Talk:Cannabis sativa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Taken from Talk:cannabis to explain the existence of this article. Please see this and Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2 for the sources and discussions of this article. Squiquifox 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking Hemp could be merged with Cannabis sativa, perhaps with the title Cannabis sativa (hemp) or Hemp (Cannabis sativa). The merged article would avoid detailed discussion of legal issues, including instead references/links to Legal issues of cannabis. Also, it would include material on cultivation for drug/medicinal purposes, but would avoid detailed discussion of health/medicinal issues by using references/links to Medicinal marijuana, Cannabis: Health issues and Cannabis (drug). Laurel Bush 16:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Contents 1 Proposed split of cannabis article 2 Sativa/Indica/Ruderalis 3 Genus/species confusion 4 Delete article? Or make a redirect? 5 Common Uses 6 Proposed merge from subspecies articles 7 C. rasta 8 Merge 9 List of cannabis strains 10 Factual Errors

[edit] Proposed split of cannabis article

This article could be split 2 ways. One for the plant biologically, and the other for the affect of cannabis on human culture. Squiquifox 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, split into Cannabis sativa, Cannabis_(drug), and Cannabis_(law). Split Cannabis_(drug) into more subsections if needed. Cacycle 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will split it into Cannabis sativa and Cannabis_(drug), and make cannabis a disambiguation page with connections to both articles. Squiquifox 17:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The split has now taken place, and needs a little tidying up, whicjh I will do some of. Please do not undo the work I did. Squiquifox 17:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sativa/Indica/Ruderalis

This is one of the most in-depth discussions I have seen on the taxonomical differences between the 'species', though the subject isn't new to me. Anyone know if a 'cannabis indica' defense has ever been used in a legal case? Pure bred indica technically isnt cannabis sativa, thus not illegal.

As far as I know, it has been attempted but the US government does not recognize the variety "indica". For law enforcement purposes in the U.S. all Cannabis is regarded as sativa. Countries such as Hungary that grow (fiber) hemp recognize indica as a different (drug) variety, since certain versions of sativa are legal, whereas indica is forbidden.

I have a problem with the article, by the way. As far as I know, it is misleading to state that sativa thrives in hot and dry climates with indica thriving in cool and damp climates. It is common knowledge that indica varieties originated in present day Afghanistan, and that region is clearly hot and dry during the growing season. Sativa thrives in regions such as Thailand, Brazil, Jamaica, and Colombia, which are hot and wet. A more reasonable statement would be that indica tolerates cold and humidity better, and needs a shorter growing season to mature, with varieties thriving in the Pacific Northwest (USA and Canada). Evidence supporting this data can be found on various cultivation websites as well as in the books Marijuana Botany and Hashish! by Robert Connell Clarke.--OOGIE 22:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must challenge the above statement due to experience with this plant, both Sativa and Indica varieties, although not Ruderalis. Sativa is grown extensively in Australia, which is mostly arid and dry, with a low average rainfall (overall). With the exception of ruderalis, from experience, Sativa is quite apt at adapting to harsh conditions, such as poor soil and low rainfall. Indica requires more care and attention, in my experience. Indica will not 'thrive' in dry conditions with poor soil and little nutrients. It is also false to my knowledge that it 'needs' any length of season to mature. These species, excluding the auto-flowering Ruderalis, flower when the daylength becomes less than 12-13 hours per day of sunlight (During Autumn/Fall or Winter). Indicas will usually mature within 8 to 10 weeks after the first signs of flowering occur, whereas the Sativa takes around 12-14 weeks to mature, sometimes longer. When the daylight hours are longer than 13 hours, as in Spring and Summer, Sativa and Indica will remain in a 'vegetative' state, that is, the plants will not produce flowers, only leaves and branches/stems. During flowering, plant growth slows, particularly late in flowering, and especially with the Indica variety. Ruderalis is an exception to the other two species, in that daylegth does not determine whether or not the plant will flower (placing an Indica or Sativa in an area with less light per day will induce flowering). Ruderalis will flower around 8-10 weeks after germination, regardless of daylength. Ruderalis will flower under continuous light, whereas Indica and Sativa will not. Indica, in my experience, seems to be intolerant of humidity during flowering, since its thick, compact flowers retain moisture and can encourage botrytis and other fungi which are detrimental to the flowers and plant. Cannabis Sativa, however, has a much more sparse flower and can tolerate excess moisture, and thrives in equatorial conditions.

