaca vero eius est mus napelli, et ipse quidem est mus, qui eo nutritur. Semen vero 
ex eo cibantur et non moriuntur et ex omnibus confectionibus diamuschum magis et 
resistit"; and “Napellus Moysi buha quid est. Est herba nascens cum napello et 
cuicunque napellus appropinquat non crescit, vel non fructificat arbor eius, et est maior 
theriaca napello et in ipso sunt omnia iuvamenta quae sunt in napello ad albaras et 
ad lepram. Napellus vero Moysi est animal quod moratur in radice napelli, sicut mus. . . 
Est theriaca omni veneno et viperae." Further on (cap. 745) we read under the head 
Jadwar (or as it is rendered by the translator Gieduar, de Zedoaria): “ Et melior quidem 
est illa (7.е., Zedoaria) quae cum napello crescit et eius vicinitas debilitat plantam napelli, . . 
Axx. Roy, Bor, Garp. Care., Vor. X. 
