Cannabis Taxonomy Research

I thought I'd start a thread about the scientific progress in cannabis taxonomy and it's possible implications on medical cannabis breeding and research I have never really been sure as to the speciation of cannabis and to this day despite reading dozens of papers on the subject I am still unclear as to the answer(s).

Please use this thread to post links to articles and discussions about cannabis taxonomy. I'll update with references as soon as I get a minute.

The speciation of cannabis is still disputed by various researchers as it has been for nearly 200 years.
The classic taxonomists were generally divided into three groups supporting the existence of either 1,2 or 3 species of cannabis.

The first group included Linnaeus and argued that the cannabis genus was monotypic and composed of of one highly variable species C. sativa based on the lack of breeding barriers between the putative species. Others using various arguments classified cannabis as polytypic consisting of C. sativa and C. indica some based their arguments on crude chemotaxonomic data; sativa called fiber hemp and indica called drug hemp.
Others argued for the existence of these two species as well as classifying the wild russian and central asian populations as C. ruderalis.

The advent of the polymerase chain reaction( PCR) and the resultant developments of Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and Random fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis added fuel to the debate but not much clarification.

More recently further advances in genetic research have again fanned the flames of the cannabis taxonomy debate. In 2005 Karl Hillig at IU published a paper entitled "Genetic evidence for Speciation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)" This is the citation: Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, Volume 52, Number 2, March 2005 , pp. 161-180(20)
and the abstract:


"Sample populations of 157 Cannabis accessions of diverse geographic origin were surveyed for allozyme variation at 17 gene loci. The frequencies of 52 alleles were subjected to principal components analysis. A scatter plot revealed two major groups of accessions. The sativa gene pool includes fiber/seed landraces from Europe, Asia Minor, and Central Asia, and ruderal populations from Eastern Europe. The indica gene pool includes fiber/seed landraces from eastern Asia, narrow-leafleted drug strains from southern Asia, Africa, and Latin America, wide-leafleted drug strains from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and feral populations from India and Nepal. A third putative gene pool includes ruderal populations from Central Asia. None of the previous taxonomic concepts that were tested adequately circumscribe the sativa and indica gene pools. A polytypic concept of Cannabis is proposed, which recognizes three species, C. sativa, C. indica and C. ruderalis, and seven putative taxa."

If Hillig turns out to be correct this would mean all those much sought after narrow leaved tropical sativas are actually indica strains regardless of photo period. All the 25% 50% etc sativa mixes we constantly see advertised would now be pure indica strains. Ruderalis crosses based on central asian stock would be the indica/sativa crosses, and so on ...Fun eh... If anyone has links to more scientific papers and discussions on Cannabis Taxonomy please post em.
HM

- I have done a lot of personal research on this topic as I have access to the primary sources.

- Over time many scientists have proposed many different species of Cannabis far beyond sativa and indica. I have seen a review with a list of well over 25 proposed species from various scientists.

- They are all wrong, Cannabis is only one species, Cannabis sativa. All the variation we see is the result of polymorphic variation, artificial and natural selection. This is my opinion...

- There is a discussion about this is the "scrutinizing strains with science" thread...

- I agree, all the "25%", indica/sativa bs is bs and has no basis in reality or genetics (yes I know that's not quite what you said)

Cannabologist said:

- I have done a lot of personal research on this topic as I have access to the primary sources.

- Over time many scientists have proposed many different species of Cannabis far beyond sativa and indica. I have seen a review with a list of well over 25 proposed species from various scientists.

- They are all wrong, Cannabis is only one species, Cannabis sativa. All the variation we see is the result of polymorphic variation, artificial and natural selection. This is my opinion...

- There is a discussion about this is the "scrutinizing strains with science" thread...

- I agree, all the "25%", indica/sativa bs is bs and has no basis in reality or genetics (yes I know that's not quite what you said)

Click to expand...

