Many thanks to Dagmar and Dominik Wujastyk for their replies so far. The reference to kṛṣṇān ... strīpuṃso in the Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā is interesting. Perhaps I read too much into the expressions asita-mānava and kṛṣṇa-manuja in the Hāyanasundara.

So, here the difference is between vomiting as a reaction to poisoning and vomiting as a disease category (chardi is used in the latter sense in the Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā). My impression (this was a very quick look) is that vānti and chardi otherwise are interchangeable.

Thank you. I'm still not sure what bhavati ... chardir apy eti vāntim is meant to convey; I'll have to think about it. Any further suggestions are most welcome.

Re kāsapittātisāra: it should divide into kāsa (cough - there are different kinds of kāsa, it's a category of disease) and pittātisāra, flux caused by pitta (one of three humoral substances, or doṣas).

Is pittātisāra normally found in the plural? And is the condition considered to cause stomach pain? (Bhavati jaṭharaśūlaṃ kāsapittātisārai[ḥ].)

Then, it should be pittakāmalā, kāmalā (something like jaundice) caused by pitta.

Right. The form used in the text is kāmala (as required by the metre). But I am not sure about dadrutā (leprosy?). If pittakāmala is one condition, and dadrutā another, one would have expected the dual (-te), but the witnesses all read -tā or -tāḥ. On the other hand, the text is often somewhat ungrammatical (but syntactically rather than morphologically).

Best wishes,
Martin