fourtwentymuleteam
Member
Has anyone else heard abt the debate over the multi-subspecies classification of cannabis, i.e. sativa/indica/ruderalis, being pseudoscience based on incomplete, antiquated studies trumpeted as fact by the underground/counerculture media over the last 50 years? Pretty much everything we think we know abt cannabis is derived from popularization of these ideas (lovingly swiped from):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis
"The Cannabis genus was first classified using the "modern" system of taxonomic nomenclature by Carolus Linnaeus in 1753, who devised the system still in use for the naming of species.[30] He considered the genus to be monotypic, having just a single species that he named Cannabis sativa L. (L. stands for Linnaeus, and indicates the authority who first named the species). Linnaeus was familiar with European hemp, which was widely cultivated at the time. In 1785, noted evolutionary biologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck published a description of a second species of Cannabis, which he named Cannabis indica Lam.[31] Lamarck based his description of the newly named species on plant specimens collected in India. He described C. indica as having poorer fiber quality than C. sativa, but greater utility as an inebriant. Additional Cannabis species were proposed in the 19th century, including strains from China and Vietnam (Indo-China) assigned the names Cannabis chinensis Delile, and Cannabis gigantea Delile ex Vilmorin.[32] However, many taxonomists found these putative species difficult to distinguish. In the early 20th century, the single-species concept was still widely accepted, except in the Soviet Union where Cannabis continued to be the subject of active taxonomic study. The name Cannabis indica was listed in various Pharmacopoeias, and was widely used to designate Cannabis suitable for the manufacture of medicinal preparations.[33]
20th Century
In 1924, Russian botanist D.E. Janichevsky concluded that ruderal Cannabis in central Russia is either a variety of C. sativa or a separate species, and proposed C. sativa L. var. ruderalis Janisch. and Cannabis ruderalis Janisch. as alternative names.[20] In 1929, renowned plant explorer Nikolai Vavilov assigned wild or feral populations of Cannabis in Afghanistan to C. indica Lam. var. kafiristanica Vav., and ruderal populations in Europe to C. sativa L. var. spontanea Vav.[23][32] In 1940, Russian botanists Serebriakova and Sizov proposed a complex classification in which they also recognized C. sativa and C. indica as separate species. Within C. sativa they recognized two subspecies: C. sativa L. subsp. culta Serebr. (consisting of cultivated plants), and C. sativa L. subsp. spontanea (Vav.) Serebr. (consisting of wild or feral plants). Serebriakova and Sizov split the two C. sativa subspecies into 13 varieties, including four distinct groups within subspecies culta. However, they did not divide C. indica into subspecies or varieties.[20][34] This excessive splitting of C. sativa proved too unwieldy, and never gained many adherents.
Cannabis ruderalis.
In the 1970s, the taxonomic classification of Cannabis took on added significance in North America. Laws prohibiting Cannabis in the United States and Canada specifically named products of C. sativa as prohibited materials. Enterprising attorneys for the defense in a few drug busts argued that the seized Cannabis material may not have been C. sativa, and was therefore not prohibited by law. Attorneys on both sides recruited botanists to provide expert testimony. Among those testifying for the prosecution was Dr. Ernest Small, while Dr. Richard E. Schultes and others testified for the defense. The botanists engaged in heated debate (outside of court), and both camps impugned the other's integrity.[27][28] The defense attorneys were not often successful in winning their case, because the intent of the law was clear.[35]"
The last half-paragraph says it all--top scientists couldn't and still can't agree on the subject. None of can be tested via the Scientific Method thanks to Uncle Sam and his buddies @ UN who included cannabis in the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics.
In years of growing a wide variety of strains in a wide variety of situations, I've discovered that if a plant/strain makes it thru 2 reproductive cycles (makes fertile seed) it will adapt to any climate that the species can live in. It may not thrive and produce. It may morph into something commercially undesirable, but it will adapt. I'm sure this adaptability is one reason early nomadic peoples such as the Scythians have been discovered to have traveled w/ cannabis seeds, probably planting it on the way to roam by and harvest later. Perhaps this multiple planting technique which invariably followed the weather is why such diversity in the species existed even prior to the current cross/breeding frenzy. Anyway...
What are your thoughts on this? What if DNA testing proves only a single, extremely adaptable species exists? Should we continue to use the pseudoscience terms we've all come to take, and teach, as fact?
