[highonmt]

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

[Cannabologist]

- 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)

[highonmt]

Originally Posted by Cannabologist

- 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)

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

[spurr]

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

[spurr]

Originally Posted by highonmt

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

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

[highonmt]

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.

[headband 707]

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

[spurr]

Originally Posted by highonmt

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.

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.

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'.

[highonmt]

Originally Posted by spurr

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'.

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

[spurr]

Originally Posted by highonmt

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?

"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

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.