One cannabis species has always been my opinion as well. I would like to see some more reseach on chloroplast dna in this genus. As chloroplasts are similar to our mitochondria. The DNA is passed unchanged in mitosis.
I am begining to doubt my opinion as I read more genetic research on this plant. There are some serious genetic differences in populations within the genus. I guess it all boils down to whether the differences are significant enough to warrent the polytypic assignments. Thanks for your input.
HM

I am not sure about Cannabis sp. vs Cannabis spp.; I for one think the latter might be the case, but Cannabologist does make some strong arguments for Cannabis sp.. Here are two of the more on-topic posts from the thread Cannabologist mentioned:

A post of mine about the work of Hillig and others, re Cannabis spp., not Cannabis sp. (also info about the correct usage of the term strain, variety, cultivar, etc.): link

A good post by Cannaboloigst re Cannabis sp., not Cannabis spp.: link

highonmt said:

If Hillig turns out to be correct this would mean all those much sought after narrow leaved tropical sativas are actually indica strains regardless of photo period.
HM

Click to expand...

I am curious what you mean by "regardless of photo period".

Spurr,

I really think that using acronyms and shorthand often add to more to confusion than clarification for all but those who are trained in the science. The main argument is whether the cannabis genus is a polytypic or monotypic genus. By photo period I was referring to enviromental condtions to which these various plant populations have adapted.

IMVHO it's a subspiecies .. that can interact peace out Headband707

highonmt said:

Spurr,

I really think that using acronyms and shorthand often add to more to confusion than clarification for all but those who are trained in the science. The main argument is whether the cannabis genus is a polytypic or monotypic genus.

Click to expand...

This is a science subforum, and this is a thread about taxonomy, so I really don't think using "sp." (single speices) and "spp." (more than one species) is out of place. It does not add any confusion for anyone who wants to take 30 seconds and learn what "sp." and "spp." means, if they didn't know. Using proper taxonomic acronyms simply makes typing easier.

I think using proper taxonomic rankings and acronyms helps because it allows people to learn; which is the goal here. If you didn't read the links posted, I defined the most common taxonomic acronyms for ranking so there would be no confusion if someone simply reads the links I posted...

I understand the topic of thread, wither or not the the genus has one species (monotypic) or more than one (polytypic); and that is exactly what I wrote about. There is much evidence the genus Cannabis is polytypic, but like I wrote, Cannabologist has provided good arguments that he thinks it is monotypic. And like I wrote, I am hedging to the side of Cannabis spp., not Cannabis sp., due to the work of Hillig and others, not in terms of chemotypes or morphology. I am unsure at this time wither it's Cannabis sp., or Cannabis spp.; like you seem to be unsure. In fact, anyone who claims to know for certain I believe is wrong, we simply do not have enough evidence to say one way or the other, yet.

For those who do not know: polytypic genus = Cannabis spp.; and monotypic genus = Cannabis sp.. Polytypic species = a species with subspecies; like some have suggested if it's Cannabis sp.; such as Carl Linnaeus.

Highonmt, in case you haven't seen this paper it's an interesting read, I can upload the full text later tomorrow:

Cannabis: A Polytypic Genus
William A. Emboden
Economic Botany, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1974), pp. 304-310

By photo period I was referring to enviromental condtions to which these various plant populations have adapted.

Click to expand...

That offers more ambiguity to your usage of the term photoperiod, at least to me. I assume by photoperiod you mean different ecotypes working on the assumption of Cannabis sp. verses different species and/or ecotypes working on the assumption of Cannabis spp.

I asked because I have seen some people suggest a plant 'becomes' 'indica' or 'satvia' (re morphology, not in terms of being different species) due to different photoperiod and noctoperoid. I attempted to explain why I whole heartily disagree with such a claim to the person who made it (Cray, the admin of cannabis-world), but he was dead set on being correct. I have even seen sillier claims by DJ Short that the angle of irradiance affects morphology as to 'indica' vs 'sativa'.

spurr said:

This is a science subforum, and this is a thread about taxonomy, so I really don't think using "sp." (single speices) and "spp." (more than one species) is out of place. It does not add any confusion for anyone who wants to take 30 seconds and learn what "sp." and "spp." means, if they didn't know. Using proper taxonomic acronyms simply makes typing easier.