This is from memory, though, and I am open to debate. I only wish to represent truthful information.

[edit] Genus/species confusion

The opening paragraph discusses the genus where the article is about Cannabis sativa, a species. Surely this should be changed? --Oldak Quill 18:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this article seems to be about Cannabis (genus), not Cannabis sativa. Maybe I'll get bold and rename it next time I'm here. Somegeek 18:06, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

I've moved some of the obvious generic material to the genus page Cannabis; I suspect more should follow - MPF 10:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Steve say it is hippt shit too, don't ya mate (sat next to me now, stoned)

[edit] Delete article? Or make a redirect?

Is there anything now in the article which is not also in Cannabis or Cannabis (drug)? Should it be now a redirect to Cannabis? Laurel Bush 10:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC).

Cannabis is a plant genus. Cannabis sativa is a plant species. Cannabis (drug) is an article about the effects of drugs made from this plant. All three should be kept. bogdan | ^Talk 15:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea of sativa as a distinct species is very well covered in Cannabis. All species or varities have drug potential, if subject to appropriate cultivation regimes. Laurel Bush 16:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC).

I think it's a good idea to keep the specific species pages separate. If you think the treatment on the cannabis page is adequate, then that section should be removed from the article and combined with this one. this articcle also contains a good deal of botanical information that is neglected from the cannabis article.

I propose that we move information general to cannabis to the cannabis page, and keep information specific to sativa on this page. Cannabis can be a parent article to sativa and indica articles. a general treatment of the subspecies can be touched on in the parent article, and anyone seeking a more in depth treatment can find it here. Perhaps we should establish a cannabis project, or a drug project in general unless one exists?Shaggorama 09:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common Uses

I reworded the first paragraph in the Common Uses section. Previously it said the seeds were the source of the psychoactive compounds. Although trace amounts of cannibinoids are found in the seeds, leaves, and stems, they are most abundant in the flower portions (aka buds). thx1138 09:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge from subspecies articles

I added merge tags to Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and Cannabis rasta some time ago, proposing that the articles be merged to Cannabis. The reason for doing so is that the plants they describe are not widely accepted as separate species.

The biology is the same throughout the genus with only minor differences, so having multiple articles duplicates a lot of information, that can potentially get out of synch or even become mutually contradictory.

After thinking about it more I think the best solution would be to merge the (small) articles at Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and Cannabis rasta into the Cannabis sativa article. Then the question becomes how best to divide content between genus and the species level. Chondrite 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge tags have been on the affected articles since 20 September 2006 without any comment or objection, so I will go ahead and merge them within a day or two. Chondrite 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Article content merged without modification as subsection of new subspecies section of this article. Cleanup is needed. I will work on cleanup over the next several days, including cleanup at "What links here" for the redirects. Merged article talk pages have not been merged into this talk page (yet), and can be found at Talk:Cannabis indica, and Talk:Cannabis rasta. There was no page at Talk:Cannabis ruderalis. -- Chondrite 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C. rasta

The only report of C. rasta seems to be New Scientist Article on Discovery (From pg 12, issue 2517 of New Scientist magazine, 20/9/05). The Forensic Science International article alluded to by New Scientist appears never to have been published, nor have I been able to find any independent corroboration for this story. The article previously at C. rasta was little more than the New Scientist article expanded slightly with original research. The subsection has been removed for lack of a reliable source. Chondrite 07:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

This article should be merged into cannabis, SqueakBox 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that since the genus is currently viewed as monotypic, there is little information to include in a species-level article that does not also apply to the genus. However, WikiProject Plants seeks to have an article for every species of plant. Also, the article at Cannabis is undergoing expansion, including planned expansion of the Cannabis#Description and Cannabis#Taxonomy sections, major expansion of the Cannabis#Geographical distribution stub section, and addition of Ecology and Economic Importance sections. Readable prose at Cannabis is currently 22K, and the planned expansion is likely to require splits to keep within article size guidelines. Moving some information from the genus article to the species article seems like a logical arrangement. -- Chondrite 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I here about wanting articles for every species, SqueakBox 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Even if this is the only species of cannabis, we need an article at the species level. All organisms regardless on whether or not there is one species or not, has a species name and needs an article on the species level. Zachorious 10:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cannabis strains

