Biolog. rem. names' question = Re x3: Blessed be zoological detail

[alpha_panthera1]

You got me hooked
again.
just like
blood or
nomenclature would be best adhered to for the living materia medica.
The preparation method, if distinctive, should be the third component
of the name: i.e
milk)
makes the materia medica a hodge-podge.
Good thought imo on the one hand, but creating problems on the other.
For the taxon. listing method, which has of course the great merit of
finding a species quickly in any reference work, you would at least
need a comma or something between species and substance term. This is
a linguistic issue. The way to form compound nouns by simply writing
two pre-existing ones side by side is unique to ( modern ) English:
like here "rat" + "blood" gives "rat blood", same in "dog milk" etc..
That does not work in other languages. I noticed e.g. in the long
provings' compilation on J.Sherr's site, which is otherwise a good
source, they constantly got non-English names wrong, not for
vocabular, but grammar reasons; one can still see what they mean, but
it is frequently incorrect, if you care for language
matters.
So e.g.
"rattus rattus sanguis is all right", as far
as language is concerned. But otherwise latin ( or other languages )
would need inflexion / declension. As in "rat's blood", but always and
necessarily. So in the way you propose you need to write "Ratti ratti
sanguis" for J.Shah's remedy with impeccable latin and spec. word
first. Sounds funny in this case, but there we are. The other one you
name would be "Ratti ratti lac" or "rattus rattus / lac". ( Your
version is also nice: "the milk's house rat", sort of like filtered
out of the drink, or like yoghurt bacteria : you did the "of"-genitive
of stuff, not beast, though grammatically
correct.)
I do not completely agree with your last remark: "Lactes" remedies (
which would be the correct latin plural, "lacs" is a latin singular
word with the engl. pl. ending ) have a long tradition, probably
because the lac can provers wanted to stress they were introducing a
milk rem, with all "nurturing, caring etc" associations and symptoms.
And the tradition they thus began facilitates finding all the lactes
rem.s in ref. works, catalogues
etc..
Ideally, as a user of such works, I should like to be able to easily
find animalia remedies both ways: By genus-species name, if that is my
main interest at the moment, or by e.g. "lac" term, in case my
interest is more comparative in that regard. But that poses other
problems, like all homoeopaths would need some latin instruction to
understand a double-system, and it is likely to sow confusion. One
principle for all names is probably needed. Which leaves as where ?