Category talk:Medicinal plants

Untitled

About the suggestion of merging the categories: 'Medicinal Plants' and 'Medicinal Herbs and Fungi' -

1) I think this would be a very sensible move. 'Herbs' is a relatively loose term (see 'herb').

2) All herbs are plants, not all plants are herbs. Someone looking under 'herb' might easily miss an entry.

3) The broader category would mean less chance of someone missing an entry by using the narrower search term 'herb'.

4) If there is strong feeling about it, a subcategory of 'medicinal herbs' could be set up within plants?

Kitb 19:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about merging herbs+fungi into plants, right? I think that is quite a sensible idea. I'm not sure why plants is currently a subcat of herbs+fungi... well, except that fungi aren't technically plants. But not all plants are herbs. Perhaps "Medicinal plants and fungi"? Also, what about the capitalisation? --Alynna 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree - merge these two into Medicinal plants and fungi - no capitalisation, and plants and herbs are much more defined than "herbs". If no one objects in the next couple of days - I will get to it. Lethaniol 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The sensible way to deal with these two would be to split them into Category:Medicinal plants and Category:Medicinal fungi. That would avoid the logical problem noted by Alynna above that fungi should not be categorised under plants (or vice versa). --Stemonitis 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stemonitis. Axl 12:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. All then that needs to be done is 1) Creating Category:Medicinal fungi and 2) Sorting pages at Category:Medicinal herbs and fungi. --Alynna 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And then, I guess, a discussion could be started about renaming Category:Medicinal herbs and fungi to Category:Medicinal plants and fungi. But that takes more work ;) --Alynna 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and performed step (1), and started on step (2). --Alynna 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Medicinal vs Herbalism

I think we ought to distinguish between plants (and fungi) for which well researched, confirmed medical uses have been found and other plants which may be used as part of "holistic" traditions (e.g. herbalism or traditional Chineese Medicine). --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Few plants or their phytochemical constituents have been proven to have medicinal effects by rigorous science.

This sentence is absolutely false: "Medicinal plants are various plants used in herbalism and thought by some to have medicinal properties. Few plants or their phytochemical constituents have been proven to have medicinal effects by rigorous science or have been approved by regulatory agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration or European Food Safety Authority." Plants have been used as medicine for thousands upon thousands of years and continue to be used by the majority (80%) of the worlds population. The German E Commission is a book full of all the plants that are legal in Germany. This paper, who's data was taken directly from the FDA, states that of the 500 million prescriptions in the USA every year, 125 million involve a preparation from a leafy plants: Newman DJ, Cragg GM, Snader KM (2003) Natural products of new drugs over the period 1981–2002. J Nat Prod 66: 1022–1037. I tried to edit this ridiculous statement about Medicinal plants but someone reverted it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitald (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)