I think using proper taxonomic rankings and acronyms helps because it allows people to learn; which is the goal here. If you didn't read the links posted, I defined the most common taxonomic acronyms for ranking so there would be no confusion if someone simply reads the links I posted...

I understand the topic of thread, wither or not the the genus has one species (monotypic) or more than one (polytypic); and that is exactly what I wrote about. There is much evidence the genus Cannabis is polytypic, but like I wrote, Cannabologist has provided good arguments that he thinks it is monotypic. And like I wrote, I am hedging to the side of Cannabis spp., not Cannabis sp., due to the work of Hillig and others, not in terms of chemotypes or morphology. I am unsure at this time wither it's Cannabis sp., or Cannabis spp.; like you seem to be unsure. In fact, anyone who claims to know for certain I believe is wrong, we simply do not have enough evidence to say one way or the other, yet.

For those who do not know: polytypic genus = Cannabis spp.; and monotypic genus = Cannabis sp.. Polytypic species = a species with subspecies; like some have suggested if it's Cannabis sp.; such as Carl Linnaeus.

Highonmt, in case you haven't seen this paper it's an interesting read, I can upload the full text later tomorrow:

Cannabis: A Polytypic Genus
William A. Emboden
Economic Botany, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1974), pp. 304-310


That offers more ambiguity to your usage of the term photoperiod, at least to me. I assume by photoperiod you mean different ecotypes working on the assumption of Cannabis sp. verses different species and/or ecotypes working on the assumption of Cannabis spp.

I asked because I have seen some people suggest a plant 'becomes' 'indica' or 'satvia' (re morphology, not in terms of being different species) due to different photoperiod and noctoperoid. I attempted to explain why I whole heartily disagree with such a claim to the person who made it (Cray, the admin of cannabis-world), but he was dead set on being correct. I have even seen sillier claims by DJ Short that the angle of irradiance affects morphology as to 'indica' vs 'sativa'.

Click to expand...

You remind me of myself when I was 20, or maybe you should try the decaf.lol.. Merely trying to help the layman..perhaps some read this forum? I do appreciate the brevity of acronyms when writing...

DJ and Cray are both right by the way they may just a bit off on the time scale. either speciation or subspeciation have likely occured due to dispersion of seeds by critters(us included) and physical geograhical changes resulting in dissperate isolated populations. Studies on Chloroplast DNA of cannabis and studies of 2500yo cannabis samples in china for instance seem to indicate a common ancestor ; Humulus japonocis. And suggest the origins of most, eastern cannabis races are in a Siberian/ European center of diversity.
I really opened the thread as a place for folks to post up new papers on the evolving story of cannabis taxonomy...be it sp. or spp. Thanks for your input I'll try to dust off more of my botanical esoteria for future posts. Thanks as well to all who have stopped by.
HM

highonmt said:

You remind me of myself when I was 20, or maybe you should try the decaf.lol.. Merely trying to help the layman..perhaps some read this forum?

Click to expand...

"WTF" is all I should say, but I will expand a bit: I am neither in my 20's nor early 30's and I am not a coffee drinker. This is a *science* subforum, and we should try to help educate and keep the bar as high as possible, not keep things 'dumbed down'; who does that help? (that's rhetorical, no need to respond). Go post in the rest of this site if that is what you are after.

DJ and Cray are both right by the way they may just a bit off on the time scale.
HM

Click to expand...

I think I will not be posting to you anymore, you seem to try and 'prove' things, and your claim about my age just makes my point for me. Personal attacks are unbecoming of someone like yourself. Next you will call me a "kid" and tell me to "grow up"...in 3...2...1

FWIW, neither Cray or DJ are correct, regardless of time scale. Unless you have evidence showing the morphology is affected by photoperiod/noctoperoid and *angle* of photons (the latter is by far the least possible).

