《外台》引《素问》逸文，赤疹者，搔之重沓陇起，及《病源》赤疹、白疹两候，即今
所谓
风斑也。《金匮》阳毒面赤斑斑如锦文，及《病源》、《千金》、《外台》斑疮，即今所谓
疹子也。凡宋以前医书，皆如此分别，于字义甚协。疹者诊也，必皮肤有所变疹浮起，方合
疹称，观《病源》屡言轸轸起，合之《素问》陇起之词自见。斑者点也，必有点子方合斑称
，观《病源》斑烂云云自见。近世不正其名，遂至互讹，今则竞以疹为斑，以斑为疹，相沿
既久，苟或正之，则反遭哗笑，以为大谬。然兹二病，虽皆有毒，而疹由于风，不由于温；
斑由于温，而前受之邪，未必皆风。病因久暂既殊，治法轻重亦异，古人各有主方，不可混
施。不审乎此，无惑乎谓古方不可治今病矣。《论语》曰必也正名乎，凡事皆然。
古方于 瘕及虫病，往往混称。然动者为虫，不动者为 瘕，分别亦不难。良由虫所居
处，
其阻碍气血，实与积同，故混称之耳！如《病源》十九酒瘕，云有虫使之然。夫能饮人所饮
酒，则动矣。而巢氏入之 瘕门，后世直称之为酒虫。其食症，能食人之所食饭，以酒瘕例
之，是亦有虫使然也，而巢氏则但称为症而已。此混称二病之证也。推之《纲目》所载茶瘕
，吐出后犹能饮茶，亦其类矣。崔元亮《海上方》，以地黄 治心痛，吐出虫长尺许，头
如壁宫。刘禹锡《传信方》崔抗女患心痛，食地黄冷淘吐出物可方寸许，状如蛤蟆，无足目
，似有口。此二物皆不云动，明是瘀血所为 病也，而以虫状之。诸如此类，不可枚举，读
者当以意逆旨，勿泥其词。况医书之传自文人者，又多形容过情者乎！余作《证原》，以能
动及饮食者入之虫，不能者入之积，非违古也，古略今详，有势不得不如此者。
《外台秘要》引用《素问》的佚文，提到赤疹（红色皮疹），搔抓后会出现重叠隆起；以及《诸病源候论》中提到的赤疹、白疹两种证候，就是现在所说的风斑（荨麻疹类疾病）。《金匮要略》中提到的阳毒导致面部红润，出现如锦绣花纹般的斑点，以及《诸病源候论》、《千金方》、《外台秘要》中提到的斑疮，就是现在所说的疹子（麻疹类疾病）。凡是宋代以前的医书，都是这样区分的，在字义上非常契合。疹，通“诊”，必须皮肤有所变化，出现浮起的颗粒，才符合“疹”的名称，看《诸病源候论》多次提到“轸轸起”（像车辙一样起伏隆起），结合《素问》中“陇起”（隆起）的说法自然可见。斑，即点状，必须有明显的点子才符合“斑”的名称，看《诸病源候论》中提到“斑烂”等描述自然可见。近代医生不纠正名称，以至于互相混淆错误，现在则竞相把疹称为斑，把斑称为疹，沿袭已久，如果有人去纠正它，反而会被嘲笑，认为这是极大的谬误。然而这两种病，虽然都有毒性，但疹是由于风邪引起，不是由于温邪；斑是由于温邪引起，而之前感受的病邪，未必都是风邪。病因的久暂既然不同，治疗方法的轻重也有差异，古人各有主治方剂，不可混用。如果不审察这一点，也就难怪有人说古方不能治疗今病了。《论语》说：“一定要正名吧！”凡事都是如此。
古代方书中对于瘕（腹内结块）及虫病，往往混称。但是，能动的为虫，不动的为瘕，区分起来也不难。这主要是因为虫所居住的地方，其阻碍气血运行的情况，实际上与积（积聚）相同，所以混称罢了！如《诸病源候论》中记载的十九种酒瘕，说是有虫使得它这样。如果能喝别人喝过的酒，那就是动了。但巢元方将其归入瘕门，后世直接称之为酒虫。那些食症（吃食癖），能吃别人吃剩的饭，参照酒瘕的例子，这也是有虫使得它这样，但巢元方却只称之为症而已。这就是混淆称呼这两种病的证候。推及《本草纲目》所载的茶瘕，吐出后还能饮茶，也是这一类。崔元亮《海上方》，用地黄治疗心痛，吐出的虫长约一尺，头像壁宫（一种昆虫或生物形状）。刘禹锡《传信方》记载崔抗的女儿患心痛，吃了地黄的冷淘面后吐出的东西约一方寸大小，形状像蛤蟆，没有脚和眼睛，似乎有口。这两样东西都没有说会动，明显是瘀血造成的病，却用虫的形状来描述。诸如此类，不可枚举，读者应当用心意去推测旨意，不要拘泥于文字。何况医学书籍由文人传承的，又多有用形容过度夸张的情况呢！我撰写《证原》，将能动且与饮食有关的归入虫，不能动的归入积，这并不是违背古人，而是古人简略而今人详细，形势迫使不得不这样做。
The *Waitai Miyao* (Prescriptions from the Imperial Cabinet) cites a lost text of the *Suwen* (Basic Questions), describing "red zhen" (red papules/rash) as lesions that, when scratched, rise in overlapping ridges. The two conditions of "red zhen" and "white zhen" mentioned in the *Bingyuan* (General Treatise on the Causes and Manifestations of Diseases) correspond to what is now called "fengban" (wind spots, akin to urticaria). The "yangdu" (yang toxicity) causing facial redness with patterns like brocade described in the *Jingui Yaolue* (Essential Prescriptions of the Golden Cabinet), as well as the "banchuang" (spot sores) in the *Bingyuan*, *Qianjin Fang* (Thousand Gold Formulas), and *Waitai Miyao*, correspond to what is now called "zhenzi" (rash/variola-like eruptions). Medical texts prior to the Song Dynasty distinguished them thus, which aligns well with their etymological meanings. "Zhen" relates to "zhen" (to examine/diagnose); it must manifest as raised bumps on the skin to fit the term. This is evident from the *Bingyuan*'s frequent mention of "zhenzhen qi" (rising like ruts) combined with the "longqi" (rising up) terminology in the *Suwen*. "Ban" means spot; it must present as distinct macules to fit the term, as seen in the *Bingyuan*'s description of "banlan" (erosive spots). In recent times, physicians have failed to correct these names, leading to mutual confusion. Now, people indiscriminately