Ethnotaxonomy As Mirrored In Sanskrit Plant Names

Crossref, Index Copernicus International (ICI), Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI),Scientific Indexing Services (SIS), CiteFactor, The intellectual capacity of mankind for classifying natural objects and even abstract concepts is widely recognized. The rich diversity of the environment is described in sufficient details by the nomenclatural and classification systems even within ancient culture. Sanskrit is thought to be a mother of many other languages and a pristine treasure trove. Presently, it is not a language of any nation and hence remained morbid. Sanskrit literature is replete with references to plants and their utilities in ancient past. This rich Indian heritage still waits revealing its glory and secrets. The present author examined some common names of plants in Sanskrit semantically and taxonomically. The bases of coining names, roots of binomial nomenclature and scientific aspects of plant science in Sanskrit are unearthed and compared with modern phytotaxonomic systems. The merits and limits of developments are comparatively discussed highlighting elements of plant science. Studies on this line will also help earmark economic potential and ethnobotanical significance known to ancient Indians. Common plant names in Sanskrit are thus rich store-house of wisdom, knowledge, experiences and past observations of an ambient natural world.


INTRODUCTION
This ethnobotanical endeavor attempts at exhuming the elements and development of plant science hidden in ancient Sanskrit literature. Plants have been studied in India from time immemorial. This is evidenced by many old Indian treatises like Ayurveda, Charaka Samhita, Susruta Samhita, Nighantu and others especially from medicine, agriculture and horticulture point of view. Origin and development of plant science is generally traced in the West. Initial progress of plant science is also said to be associated with the western world during last many centuries. On account of western wave, the development of plant science was thought at stake in India. To name an object (plants or animals) is human instinct. Man coined words based on his own knowledge and language. He also enriched his vocabulary in tune with cultural changes in past.
Common plant names especially in pristine language like Sanskrit are very meaningful. But they are not analysed critically because of the reasons stated above. No Indian curriculum includes their study and development and hence they are out of reach of learners. The earlier studies has made some attempts in revealing secrets encoded in Sanskrit names (Patil, 2000(Patil, , 2006Patil & Patil, 2002;Patil and Tayade, 2014). However, these investigations have not attempted genesis and development of plant science vis-àvis taxonomy as incorporated in Sanskrit plant names. Philological investigations provide clues and evidence of natural, social and cultural environment prevalent in the past. The present contribution is an attempt to fill in this lacuna apprising the present state of art on this subject matter.
Sanskrit is a pristine language and hence presents a hoarded treasure of the bygone days. It is regarded as a 'mother' of many other languages but is said to be kept out of bounds for the common man. The general prejudice, during pre-independence period of the Western people against the East in general and India in particular, distanced the Indians from the virtues of Sanskrit language. Whatever survival of Sanskrit we observe is mainly due to Vedic literature and Ayurveda (which is also repressed and overlooked for several centuries). Sanskrit remained morbid for long period. Presently, it is also not a language of any nation. Particularly development of plant science in Sanskrit (and India) thus lagged behind. Attempts for its development in last few centuries were practically null and void. It is, therefore, thought to study Sanskrit plant names to appreciate India's well-founded claims to cultural superiority during ancient times. Such study will help reveal knowledge, experience, observations of our ancients with particular reference to plant world.

METHODOLOGY
Sanskrit plant names have been selected from literature (Deshpande et al., 1988;Kirtikar and Basu, 1981;Sivarajan and Balchandran, 1994;Warrier et al., 1994Warrier et al., -1995Patil, 2000Patil, , 2006Patil and Patil, 2002;Patil and Tayade, 2014). They are analysed etymologically to find out particularly elements of plant taxonomy and plant science in general. These have been compared critically with classic taxonomic concepts and terms. Plant species have been enumerated based on characteristic features observed in respective species. Scientific plant name, family (in parenthesis), S.N. (Sanskrit plant name), meaning (in parenthesis) and followed by explanation in terse manner. Tanduliyah (Tanduliyah-resembling broken rice grains) The seeds resemble broken rice grains. (Menispermaceae) S.N.: Amrta (Amrta-immortal, imperishable) The mythical ambrosia was produced at the time of 'Churning of the Ocean' by the gods and the demons. This is supposed to confer immortality and everlasting youth and beauty. It is also called 'amrita'. It is said that Rama killed Ravana. Therefore, Lord Indra was much pleased and he rejuvenated the dead monkeys of Rama's army with the rain of 'amrita'. The plants of Tinospora cordifolia, called 'guduchi', came up wherever the drops of amrita fell on the ground. Agnimanthan (Agni-fire) The tree is believed to have