For claiming to be a scientist you sure post like a typical layperson. Trying to prove a point after our exchange in the 'teaching' thread by trying to insult me, and using ad hominem logical fallacy.

I only posted in this thread to offer my opinion, backed up by many studies; and to offer the posts that Cannabologist referred to, as well as to point out Cannabologist may very well be correct. We actually agree on this topic, not sure why you are posting like you are, but in truth I really couldn't care less.

spurr said:

"WTF" is all I should say, but I will expand a bit: I am neither in my 20's nor early 30's and I am not a coffee drinker. This is a *science* subforum, and we should try to help educate and keep the bar as high as possible, not keep things 'dumbed down'; who does that help? (that's rhetorical, no need to respond). Go post in the rest of this site if that is what you are after.

I think I will not be posting to you anymore, you seem to try and 'prove' things, and your claim about my age just makes my point for me. Personal attacks are unbecoming of someone like yourself. Next you will call me a "kid" and tell me to "grow up"...in 3...2...1

FWIW, neither Cray or DJ are correct, regardless of time scale. Unless you have evidence showing the morphology is affected by photoperiod/noctoperoid and *angle* of photons (the latter is by far the least possible).

For claiming to be a scientist you sure post like a typical layperson. Trying to prove a point after our exchange in the 'teaching' thread by trying to insult me, and using ad hominem logical fallacy.

I only posted in this thread to offer my opinion, backed up by many studies; and to offer the posts that Cannabologist referred to, as well as to point out Cannabologist may very well be correct. We actually agree on this topic, not sure why you are posting like you are, but in truth I really couldn't care less.

Click to expand...

Having read many of your posts this is not a surprising reply and, in fact you really remind me not of myself at the U, which was of course in reference to your constant and voluminous posts and obvious dedication to your scientific beliefs, but of an ill mannered self declared know it all whom I was forced to endure in the lab. ad hominum? I was at no point personally attacking you man and certainly at no point did I use your apparent lack of understanding to argue the fallacy of your claim...just a simple note pointing out some of your apparent scientific missteps in the above mentioned posts. A bit sensitive for a person your age.

I, kind sir, am actually a scientist. I have spent many years as a professional chemist in big pharma.. it's been 25+ years since I was a botany student and professional botanist with the usda so my botanical lexicon is a bit rusty. A large intercrainial malignancy ended my carer in chemistry and at the same time sparked a desire to study the plant I have depended on in my lowest hours. My desire is to help those who just want to understand plant science so they can use it in bettering this plant. If you find this attempt at helping others offensive please do not read or post in this thread ;your calling this a dumbing down is offensive. I said that I appreciated your posting the links you did. With your use of personal attack in a supposedly scientific forum , It is not a wonder you disable your rep.

Also, changes in morphology and indeed speciation are often due to geographical isolation; it is a well known phenomenon in evolutionary biology. This includes adaptation to the photoperiod, (the nocto period of which you speak is redundant and is assumed, as our day is still about 24hrs last I checked) and the latitude at which the plant dwells. The reference you posted is from 74' and although it is, I'm sure a great work, itis of little use to this discussion, I'm interested in current genetic research and more particularly studies conducted on chloroplast dna. From genetic research the answer will arise, not the ramblings of classical taxonomists...although some of the latter will indeed be validated by the former at some point.

I am learning about the evolution of cannabis as an enjoyable pastime, I've padded my office walls with plenty of degrees and certifications and have nothing to prove . Im just enjoying Icmag and posting up a bit of what I've garnered from my recent reading. and hoping others will post what they've learned as well. If you don't like it avoid my posts believe me I'll be sure to reciprocate.
HM

highonmt said:

Having read many of your posts this is not a surprising reply and, in fact you really remind me not of myself at the U, which was of course in reference to your constant and voluminous posts and obvious dedication to your scientific beliefs, but of an ill mannered self declared know it all whom I was forced to endure in the lab. ad hominum? I was at no point personally attacking you man and certainly at no point did I use your apparent lack of understanding to argue the fallacy of your claim...just a simple note pointing out some of your apparent scientific missteps in the above mentioned posts. A bit sensitive for a person your age.

