Talk:Cannabis/Archive 4

'Hermaphrodite' for Plants and Animals. 'Intersexual' for Human Beings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_sexuality classifies plants that share the same sex organs as Hermaphrodite not Intersex. Intersex is a new terminology used mainly in reference to people who have the hermaphrodite condition or have gone through an operation which allows them to share the same sex organs. It has managed to crop up sometimes in relation to plants and fish but the dictionaries do not support a plant classification for Intersexuals. It does for hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodite n. 1. An animal or plant exhibiting hermaphroditism. 2. Something that is a combination of disparate or contradictory elements. [Middle English hermofrodite, from Medieval Latin hermofrodtus, from Latin Hermaphrodtus, Hermaphroditus, hermaphrodite. See Hermaphroditus.]her·maphro·ditic (-dtk) adj. her·maphro·diti·cal·ly adv. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Etymology: Middle English hermofrodite, from Latin hermaphroditus, from Greek hermaphroditos, from Hermaphroditos 1 : an animal or plant having both male and female reproductive organs 2 : something that is a combination of diverse elements - hermaphrodite adjective - her·maph·ro·dit·ic /(")h&r-"ma-fr&-'di-tik/ adjective - her·maph·ro·dit·ism /-'ma-fr&-"dI-"ti-z&m/ noun Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Intersex (Intersexual) 1. Existing or occurring between the sexes: intersexual competition. 2. Biology. Having both male and female characteristics, including in varying degrees reproductive organs, secondary sexual characteristics, and sexual behavior, as a result of an abnormality of the sex chromosomes or a hormonal imbalance during embryogenesis. n. An intersexual person. inter·sexu·ali·ty (-l-t) n. inter·sexu·al·ly adv. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 * her·maph·ro·dite
 * Function: noun
 * in·ter·sex·u·al

Misplaced content
The article seems to have gone somewhat out of focus, acquiring a lot of detail which should be in Cannabis (drug) or Cannabis (drug) cultivation (if it should be anywhere). Laurel Bush 09:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Sorry. I have just saved an edit while intending to preview. It is largely re misplaced content. Laurel Bush 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Psychosis?
Shouldn't we also add this? - Nearfar 11:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Laurel Bush 11:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Nowadays a lot of young British people think cannabis is completely harmless - I think some balance/note of caution is in order (just MHO). Rentwa 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance against legitimate science or balance against popular demonizations?24.33.28.52 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You say alot of people think cannabus is completely harmless, do you have information to the contrary? HighInBC 01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To make myself clear here I am all for the legalisation of drugs and I know cannabis is not the demon it's made out to be (I use it medicinally, spiritually and recreationally) but Rentwa is right, balanced information should be put forth. Cannabis is (or more accuratly contains) drug(s) and as such does carry risks with use. Barely anything is harmless especially if not used in moderation.142.161.36.155 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sort of reliable source citing a harm caused by cannabis? HighInBC 01:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Excessive use of cannabis (normally skunk) has been linked to schizophrenia. Normally when users start at a very young age, or have a family history of mental illnesses.

There is medical sources that have investigated this in great detail, I’ll have a search for them but I’m not sure resin is a major cause of mental illness. – will stick my findings on most cannabis related pages.--Dab182 10:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can not be assed to read this yet - but this report should be read on this matter : http://www.drugs.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/cannabis-reclass-2005?view=Binary#search=%22cannabis%20Schizophrenia%20site%3A.gov.uk%22(PDF)--Dab182 10:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's schizophrenia linked to Lyme Disease? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=149397

Distribution
Sunholm wrote: ''Cannabis will grow almost anywhere that other herbs and plants will grow. Distribution is restricted or distorted, however, by attempts to limit, control or prevent its use as a source of drug material.

In Angeles National Park, Los Angeles there is a constant problem with growing of cannabis.''

Can anyone verify this?? --Whithulme 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeds Photo
is upside down. Heavy... Rentwa 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, just noticed that too. Can someone please invert the photo to correct it? Anon. 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exported image file, rotated it 180 degrees, saved it, and uploaded it. Cannabis 14:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Page deserved link from 'Mindfuck' article. Rentwa 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy
The first section should be renamed Taxonomy. It should be noted that the drug laws of the US and other nations accept the Linnaean classification, whereby Cannabis is a monotypic genus comprising only C. sativa. In this classification, sativa, indica, and ruderalis are subspecies or varieties. It is true that the taxonomy of Cannabis has long been debated, with some taxonomists favoring the single-species classification, and other taxonomists favoring reclassification as multiple species (lumpers and splitters).

Note that the taxobox gives Carolus Linnaeus as the binomial authority, but then gives three distinct species, which does not follow Linnaeus. This should be updated to be consistent: either give the binomial authority for the actual classification used, or update the taxobox to follow the Linnaean (single species) classification.

Also, the taxobox, using Linnaeus, describes Cannabis under order Rosales, while the text refers to taxanomical developments bringing Cannabis from families Urticaceae and Moraceae (nettles and mulberries respectively to a family of its own as Cannabaceae. While this Familial development is correct as per Linnaeus, the order unfortunately is not. According to Linnaeus the correct taxanomical order should be Urticales, not Rosales, as there are fundamental differences between these families.