(B) Binomial Nomenclature and Sanskrit Names
Attributing names to plants is as old as the appearance of man on the earth. Probably, the earlier names were based on useful plant part, place of growth, shapes, odour and comparisons with other objects. This practice rendered the names polynomial. Man become more familiar with time and found such descriptive phrases inconvenient. He reduced it eventually to just one or two words. Common names are both. The binary method was also naturally inherent in different societies. It is evident in some common names in 'Flora Svecica' (1745) by Linnaeus, e.g. Rag losta, Ren losta (Linnaeus, 1745). In ancient Sanskrit literature, we can also note several such two-word system e.g. Shiv Druma (Aegle marmelos), Bodhi Druma (Ficus religiosa). In some cases, these two words are combined in one e.g. Aranyjiraka (Vernonia anthelmintica), Akasvalli (Cuscuta reflexa), Parnabija (Kalanchoe pinnata), etc. Thus this system is closely related and is seemingly akin to the Linnaean system of 'binomial nomenclature'. These names are not simply 'labels'. They are meaningful and serve as a means of reference and a key to information related to certain taxa. However, two names do not stand for unit of classification like genus and species.

(C) Category or Rank in Classification
The present day taxonomists revolve round the categories viz., genus and species. In general, commonality is expressed by a 'genus' and uniqueness by a 'species'. This is evidenced in pristine Sanskrit common names of plants. Nay, the roots of this conceptual development are also discernible in them. In a nutshell, roots of plants science and been its development are generally traced back in western culture. However, this is not the final truth. Man is a necessity taxonomist by birth and therefore he has always endeavoured to know the vegetable world in his surroundings. He was also eager for discriminating the elements and virtues of the individual plants. This wisdom and experience in hidden in all human societies. If their languages or dialects are screened semantically, they will always reveal some or other elements of plant science vis-àvis taxonomy.

(D) Indian Classifications
Since the time of Linnaeus, different taxonomic systems have been devised. Modern period has witnessed more concrete and accurate systems of plant classifications [11][12][13][14][15] . Ancient Indians also developed systems of plant classifications nearly at par with the aforesaid modern phytotaxonomic systems. They practiced a type of taxonomy in accordance with their acquaintance with a fairly good number of plants, particularly those with consumable and medicinal significance.
An Atharveda (c.1000 BC.), medicinal plants are classified into eight categories according to the type of disease cured (Singh, 1998). Charak in his treatise 'Charak Samhita' (c.4 th century) grouped food or edible plants into total 12 categories (Shastri, 1940). Sushrut in his treatise 'Sushrut Samhita' (c. 2 nd century) divided plants into 37 classes according to functions (Acharya, 1915). Parasara (1 st century BC. or 1 st century AD.) in his treatise 'Vrksayurveda' (cf. Sircar and Sarkar, 1996) treated plants into six 'Kanda' (parts), in which the first four Kanda are devoted for origin of life, edapdic factors, distribution of forests and morphology of plant parts. Later Kanda described 'Gana' (modern term 'family'). These families are nearly equivalent to families circumscribed in modern phytotaxonomic systems (Sircar and Sarkar, 1996). Some more literary sources in Sanskrit dealing with the plant-world is avoided here for the sake of precision. Habit, habitat and geographical distribution are also incorporated in identification and classification of plants.
Several criteria for plant nomenclature were in vogue. Interestingly, roots of binomial nomenclature are also evident in Sanskrit common name as in the case of 'Flora Svecica' (Linnaeus, 1745). (a) The ways and means (i.e. bases) generally used in scientific plant names also correspond with Sanskrit nomenclature. (b) Even bases of naming plants in scientific, Sanskrit, Marathi, Hindi, and a dialect in Khandesh are similar.
Consideration of similarities and differences in classical taxonomy is also experienced in definition of taxon/taxa) in Sanskrit. By addition of suffixes and prefixes to the name of a taxon, plants are named and distinguished. Homonyms, however, are major obstacles in identification of some taxa.

| 64
Plantae Scientia (ISSN 2581-589X) https://www.plantaescientia.com/ojs Traditional dependence of plant taxonomy upon comparative exomorphological characters also hold true in case of plant science in Sanskrit. All characters, vegetative as well as floral, are given weightage in defining taxa. Quantitative (size, number, length, etc.) characters find place in identification of taxa.
(i) Few qualitative characters are also in vogue. (ii) Field characters e.g. colour, fragrance, taste, etc. are used in plant description and identification.

SUMMARY
Common names have a complex semantic structure, unique particularities in the form of etymology, ability to modify and formation of word in their target language. This is particularly so in case ancient language like Sanskrit, a language which is said to be a mother of other Indian languages. The author unearthed a treasure-trove of Sanskrit plant names divulging thereby development in plant science, in general, and terminology and phytotaxonomy prevalent during ancient times in Indian culture. It is doubtless that common plant names are huge corpus of lexicon which are embedded with wisdom, knowledge and experiences of human ancestors.

FUTURE ISSUES
This realm of common names especially in ancient languages has largely remained neglected. They should be investigated on scientific line which may improvise the present state of knowledge of mankind for his welfare.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am thankful to the authorities of S. S. V. P. Sanstha for library facilities.