Click to expand...

I can't keep up with most of you science geeks but appreciate those who attempt to share higher level knowledge in a way some of us can relate to and not nit pick certain aspects...thx.

Highonmt: I do agree with the assertion that sativa:indica are geographically evolved as two races, at least, if not two species. In scientific logic, this is relatatively apparent. I do not know if this was made clear by the photoperiod (?) statement. Perhaps thus the confabulation. I do not know exactly what it is that Cray stated but a mis-statement would not be a surprise.

Your play on the 'trying to help others' really does belong somewhere else.

Spurr is correct regarding the lofty goals of this subforum; being based on scientific thought, lingo and literature but I fear we weak humans have dropped the ball.

I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination or through any kind of formal academic study in any area of science.

But if I hit a term used in a post by someone who obviously knows more than me it's pretty typical to do the 'copy & paste' into a search engine in an attempt to more fully understand a post.

Calling down a poster who is obviously a scientist by any definition who accurately uses terminology to better explain their position because 'the rest of us' are too stupid to take bits and pieces, do the background research, come back and re-read the original post - that this somehow gums up the works is an interesting perspective. Definitely inaccurate but interesting regardless.

Just an opinion as usual.

CC

well guys, as two members who are some of the best placed to help build this resource/forum, i hope you can both get along. we are all on the same side here.

as for all the abbreviations, whilst i agree that people should be prepared to look them up, it might also be useful to define them at the top of a post if you have time.

i can see the need to keep the standard high here - but also a need to be accessible so that people arent discouraged from learning.

VG

Clackamas Coot said:

I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination or through any kind of formal academic study in any area of science.

But if I hit a term used in a post by someone who obviously knows more than me it's pretty typical to do the 'copy & paste' into a search engine in an attempt to more fully understand a post.

Calling down a poster who is obviously a scientist by any definition who accurately uses terminology to better explain their position because 'the rest of us' are too stupid to take bits and pieces, do the background research, come back and re-read the original post - that this somehow gums up the works is an interesting perspective. Definitely inaccurate but interesting regardless.

Just an opinion as usual.

CC

Click to expand...

Well I am sorry to offend you and others who have stopped by. I am a PhD organic chemist so most of my conversations about my work have to be modified slightly to help those not "skilled in the art" to undrestand the concepts I'm trying to relay. Perhaps this approach is a bit didactic but I really mean well. Also, I merely stated that it was my opinion that hanging in acronyms without first defining can add to confusion among those not educated in the science. I at no point called anyone down or called anyone stupid! My statement "regardless of photoperiod" was not clear for that I apolgize. I was refering to the varying environments eg latitudes at which the genus evolved to it's current forms whether it is sp. or spp. ;as we all know the def. now.
I did not open this thread to spur a personal argument; only to help myself and others understand current research on cannabis taxonomy and the implications of recent genetic research. Could we please have a civil discussion. I will refrain from offering further opinions on the proper use of acronyms. With best Regards,
HM

highonmt said:

My statement "regardless of photoperiod" was not clear for that I apolgize. I was refering to the varying environments eg latitudes at which the genus evolved to it's current forms whether it is sp. or spp.

Click to expand...

Well that's how I immediately took what you said regarding photoperiod and now do understand the sp. and spp. thing.

i can see the need to keep the standard high here - but also a need to be accessible so that people arent discouraged from learning.

Click to expand...

Well said and the point I was trying to make before. I also see a sub-forum like this as an opportunity for those wanting to stretch a bit so involvement expands instead of staying limited to a select few because people are put off.