The following statements in the article make misleading use of the term landrace:

"However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. "

"Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types."

The article at landrace also gives cannabis as an example. However all of these uses of the term are incorrect. Regardless of the taxonomic scheme favored, no cannabis breeder or botanist considers sativa, indica, or ruderalis to designate landraces. A landrace is a variety or form  that is particularly well-adapted to the environment in which is found and which needs no special cultivation in order to suceed in that environment, and which is typically named by the region in which it is found (see List of landraces). An example is the Afghani highland landrace, which grows wild in the mountains of Afghanistan and has been hybridized by breeders to produce several well-known cultivars, including Northern Lights, Hash Plant and Mazar. Not all indica varieties are well-suited to the highlands of Afghanistan, nor will the Afghanistan highland landrace grow well (without cultivation) where other indica varieties flourish. As species (or subscies) indications, sativa, indica, and ruderalis are far to broad to designate particular landraces.

Generally speaking, C. sativa (or C. sativa supsp. sativa) prefers warm and moist tropical or subtropical conditions with a long growing season, whereas C. indica is well-adapted to somewhat cooler and drier conditions found at higher lattitudes and/or altitudes, and completes it's life-cycle in a shorter growing season. C. ruderalis is indigenous to the higher latitudes of northeastern Eurasia, and thus well-adapted to a very short growing season and relatively tolerant of cold temperatures.

Note that reference #2 in the Cannabis article is a blog, that currently has no mention of cannabis, and should be removed.

"All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, which means all known Cannabis plants satisfy the criteria for a single species type called (Cannabis sativa L.)"

Contrary to the assertion by Simonapro (above), the ability to interbreed and to produce reproductively competent offspring is not the defining characteristic of plant taxonomy. Interspecies (and even inter-genus) breeding is common in some plant families (e.g., Orchidaceae). For such families, tribes and  alliances are indicative of the relative reproductive compatibilities. Simple geographical isolation is also insufficient for speciation, although geographically isolated species may eventually speciate. See species for a discussion. The reason there is a debate about the classification of Cannabis is precisely because species is a rather vague concept that is difficult to pin down.

The following line is a non-sequiter that is out of place in the discussion of species/taxonomy, and should be moved to another section (to be created): "Cannabis has three different forms of plant sexuality, with some plants being dioecious, and other plants being hermaphroditic or monoecious."

This statement is inaccurate: "It is traditionally (albeit contentiously) divided into at least five subspecies, indica/sativa, pure indica, pure sativa, mostly sativa and mostly indica, each found as a cultivar and a wild variety.[5][6]"

Sativa and indica would be the species (or subspecies). Indica/sativa crosses are not properly subspecies, but hybrids. If the given references actually make this statement, then their authority is highly questionable.

The remainder of this section provides useful information, but should be better organized, and should pay some attention to the lumpers and splitters nature of the debate.

Because the taxonomy of Cannabis has long been the subject of debate by experts, it would probably be useful to add the expert tag to ensure that all aspects of the debate are covered. However it needs to be cleaned up first. Chondrite 19:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are proposing is that we delete everything and only use the Carolus Linnaeus model. See WP:NOR. You need to cite sources for only using that model. The topic of cannabis speciation is controversial and so the controversial issue should be covered in the article, not excluded by only using the L model. The article has cited a number of sources that meet WP:CITE guidelines. This next line really sums it up well, Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types. Whether the different strains of Cannabis constitute a single species (Cannabis sativa L.) or multiple species has been a contentious issue for well over two centuries.

We can also look at your suggestions: (Simonapro 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Could you provide wikipedia examples for renaming the Species section to Taxonomy.
 * As noted in the article, the topic of Cannabis speciation is a complex speciation topic, but citations have been given. Note the use of the words "TRADITIONALLY(ALBEIT CONTENTIOUSLY)" and the careful way this has been explained to the reader with all the ramifications.
 * Carolus Linnaeus's taxonomy has been given. Then the other variations have been cited, not just Carolus Linnaeus as used by the DEA.
 * The landrace article also contains cannabis. The term is even used by Robert C. Clarke in his book "Marijuana Botany". You can read one of these science articles where he uses the term landrace http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha02201.html So we have a number of scientific historical records with citation for using landrace and cannabis. Here is another. http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha03109.html . You could maybe WP:CITE for landrace strains and create a new section called cannabis landrace in the cannabis strains article.
 * Changed interbreeding section to read "All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, and produce fertile offspring," to satisfy speciation criteria. As noted already in article by citation, speciation is debatable, and so the debated points have been listed. It doesn’t say that this is the defining characteristic criteria for speciation, as you assert. It is a vital point that the interbreeding of all strains of cannabis produces fertile offspring. There is no reason to remove it.
 * The #2 reference was probably vandalism and has been reverted.
 * Your ideas as to what constitutes a species or a subspecies for Cannabis is unfortunately violating WP:NOR unless you WP:CITE. WP:CITE have been given and it has already been identified that the topic of cannabis speciation is controversial.
 * If you read the cited sources they talk about the controversial issues. They don't just list everything off like it is gospel truth as some other publications do. They talk about the controversy and cite sources.
 * Could you give an example of a plant sexuality section.