I'm new, so forgive me if this is a tired topic. Otherwise, let's talk abt it!
Peace
Stan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis
"The Cannabis genus was first classified using the "modern" system of taxonomic nomenclature by Carolus Linnaeus in 1753, who devised the system still in use for the naming of species.[30] He considered the genus to be monotypic, having just a single species that he named Cannabis sativa L. (L. stands for Linnaeus, and indicates the authority who first named the species). Linnaeus was familiar with European hemp, which was widely cultivated at the time. In 1785, noted evolutionary biologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck published a description of a second species of Cannabis, which he named Cannabis indica Lam.[31] Lamarck based his description of the newly named species on plant specimens collected in India. He described C. indica as having poorer fiber quality than C. sativa, but greater utility as an inebriant. Additional Cannabis species were proposed in the 19th century, including strains from China and Vietnam (Indo-China) assigned the names Cannabis chinensis Delile, and Cannabis gigantea Delile ex Vilmorin.[32] However, many taxonomists found these putative species difficult to distinguish. In the early 20th century, the single-species concept was still widely accepted, except in the Soviet Union where Cannabis continued to be the subject of active taxonomic study. The name Cannabis indica was listed in various Pharmacopoeias, and was widely used to designate Cannabis suitable for the manufacture of medicinal preparations.[33]
20th Century
In 1924, Russian botanist D.E. Janichevsky concluded that ruderal Cannabis in central Russia is either a variety of C. sativa or a separate species, and proposed C. sativa L. var. ruderalis Janisch. and Cannabis ruderalis Janisch. as alternative names.[20] In 1929, renowned plant explorer Nikolai Vavilov assigned wild or feral populations of Cannabis in Afghanistan to C. indica Lam. var. kafiristanica Vav., and ruderal populations in Europe to C. sativa L. var. spontanea Vav.[23][32] In 1940, Russian botanists Serebriakova and Sizov proposed a complex classification in which they also recognized C. sativa and C. indica as separate species. Within C. sativa they recognized two subspecies: C. sativa L. subsp. culta Serebr. (consisting of cultivated plants), and C. sativa L. subsp. spontanea (Vav.) Serebr. (consisting of wild or feral plants). Serebriakova and Sizov split the two C. sativa subspecies into 13 varieties, including four distinct groups within subspecies culta. However, they did not divide C. indica into subspecies or varieties.[20][34] This excessive splitting of C. sativa proved too unwieldy, and never gained many adherents.
Cannabis ruderalis.
In the 1970s, the taxonomic classification of Cannabis took on added significance in North America. Laws prohibiting Cannabis in the United States and Canada specifically named products of C. sativa as prohibited materials. Enterprising attorneys for the defense in a few drug busts argued that the seized Cannabis material may not have been C. sativa, and was therefore not prohibited by law. Attorneys on both sides recruited botanists to provide expert testimony. Among those testifying for the prosecution was Dr. Ernest Small, while Dr. Richard E. Schultes and others testified for the defense. The botanists engaged in heated debate (outside of court), and both camps impugned the other's integrity.[27][28] The defense attorneys were not often successful in winning their case, because the intent of the law was clear.[35]"
The last half-paragraph says it all--top scientists couldn't and still can't agree on the subject. None of can be tested via the Scientific Method thanks to Uncle Sam and his buddies @ UN who included cannabis in the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics.
In years of growing a wide variety of strains in a wide variety of situations, I've discovered that if a plant/strain makes it thru 2 reproductive cycles (makes fertile seed) it will adapt to any climate that the species can live in. It may not thrive and produce. It may morph into something commercially undesirable, but it will adapt. I'm sure this adaptability is one reason early nomadic peoples such as the Scythians have been discovered to have traveled w/ cannabis seeds, probably planting it on the way to roam by and harvest later. Perhaps this multiple planting technique which invariably followed the weather is why such diversity in the species existed even prior to the current cross/breeding frenzy. Anyway...
What are your thoughts on this? What if DNA testing proves only a single, extremely adaptable species exists? Should we continue to use the pseudoscience terms we've all come to take, and teach, as fact?
I'm new, so forgive me if this is a tired topic. Otherwise, let's talk abt it!
Peace
Stan