A friend has been growing for 35 years and breeding for 20 and knows ruderalis, indica and sativa well (regardless whether canna is poly or monotypic) and also up on his soil/nutrient/genetic science. When it comes to practical application of canna science he's my go to guy instead of an academic but I also don't take everything he says as gospel. Does it make me religious to use a word like that...lol!

Now this could be a bit off topic but I have been pondering the question of sp. vs spp. in the context of human migration and pre-agricultural use of cannabis in migrating human populations. I hypothesize that this high protien seed was encountered by bands of early humans and along with the seed the entheogenic properties. The earliest evidence of hemp use was dertimined to be circa 10,000 in tiawan. (Abel, Ernest. Marijuana, The First 12,000 Years (Plenum Press, New York 1980). if you look at a genetic marker map of human migration


Follow M9 from what is now a known center of cannabis diversity notice the terminus of the of the lower branch into Polynesia. Notice M22. So did early humans carry cannabis seeds to these areas. The result of recent cp dna from a 2700yo cannabis sample in china indicate that all the chinese strains tested indicated a common ancestor in the central aisian center of diversity were humans the dispersal vector for cannabis in polynesian, and china?
Ok so its just a guess but if true it really explains the above noted genetic evidence as well as the presence of hawiian and polynesian landrace genetics...ok I'm headed for the library monday I'll dowload some papers and post em up.
Cheers,
HM

From Shantibaba!

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=15805

Hi All

thanks to a co-researcher in the field of Cannabis I was made aware of this new article. Considering the heritage of the Widow and alot of my personal work in the field of selective breeding, it seems that Sativas will soon be classified differently due to their differing Cannabinoids/Terpines. With over 600 different Cannabinoids that are found on the plant, science has the ability to verify about 30, and technology existing can measure only 2/3 of those.

As usual fear and greed caused prohibition on Cannabis before it could be sure of anything except what was visual and that was a bunch of hippies preaching peace and love. But time will reveal the truths that are invisible to the eye...and the reason we are already gathered together in forums such as this one discussing...Cannabis is the future.

Hope you realize the implications this article will bring in time...I think it will be GREAT. Happy reading....all the best Shantibaba

Rasta lends its name to a third type of cannabis

http://www.newscientist.com/article...=mg18725175.200

AS POLICE and dope smokers know, there are two types of cannabis. Cannabis sativa sativa is mainly used to make hemp, while the indica subspecies is prized for its tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, which produces the "high". But now Australian researchers have discovered a third type of cannabis, called rasta.

Simon Gilmore of the Canberra Institute of Technology catagorised 196 sample plants according to the DNA in their mitochondria and chloroplasts. The samples included plants grown for drugs and hemp as well as wild varieties from Europe, Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica.

The results showed three distinct "races" of cannabis. In central Asia the THC-rich indica predominated, while in western Europe sativa was more common. In India, south-east Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica the rasta variant predominated. It looks similar to the sativa subspecies, but generally contains higher levels of THC.

Since the study was of DNA rather than a formal taxonomic study, Cannabis sativa rasta is not yet an official new subspecies: the name was the result of a competition in Gilmore's lab. Their work is expected to appear in the journal Forensic Science International later this year.
From issue 2517 of New Scientist magazine, 20 September 2005, page 12

Click to expand...

...With over 600 different Cannabinoids that are found on the plant...

Click to expand...

I have made a couple threads listing oil constituents

BUT...no one can say for sure, "where" Cannabis came into existence!

.....So......there's a potential for Cannabis to perhaps-always have/ or ellicit, an endlessly 'evolving' tax, ...based upon it's morphology (individual +group), -per each coordinate on this planet, and per each unit of time within the 26k yr galactic cycle/or return.

-What-if Cannabis is an ever-returning seed.....from a distant planet???
....I'd love to read in the morning paper, of how some person discovered a tax record for interplanetary Cannabis,....left in stone...for us by some parent race of breeders etc.