xlvi 
INTRODUCTION. 
Much trouble will be saved to the experimenting physician 
by the help of the country names of plants. Modern India 
appellatives remain understood, a travelling physician who should wish to 
procure an Arabian or Indian plant, and without asking for it by its learned 
or vulgar name, should hunt for it in the woods by its botanical character, 
would resemble a geographer, who, desiring to inquire by name for a street or 
a town, but waits with his tables and instruments for a proper occasion to 
determine its longitude and latitude" (“Botanical Observations on select 
Indian Plants.” Sir Wm. Jones’ Works, Vol. II P. 47, London, 1799.) 
In Sanskrit every plant bears several synonyms which may facilitate in 
tracing the history and identification of the plant. 
“ Every single word in Sanskrit,” writes Professor Sir Monier Williams, 
“is referred to dhatu or root which is also a name for any constituent element- 
ary substance, whether of rocks or living organisms. In short, when we follow 
out their grammatical system in all the details of its curious subtleties and 
technicalities, we seem to be engaged, like a geologist, in splitting solid 
substances, or like a chemist, in some elaborate process of analysis.” (Preface 
to Sanskrit Dictionary p. vi.) 
These Sanskrit synonyms to be of any use, should be accompanied with a 
literal translation into English. 
Mr. C. B. Clarke does not think that the vernacular names of plants help 
muoh in identifying them. For ho says : 
“ I have observed that the eagerness to get native or vulgar names for 
plants is directly proportioned to the ignorance of the enquirer, those who 
know nothing about the plants and who are unable to discriminate them under 
any names being always loud in their call for native or local names." 
Again, “ as to the grand Sanskrit names, they are of still less value than 
the vulgar ones, being founded on less actual observation, with the object of 
enriching the language.” (Preface by Mr. Clarke to his Edition of Roxburgh's 
Flora Indica, p. ii, Calcutta, 1874.) 
I think these remarks of Mr. Clarke are not quite justifiable, and they are 
not shared in by other eminent botanists. For instance, Sir David Brandis, 
who has been called the “ Father of Indian Forestry," says regarding the 
vernacular names of plants, : — 
“ The critical examination of the vernacular names of the different Indian 
languages, and their derivation from the Sanskrit or other roots, will be found 
a most interesting and important study. * * * * The forester should 
not despise vernacular names, for in many instances they have a fixity which 
systematic names do not yet possess. We all know the ever green Khirni, 
and there can be no mistake about it ; but botanists are not yet agreed whe- 
ther the tree shall be called Mimunops indica, hexandra or Kauki. Kamela 
or Kamila is a well-known small tree, its systematic name among Indian 
b'otanists, however, which for more than half a century was Rottleria tinctoria 
has now and properly been changed into Mallotus philippinensis. Again, 
there can be no doubt as to the tree designated by kao, kan. Although some 
botanists call it olea europea, others o lea cuspidatu, and others olea ferruginea. 
* * * These changes of systematic names are not arbitrary— as a rule, 
they are dictated by the progress of scientific research ; bat they are apt 
to discourage the student, and on that account, also, vernacular names merit 
attention.” (Forest Flora of N. W. India, Preface: pp. xi and xii, London, 
1874.) 
When the Pharmacopoeia of India was issued, it was considered a great 
defect in the work that it had not given the vernacular names of the plants. 
In reviewing the work, a writer said : — 
“ Many of the non-ofificinal remedies, the introduction of which to regular 
practice is avowedly one of the objects of the publication of this Pharmaco- 
peia, are dismissed without a single vernacular name for them being given. 
The recommendation, for example, of the committee, that Ugmenodictgon 