 * Thank you for your comments. I added a reproduction section that will no doubt require a lot of edits. I have addressed your other comments below.
 * The debate over scientific classification is a very important aspect of Cannabis, and I am not proposing that description of the various systems and of the debate be removed. If anything the description of the debate should be expanded and clarified.   What I am proposing is that (a) the cannabis-related articles on wikipedia use a consistent classification (b) the classification system used should accurately represent the current scientific consensus, and (c) it be emphasized in the article that regardless of the scientific concensus, the US and other countries recognize the Linnaean classification in law (see http://www.unodc.org/unodc/bulletin/bulletin_1975-01-01_3_page002.html).
 * Google test (search term, # results): "Cannabis sativa L"  174,000 ; "Cannabis sativa" 752,000 ; ""Cannabis indica Lam" 1,250; "Cannabis indica" 148,000.  Clearly popular usage supports the single-species classification.  However this is not really a question of popular usage but of scientific classification.  So the PubMed test (search term, # results): "Cannabis sativa L"  165; "Cannabis sativa" 430; "Cannabis indica Lam" 0; "Cannabis indica" 26.    Additionally, a PubMed search in the category Cannabis Genetics shows that nearly all recently published papers use the Linnaean classification, and no recently published papers use alternative classifications.   Finally the PubMed taxonomy database lists Cannabis sativa L, but has no listing for Cannabis indica.  Nor do any of the linkouts.  See also: http://www.plantnames.unimelb.edu.au/Sorting/Cannabis.html  Based on these resources it is very clear that the current scientific consensus suppors the Linnaean classification.  Therefore, giving priority to any of the non-Linnaean classifications is minority POV.  This article and other articles in the category should be modified to reflect the scientific consensus.
 * Using the section title Species is also a minority POV. The section is (rightfully) mostly about the debate over scientific classification, and should be renamed to reflect this.  Either Taxonomy or Scientific Classification would be appropriate section titles.
 * "This practice seems to be the result of political pressures to maintain" is unsourced and POV.
 * As previously noted, the article at landrace is both uncited and incorrect. It makes the same mistake as this article. The material cited above (links to Journal of the International Hemp Association) does make reference to landraces, but does not support the statement made in this article that Sativa, Indica, and Ruderalis are landraces. Unless a credible reference can be found that specifically states that indica, sativa, and ruderalis types are considered landraces, this statement should be removed.  It is extremly unconventional.  I have also modified the article at landrace to remove the apparently original research there until a suitable reference can be provided.
 * Even if it were generally accepted that Indica and Sativa are species, it is not OR that a hybrid between two species is itself not a species. Certainly the hybrid of two subspecies is not itself a species, nor would an hybrid of two subspecies itself be considered a subspecies.  Hybrids are hybrids.  The cited source for this assertion is either incorrect, or (perhaps more likely given the some of the other material in the article) has been misquoted.  The statement in the article "It is traditionally (albeit contentiously) divided into at least five subspecies" is contradictory to the remaining discussion of proposed classifications, in which none of the proposed classification systems described makes any mention of (e.g.) "Mostly Indica" as a proposed species or subspecies designation.  Thus the claim is either OR or minority POV and, if the latter, should be described as such.  "It is popular among non-scientists to describe 5 major types of Cannabis, often (incorrectly) called species or subspecies. "
 * Breeding compatibility is a necessary but not sufficient condition for classification in the same species. Rather than "satisfies the criteria" (implying all), this breedig compatility satisfies one single criterion.  If it was that simple there would be no debate over classification.
 * Chondrite 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no counterargument and because the scientific consensus seems to be strongly supportiive of Cannabis as a genus comprising a single species, I propose that all of the articles on purported species (C. sativa, C. indica, C. ruderalis, and C. rasta) be merged into the genus article. Chondrite 07:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The counterarguement was given in the first one. What you are proposing is that google hits for keywords and some political usage equates to a majority condition by which scientist validate one POV and not the other. The jury has been out on this one for some time. All the ramifications for the different classifications have been made in the article and cited with WP:CITE style. What you are ultimate fronting is one POV over another POV. The article should not be biased and it currently is not.
 * Your own move to create a whole new section on reproduction should be edited somewhat because the article is about cannabis and not plant reproduction. I will leave you to come up with a model for that and then I will check WP:CITE. (Simonapro 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC))


 * "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Wikipedia currently presents Cannabis as a genus comprising several species. The peer-reviewed scientific literature (as represented in the MEDLINE database) overwhelmingly follows a single-species classification.  Therefore the current structure of the wikipedia articles is inherently biased, in giving undue weight to the multi-species POV, and according to wikipedia policy should be changed to represent the prevailing scientific consensus, with description of the proposed alternatives.


 * A compelling counterargument to the above point will clearly demonstrate that the majority of experts in the field now support a multi-species classification.