call zhen "ban" and ban "zhen." Having persisted for a long time, anyone attempting to correct this would be ridiculed as grossly mistaken. However, although both diseases involve toxicity, zhen arises from wind pathogen, not warm pathogen; ban arises from warm pathogen, and the initial pathogen contracted may not necessarily be wind. Since the duration and nature of the etiologies differ, the severity and methods of treatment also vary. The ancients had specific main formulas for each, and they should not be used interchangeably. Failing to understand this makes it unsurprising that some claim ancient formulas cannot treat modern diseases. As the *Analects* states: "Must there not be rectification of names?" This applies to all matters.
Ancient formularies often conflated "xia" (abdominal masses) and "chongbing" (parasitic diseases). However, distinguishing them is not difficult: moving entities are parasites, while stationary ones are xia/masses. This conflation likely arose because the obstruction of Qi and Blood caused by parasites residing in certain areas is practically identical to that caused by accumulations (ji). For instance, the *Bingyuan* lists nineteen types of "jiu xia" (wine xia), stating that worms cause this condition. If one can consume wine drunk by others, it implies movement. Yet, Chao Yuanfang categorized it under the section on xia, and later generations directly called it "jiu chong" (wine worm). Similarly, "shi zheng" (eating disorder/pica), where one consumes food eaten by others, parallels the wine xia example, implying worm involvement, yet Chao Yuanfang referred to it merely as "zheng." This illustrates the confusion in naming these two conditions. Extending this logic, the "cha xia" (tea xia) recorded in the *Bencao Gangmu* (Compendium of Materia Medica), which allows the patient to drink tea even after vomiting, belongs to the same category. Cui Yuanliang's *Haishang Fang* (Sea Above Formulas) uses Dihuang (Rehmanniae Radix) to treat heart pain, resulting in the expulsion of a worm about one chi long, with a head resembling a "bigong" (a type of insect or creature). Liu Yuxi's *Chuanxin Fang* (Formulas of Faithful Transmission) records that Cui Kang's daughter, suffering from heart pain, expelled an object about one cun square after eating cold noodles prepared with Rehmannia; the object resembled a toad, without feet or eyes, but seemingly having a mouth. These two objects were not described as moving, clearly indicating they were blood stasis pathologies, yet they were described using the morphology of worms. Such examples are too numerous to enumerate. Readers should infer the intent through reasoning rather than adhering strictly to the literal words. Moreover, medical texts transmitted by literati often employ exaggerated descriptions. In my work *Zhengyuan* (Origin of Symptoms), I classified entities that move and relate to diet as "chong" (worms/parasites), and those that do not move as "ji" (accumulations). This does not violate ancient teachings; rather, it reflects the transition from ancient brevity to modern detail, necessitated by circumstances.