Why was this article merged with Cannabis sativa? That should be a seperate article. The list of different strains aren't even here! Someone should fix this mess! Zachorious 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree this merge was not a great idea, the cannabis strains page was very useful. since it has been removed i added a link to the a cannabis strain guide that was originally a source for many strains on the old cannabis strains wikipedia page because many visitors are looking for information on various cannabis strains. this website is non-profit and advertisement free. Chq 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cannabis strains
• Cannabis HQ external link removed per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided criteria 2 and 7.
• Per the AfD consensus, a section can be created in Cannabis sativa for a list of notable strains. All entries must be notable and verifiable using reliable sources. -- Chondrite 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They really fucked up a great list. --AlexOvShaolin 00:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Errors

This presentation of the "scientific" classification of Cannabis appears to a hodge-podge of various taxonomic treatments and "common knowledge" among Cannabis aficionados. The fact is that C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis are all valid, legitimate species names. Whether one chooses to recognize them as separate species depends on ones species concept. It is not a matter of right or wrong, because there is no "one size fits all" definition of a species.

1) The family Cannabaceae should be assigned to the order Urticales, not Rosales. 2) The taxonomic treatment that is presented is based on a faulty interpretation of Small and Cronquist's taxonomic revision. According to their treatment, subsp. indica has two varieties, indica and kafiristanica. There is no mention of var. kafiristanica in this article. Also, according to their concept both the narrow-leaflet and wide-leaflet drug strains belong to subsp. indica. It was Loran Anderson who assigned the narrow-leafed [drug] strains to C. sativa and the wide-leafed [drug] strains to C. indica. Schultes described C. sativa as tall and laxly branched, and most people interpret that to include the narrow-leafed drug strains, but Schultes did not include leaflet shape in his species descriptions taxonomic key. By the way, Small didn't include any wide-leafed drug strains in his morphological or chemotaxonomic studies. He and Cronquist merely mentioned in passing that they would assign the wide-leafed plants from Afghanistan that Schultes insists is a different species to "a broader conception of the intoxicant taxon" (i.e., C. sativa subsp. indica var. indica). 3) If "drug cultivars" of C. sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa [are there any?] "usually produce relatively high ratios of CBD to THC," then they wouldn't be drug cultivars. In the scientific literature the cannabinoid ratio is sometimes given as CBD to THC, and sometimes as THC to CBD. In the wiki Cannabis article it is given as THC to CBD. I suggest changing the ratios to THC to CBD in this article too, because it is less confusing (a high ratio gets you "high") 4) Plants of var. spontanea usually have a high ratio of CBD to THC, not a low ratio. 5) The wide-leafed drug landraces tend to produce a higher ratio of CBD to THC, not a lower ratio. However, this is not true for many commercial "indica" strains, which are genetically fixed to produce a high THC/CBD ratio. 6) Cannabis "seeds" do not contain cannabinoids 7) This is not the place to introduce slang terms like "buds" 8) If males reached "sexual maturity" several weeks before females, there would be no cross-pollination. It is better to say that the "seeds" on female plants mature several weeks after the males shed their pollen and die. 9) A single flower is hermaphroditic if it has both male and female parts. A plant with separate male and female flowers on the same inflorescence, or on separate inflorescences, is not a "hermaphrodite." It is monoecious. 10) A citation is needed for the statement that "varieties containing below 2% THC, such as those specifically cultivated for use as hemp, smoking may produce lightheadedness or mild headache but not inebriation." Much of the cheap Mexican pot sold in the 60s and early 70s was leaf material that was probably less than 2% THC, but people still smoked it and got high after a couple joints. The number in that statement should be lowered, perhaps to 0.8 % which is the theoretical upper limit for plants genetically fixed to produce a low THC/CBD ratio. 11) Since this article is based on Small and Cronquists taxonomic treatment, that treatment should be cited. 12) It seems to me that the Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis links should point back to the Cannabis page, not the Cannabis sativa page. The Cannabis rasta link should be deleted entirely because it is not a legitimate taxon. GeorgeLTirebiter 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)