 * The reproduction section is specifically about reproduction in Cannabis (genus), which is likewise a complex subject that has been controversial for a century. This subject may also be closely related to the debate over classification.  The section would certainly benefit from expansion and copy editing.
 * Chondrite 06:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give us an example of a plant article that has complex reproduction information within the main article? I think it is overkill for the main article. (Simonapro 05:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Since no example was found a new article for Cannabis Reproduction was created at . (Simonapro 06:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

Proposed merger
Hemp and marijuana are SAME PLANT. Marijuana is simply the Spanish word, hemp is the English American word.


 * From Cannabis:


 * This is one of several related articles about cannabis. This article deals with the biology of the genus Cannabis. Cannabis (drug) is about marijuana, hashish and related drugs. Hemp is about cultivation for non-drug uses, and the non-drug uses themselves. See also Hemp (disambiguation).


 * From Hemp:


 * This is one of several related articles about cannabis. Cannabis deals with the biology of the genus Cannabis. Cannabis (drug) is about marijuana, hashish and related drugs. Hemp is about cultivation and non-drug uses. See also Hemp (disambiguation).


 * Perhaps what you object to are the names? The amount of content precludes a merge in my opinion. The seperation seems to be working well. The topic is just too large for one article. HighInBC 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Topic much too large for one article (or attracting too much of both opinionated interest and specialist knowledge), and the current arrangement seems to be working fairly well. Laurel Bush 14:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

I do see an issue as to where "Marijuana" should point to. I am inclined to think it should to "Cannabis", despite the fact this is likely to attract edits from people thinking the article should cover, in minute detail, all cannabis-related topics. Laurel Bush 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

Hemp and marijuana are not the same plant and there's no need to yell. Marijuana's not even a plant. Marijuana is a preparation made from the dried/cured flowers and leaves of high-THC varieties of Cannabis. Hemp, on the other hand, refers to low-THC varieties of Cannabis. In my opinion there is a distinct need to keep the articles about drug-type varieties of Cannabis and the fibre and oilseed varieties of Cannabis separate. By the way, who's calling for this merger? Cannabis 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * User:SmokeyTheFatCat did. HighInBC 02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cannabis and HighInBC, at least concerning the proposed merge. Neither topic is small enough to warrant mutual inclusion. Regarding issues of botany and semantics: it should be noted that broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and kohlrabi are all the same plant. These have all been bred for their various distinctive qualities, just like dogs and cattle. To respond to the argument "Marijuana's...a preparation": I suppose... Do we ever speak of a "gazpacho plant" to signify Solanum lycopersicum? (It's a tomato, dear people.) --Mashford 13:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm chuckling. Nice. And I believe cannabis strains now used as hemp are deliberately bred (since circa 1930) to be low-THC, irrespective of possible adverse impact on suitability as sources of non-drug material (eg, fibre, food and fuel). Laurel Bush 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC).


 * It seems consensus is clear, I am going to remove the tags. If you disagree, just revert my removal of the tags. HighInBC 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hemp is a man made artificial strain of cannabis. Hemp and Marijuana are different things. (Simonapro 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

Hemp and marijuana are indeed different things. Although the same genus, and perhaps the same species, they have different history, cultivation, and use, and there is sufficient information about the particulars of each to support two articles. The article at Cannabis should identify the difference but not give priority to either. The article at Hemp should be renamed Cannabis (hemp), with a redirect from Hemp. Chondrite 07:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed verification
The following statement appears in the article, with two references: "It is traditionally (albeit contentiously) divided into at least five subspecies, indica/sativa, pure indica, pure sativa, mostly sativa and mostly indica, each found as a cultivar and a wild variety."

One of the cited references, Small and Cronquist (1976), does not support the statement.

The other cited source is Green (2005). Please provide the direct quote from Green that supports the above statement. Chondrite 07:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference to Small and Cronquist (Small, E., and A. Cronquist. 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25: 405–435) from this statement, and added verify tag until Green can be verified. Chondrite 21:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Green is used to support that statement.
 * Please don't remove references that are used as cites. The Small reference is exactly what you need actually. (Simonapro 05:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Small and Cronquist (1976) is a good reference and should be included in the article. However, by my reading, it does not support the statement quoted above. It remains to be seen whether Green does. Please do not remove verification tags until the sources are actually verified. Providing direct quotes from the source material that support the disputed claims is the best way to do this. Chondrite 06:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. (Simonapro 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

More Failed Verification
Article states:


 * "However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace "land-race" [2] known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, breeders and seed breeders, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types [3]."

References provided:
 * [2] The art of selection and breeding fine quality cannabis by DJ Short, Cannabis Culture Magazine, CC41 http://cannabisculture.com/articles/2788.html, 07 Mar, 2003 http://cannabisculture.com/articles/2788.html


 * [3] http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info6.shtml

The references do not support the statements. The first reference condradicts the statement that it is provided to support by identifying specific landraces that are varities of Sativa and Indica. The second reference says nothing at all about landraces.

Sources failing verification removed from article. Claims are currently unsourced. Fact tags have been added and should not be removed until credible and verifiable sources have been provided in support of these claims. Chondrite 10:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The cite reads: ''In the past, this chore was made easier by the fact that most of the commercially available herb was seeded and imported from outdoor plantations, usually near-equatorial in origin. These "land-race" Sativa varieties were the building blocks of the burgeoning domestic productions of the times. and The "goal" at the center of most of my breeding targets would be to replicate, as near as possible, the experiences produced by the great land-race varieties of old: Highland Oaxacan or Thai, Santa Marta or Acapulco Gold, Guerrero Green, Panama Red or Hawaiian Sativa… or the hash from regions such as Lebanon, Afghanistan or Nepal.'' Since the breeder is talking about Sativa as a land-race and naming land-race then we must include the Afghanistan Indica strains and land-race. Ok, granted Ruderalis is excluded, but covered in all of the citations that talk about the species problem. Your edits are highly controversial when there is WP:CITE to refute your claim. (Simonapro 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)).

DJ Short describes several landrace varieties of Sativa. This not only does not support the claim of the article that Sativa is a landrace, it directly contradicts it. The citations given do not support the claims made in the article. I am going to remove the cites. References that have failed verification but are otherwise useful can be moved to the further reading section.

After several attempts to source the statement, it should be becoming clear that the only source that describes Sativa as a landrace is this article on Wikipedia (and mirrored copies). Including this very nonstandard usage is detrimental to the article and to the credibility of Wikipedia on the subject. If the article was changed to say that many landrace varities or forms of C. sativa subsp. sativa are known to exist, that would not be controversial. That would be best in the context of a distribution section. Chondrite 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If Short is calling any strain of Sativa a landrace then he has identified a landrace Sativa. There is absolutely no mandate in the biological sciences to exclude a strain of Sativa as landrace because it is just a variety of Sativa. Cite your sources because at the moment that is your POV and violates WP:NOR. WP:CITE style has been used. Refute it with cite or leave it alone.(Simonapro 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

The article does not state that landraces of sativa exist. That landraces of sativa exist is supported by the reference provided and was never in dispute. The artcle states that sativa, indica, and ruderalis are landraces, and that landraces are species or subspecies. This is incorrect usage, is not supported by the reference, and is disputed. As noted previously the current statement could be rephrase to be factually accurate and supportable and used in the article, preferably in a section on geographic distribution. Chondrite 07:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Article states:


 * "However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace "land-race" [2] known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, breeders and seed breeders, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types [3]."

References provided:
 * [2] The art of selection and breeding fine quality cannabis by DJ Short, Cannabis Culture Magazine, CC41 http://cannabisculture.com/articles/2788.html, 07 Mar, 2003 http://cannabisculture.com/articles/2788.html.

Additional references in discussion,
 * [3]Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Cultivation in the Tai'an, District of Shandong Province,

Peoples Republic of China Robert C. Clarkehttp://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha02201.html (I will include this if it is not there because it is good).


 * Does the DJ Short article and the Clarke article call any strain of cannabis a land-race? Yes, both do.


 * Clarke calls Hemp ‘Cannabis Sativa L.’ is his title. In the paper he calls this species landrace many times. For example, ‘’In the Tai'an district, the landrace variety is referred to as either "Lai Wu" or "Fei Cheng" hemp, named after the famous eastern Lai Wu and central Fei Cheng hemp producing counties of the Tai'an District. Little if any intentional human selection has occurred and the evolution of the !!!!landrace!!!! has been directed almost entirely by unconscious selection by farmers and by natural factors.  No special selection for crop improvement is exercised by farmers.’’


 * Breeder Short says ‘’ the great !!!!land-race!!!! varieties of old: Highland Oaxacan or Thai, Santa Marta or Acapulco Gold, Guerrero Green, Panama Red or Hawaiian Sativa… or the hash from regions such as Lebanon, Afghanistan or Nepal.’’

Landrace is even used by wikipedia in two places relevant to this discussion.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landrace
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cannabis_strains

I didn’t edit the cannabis strains article. So landrace is being used by wikipedia users in relation to cannabis. It is a valid term and nothing is wrong with the way it is used in the article. (Simonapro 10:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Clarke, R.C. 1995 has previously been discussed. It does discuss landraces of C. sativa but does not support the way the term as used in the article, for the same reason that Short does not.  In fact both sources quite clearly contradict the statement in the article, as previously explained. Chondrite 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a POV. Since both articles and the new one added are consistant in using the term landrace in reference is Sativa, Indica or Ruderalis species is scientific consistant in every single citation used in reference to this. If you don't like the way they use it then you will have to provide sources to the contrary and you have not.
 * You are refuted again by ''Allozyme analysis revealed that the hemp accessions in the germplasm collection under study derive from both the C. sativa and C. indica gene pools (Hillig, 2004 ). Hemp !!!landraces!!! from Europe, Asia Minor, and central Asia are assigned to the hemp biotype of C. sativa and hemp !!!landraces!!! from southern and eastern Asia are assigned to the hemp biotype of C. indica. Accessions of wild or naturalized populations from eastern Europe and the northwest Himalayas are assigned to the feral biotypes of C. sativa and C. indica, respectively. Ruderal accessions from central Asia are tentatively assigned to C. ruderalis, although few morphological differences were found between these accessions and those assigned to the feral biotype of C. sativa (Hillig, in press ). Plants of accessions cultivated for drug production were characterized as having either narrow lanceolate or linear-lanceolate leaflets or wide oblanceolate leaflets. Both biotypes derive from the C. indica gene pool and are morphologically distinct (Anderson, 1980 ; Hillig, 2004, in press).’ Karl W. Hillig2 and Paul G. Mahlberg ‘A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)’ http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/6/966 (Simonapro 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC))


 * This interpretation makes the same mistake as previous interpretations of other sources. The existance of some sativa or indica landraces does not mean that sativa and indica are landraces.  Nor does it mean that landraces are considered by anyone to be species or subspecies.


 * Most of the sources also describe non-landrace (e.g., feral, escaped, or wild types) that are also assigned to the species or subspecies. There exist landrace types that are assigned to the species.  There exist non-landrace types that are assigned to the same species.  Therefore the landrace is not a species, and the species is not a landrace.


 * Many more than three landraces have been described in the sources cited. None of those landraces are named sativa, indica, or ruderalis.


 * A landrace is a cultivar. C. ruderalis is by definition not a cultivar and therefore also not a landrace.


 * -- Chondrite 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * landrace says that Landrace refers to a race of animals or plants ideally suited for the land (environment) in which they live and, in some cases, work; they often develop naturally with minimal assistance or guidance from humans (or from humans using traditional rather than modern breeding methods), hence are usually older, less modern races. That last line is why those three type of cannabis are named landrace.


 * Article states:
 * "However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace "land-race" [2] known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, breeders and seed breeders, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types [3]."
 * The statement is used to imply that we find Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis developing naturally with minimal assistance or guidance from humans. This means that Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis are not the result of direct human breeding programs which some modern strains of cannabis are, such as Warmke's non-drug Hemp. Some new hybrids are also not found as landrace. If you want to get up to speed on all of this read: Genetic evidence for speciation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)by Author: Hillig, Karl1, Source: Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, Volume 52, Number 2, March 2005, pp. 161-180(20). [] which also happens to be reference #11. 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.


 * "The sativa gene pool includes fiber/seed landraces from Europe, Asia Minor, and Central Asia, and ruderal populations from Eastern Europe."
 * S   = { lrE, lrAM, lrCA, rEE }
 * Slr = { lrE, lrAM, lrCA }
 * Snlr = { rEE }
 * (S = Slr) = false
 * "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."
 * I   = { lrEA, nldSA, nldA, nldLA, wldAFG, wldP, fI, fP }
 * Ilr = { lrEA }
 * Inlr = ( nldSA, nldA, nldLA, wldA, nldP, fI, fP }
 * ( I = Ilr ) = false
 * "A third putative gene pool includes ruderal populations from Central Asia."
 * R   = ( fCA }
 * Rlr = { }
 * Rnlr = { fCA }
 * (R = Rlr) = false
 * A landrace is a cultivar. Please carefully review ruderal, feral, species, variety (biology), cultivar, Taxonomy, and conflation
 * -- Chondrite 07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Chondrite 07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but the evidence for speciation in cannabis is right there in the Hillig paper, which can not be refuted by anything because the single-species papers are supporting a 20 year old arguement at the newest. Hillig's DNA markers refute the idea that cannabis has not speciated. The quote is in bold is plain to understand. There is no further room for debate in what is now firmly an area of genotypic research. (Simonapro 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

Additional Verification Needed
The article currently makes the following two statements: "However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types."

Since fact tags were removed, it seems that these statements are based on one of the two references given at the end of the paragraph. Because this is very unconventional and dubious use of the term "landrace," this interpretation requires verification. Chondrite 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion clutter free by not repeating a section for discussion. Thanks. See WP:CIV. (Simonapro 05:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Source verification is a different subject than Taxonomy, and therefore warrants separate talk page sections. Requesting source verification is not incivil. Please do not remove source verification tags from the article until the sources have been verified. Chondrite 06:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIV. I think given the degree of help you have received so far that you are being uncivil by making additions and changes that have not reached a consensus here given that there is dialogue. So far you have suggestion very wide spread alterations to follow a POV without an alternative and have added a whole new section that is ½ the size of the article. You are now even using large section headings to abuse the discussion forum. Please remain civil. Note that I do not mind that kind of change or work load but you are clearly deleting citations in the article that indicate what you want to know. You have been given sources above for the use of the term Landrace with Cannabis in technical papers. You can not refute its use nor can you refute the use of Indica, Sativa and Ruderalis as separate species in technical papers and cites. I have left it to your own good taste to understand that the new section you added is probably unwarranted in the history of Wikipedia plant articles and to try a different approach. You are asking for facts that are in the Small paper you keep deleting. You obviously don’t have Green’s work either. Please leave the article alone unless you can remain civil and read the citations before asking for them. You have been given the citations and it is up to you to ask questions about them here. You can’t argue that you have not been given the cites if you have not read them. (Simonapro 07:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

WP:Verifiability is a core policy of wikipedia. Source verification tags do not request citations, they request that the given sources be reviewed to ensure that wikipedia is presenting an accurate interpretation of those citations. My own review of Small and Cronquist (1976) fails to verify the interpretation presented in the article that are purported to be based on that source. Several other claims in the article have been tagged for source verification, based on very unconventional use of the terms species, subspecies, and landrace. If the sources are verified then the tags will be removed. If the sources are not verified then the claims in the article will be reworded or removed. Providing verifiable quotes from the source material that support the claims in dispute is the simplest way to resolve the dispute. Removing the source verification tags is POV and/or vandalism. Chondrite 07:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIV. WP:CITE has been given. Removal of the fact tag(s) is not vandalism when WP:CITE has been given. You will have to show that the WP:CITE has not been given. You have removed citations and that is uncivil. Even if you don't think the cite is good you can work on finding citations that help the citations you already have. You are removing an important citation about the controversy and fronting only the L species type and disregarding every single other article that is contrary to your own POV that violate WP:NOR to suggest that there is a varifiable cite that says something like "Cannabis Indica is not a species" without introducing the controversy on this issue. There are even articles dedicated to Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa. Your own sexual reproduction section would probably warrent controvery on plant reproduction let alone here. Any POV which censors the species controversy or tries to front only a DEA perspective should be removed.(Simonapro 09:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

This section is still not answered by Chondrite because it refutes his entire arguement.(Simonapro 07:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Still not answered even though Chondrite is putting up dispute tags on the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis&oldid=78830749


 * I have not responded because no new arguments are made, no new information is presented, and everything has been addressed at great length elsewhere in this talk page. I have nothing new to add.  If new data, new arguments, or new requests for information/clarification are made, then I will comment appropriately. Chondrite 18:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you can't refute any of the statement made here or any of the questions put to you here then obviously you can't, won't or don't know. (Simonapro 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

removed unsourced POV
Removed the following: "This practice seems to be the result of political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries which do not recognize the differences cited in the above mentioned works of Schultes and Anderson, Hilling, and the mitochondrial study published in 2005."

Can be reinserted as "X maintains that..." (or similar) with a suitable source to avoid OR POV. Chondrite 07:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Use your own standards. Add a fact tag. Do not remove content with discussion or you will start revert wars. Cite cources. See WP:CIV. (Simonapro 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Request for cite was made in this talk page on 7 September 2006. As three weeks have passed without the requested cite being provided, the unsourced POV statement is now removed from the article to the talk page pending a source and suitable NPOV rephrasing. Chondrite 09:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually if it is cited in the Schultes paper or any of the others then the cite was good and should not have been edited. Here is another great citation for it: Small, Ernest - American law and the species problem in Cannabis: Science and semantics 1975 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/bulletin/bulletin_1975-01-01_3_page002.html It should go back in nicely. (Simonapro 19:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

How do Schultes (1980) and Small (1975) both manage to comment on mitochondrial DNA studies that weren't conducted until 2005? The statement is blatant POV and unsourced. It needs to stay out of the article until it can be sourced and reworded. Chondrite 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I will reword it then to reflect content on both papers unless the original contribitor can add cites to it. (Simonapro 07:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

This statement has found it's way back into the article in slightly modified form: "This practice seems to be the result of political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries." citing Small (1975).

Although this argument has been made, it was not made by Small, who actually says
 * "In the United States, in federal and most state legislation governing cannabis drugs, specific reference is made to " C. sativa L." as the source plant. In recent court cases defendants have argued that their material was obtained from non-proscribed species of Cannabis, C. indica Lam. or C. ruderalis Janisch."
 * "In no case known to the writer where the state was adequately informed on the botanical aspects of the issue has the ploy resulted in circumvention of cannabis legislation. However in a few instances where the state was not adequately prepared, cases have been dismissed on the basis of the issue. At present in both the United States and Canada, an explosion is occurring in the number of cases involving the question (appendix I)."
 * "The purpose of this paper is to provide in abbreviated form the essential information necessary to a satisfactory understanding of the problem, and to present the basic considerations which serve to invalidate the contention that present legislation governing cannabis drugs is seriously defective in terminology."
 * "As has been stressed throughout this paper, all of these groups are best treated as constituent elements of Cannabis sativa L."

The reference given does not support the statement. Assuming it can be properly sourced, the statement must be rephrased in a more neutral way to avoid POV ("It has been argued that..."), and should be balanced by describing the opposing argument(s) (for which Small may be one good reference).

This debate should definitely be mentioned in the taxonomy section of this article, and described in more detail at Legal issues of cannabis. Chondrite 11:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article reads This practice seems to be the result of political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries.[14]. I have changed it to read There may be political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries.[14] because editing had taken it out of context. In Small states that In recent court cases defendants have argued that their material was obtained from non-proscribed species of Cannabis, C. indica Lam. or C. ruderalis Janisch. The eminent plant taxonomist A. Cronquist of the New York Botanical Garden and I have testified for the state on numerous occasions recently. In no case known to the writer where the state was adequately informed on the botanical aspects of the issue has the ploy resulted in circumvention of cannabis legislation. However in a few instances where the state was not adequately prepared, cases have been dismissed on the basis of the issue. At present in both the United States and Canada, an explosion is occurring in the number of cases involving the question (appendix I). and The well-known student of hallucinogenic plants, R. E. Schultes of Harvard University, has testified for the defence in dozens of court cases since 1972, following a notable reversal of opinion regarding the taxonomy of Cannabis. 'Schultes and a number of colleagues have recently published their viewpoint (1974), that Cannabis comprises three species', essentially as found in some of the literature. Schultes' claims have been supported in court and print by Emboden (1974) and additionally in court recently by a number of reputable botanists. Fullerton and Kurzman (1974) have recently presented an extensive evaluation of the merits of the cases of myself, and the supporters of the defence, and Fullerton has vigorously defended the position of the defence on this and other matters connected with narcotics trials, in the courtroom. Their extensive analysis of the botanical issue is unwarranted, since neither is a botanist, and so neither has the competence necessary to evaluate the issue. The presentations advanced to this point by taxonomists and others who have testified on behalf of the defence are, in my opinion, seriously deficient both in terms of providing adequate orientation to the nature of taxonomy, and in analysing Cannabis scientifically. The purpose of this paper is to provide in abbreviated form the essential information necessary to a satisfactory understanding of the problem, and to present the basic considerations which serve to invalidate the contention that present legislation governing cannabis drugs is seriously defective in terminology. Anyway I reworded the statement. (Simonapro 06:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC))


 * "There may be a problem" is Wikipedia offering an opinion, which Wikipedia can't do. Wikipedia could report that "X has argued that 'The single species argument is totally bullshit driven by a political agenda to persecute potheads'" if Wikiepdia is quoting a verifiable source and presents counterarguments to balance the coverage of the debate.  The current version of the statement remains POV and the source in no way supports the statement in the article.  Small is The Witness for the Prosecution and the cited source explicitly argues that attempts to defend against legal prosecution on the multi-species argument are a "ploy".  Schultes or Emboden would be much better places to look for a good quote and source for including this line of argument in the article.  As it stands, the statement is strongly POV, egregiously misrepresents the cited source, and does not reflect well on Wikipedia.  Chondrite 06:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, I didn not write that section of the article. Someone else did. I am trying to WP:CITE. The statement reads again, "There may be political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries.[14]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Evans_Schultes is cited in Schultes, R. E., et. al. 1974. Cannabis: an example of taxonomic neglect. Harvard University Botanical Museum Leaflets 23: 337–367. This is the paper that Small refers to when he says 'Schultes and a number of colleagues have recently published their viewpoint (1974), that Cannabis comprises three species' Right now we have the Small paper talking about this problem. Your statement Schultes or Emboden would be much better places to look for a good quote and source for including this line of argument in the article. should have been followed up with an example. But you didn't give any. Since this seems to be the only reason why you want a dispute tag on the article then you will have to propose what that line should read. (Simonapro 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

Proposed NPOV version
Add a subsection called Legal significance or something similar, with (see main article Legal issues of cannabis)

Cultivation, possession, and use of Cannabis as a drug is widely proscribed by law, which in some cases (US, Canada, othes?) specifically names Cannabis sativa L. Some prosecuted under these laws attempted legal defense based on the claim that the material was derived from Cannabis species other than C. sativa, and therefore not prohibited by law. Few of these cases were successful. (Small 1975). This focused public attention on questions of classification, and lead some to claim that political pressure has influenced the acceptance of a particular system of classification. This has been described as a ploy to evade prosecution and to undermine existing legislation. (Small 1975).

It is not brilliant prose but may be a starting point. Chondrite 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can verify with WP:CITE then include it. (Simonapro 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC))


 * The problem is in attributing and sourcing the argument, as indicated by the who and fact tags in the proposed revision. Chondrite 18:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can't verify whatever statement to be included in the article with WP:CITE then it doesn't meet wikipedia standards for verfication. (Simonapro 19:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Please note that the only part of the revised statement that is unattributed and unsourced is exactly the part that you have been working so hard to keep in the article. Chondrite 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Working so hard to keep? Using WP:CITE style is good work. Anyway wikipolicy remains the same. If you can't verify whatever statement to be included in the article with WP:CITE then it doesn't meet wikipedia standards for verfication. (Simonapro 05:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Anyone who bothers to read the statement and the source that is currently provided to support the statement will see that there is no resemblance whatsoever between the two. Blatant misrepresentation of sources to support otherwise unattributed and unsourced POV statements is a serious breach of multiple wikipedia policies, and has been repeatedly explained. Since you're the one who reinserted the statement in the article after it was removed, you're obviously one who wants to keep the statement in the article.  Therefore the burden is on you to comply with WP:V by providing a WP:RS (regardless of style used in citing that source) that actually supports the statement.  -- Chondrite 21:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The cited source does not support the statement. The statement remains unsourced POV, and I plan to remove it from the article. Chondrite 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)