Talk:Cannabis/Archive 7

message: Cannabis (drug) is a good article that focuses on  aspects of Cannabis as a drug.  It currently has as it's first section Wild Cannabis, which covers an aspect of geographic distribution that is unrelated to the rest of the content in the Cannabis (drug) article and is better addressed in the article about the genus.  I proposed that the section be merged into Cannabis as part of a Geographical Distribution section (to be created).
-- Chondrite 19:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content certainly fits better here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, also support. Addhoc 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree completely, it has nothing to do with its use as a drug. ReverendG 21:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[Cannabis (drug)#Wild Cannabis]] 

message: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, and produce fertile offspring, which means that all known Cannabis plants satisfy one criterion for a single species type called Cannabis sativa L. or the secondary source reference that was used to make this statement. I see no reason why the reference has been removed but the statement left or then wrongly attributed to another source. There is nothing wrong with it and I think the person deleting it should consider that they argued for half a discussion board before finally noticing it. (Simonapro 07:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''All strains of Cannabis can interbreed,,,'' source 

message: The article currently cites 4 online taxonomy databases. It has been suggested that: (a) the classifications given for Cannabis by these sites are all based on one common source (USDA ARS), (b) that is the only source represented, and (c) the citations are redundant. 
The databases 
#GRIN is maintained by Agricultural Research Service of the USDA. 
#ITIS is an international collaboration involving: several agencies of the US government, the governments of Canada and Mexico, and several non-government agencies:  About ITIS.  The history of data in ITIS database is different from any of the other databases used as sources. 
#USDA Plants is maintained by National Resources Conservation Service of the USDA and is a collaboration of several agencies within the department.  
#MMPND is maintained by the University of Melbourne.  
ITIS and Plants are currently in agreement, and do cite the same expert.  However, they are distinct databases, are maintained by different groups, and could potentially diverge. Neither of these sites give ARS or GRIN as a source for Cannabis. 
GRIN and MMPND are quite clearly distinct databases, maintained by different groups. GRIN gives MMPND as a "see also" resource for some taxa, and MMPND cites GRIN as one among several sources.  GRIN and MMPND disagree with each other, and neither agrees with ITIS/Plants about the details of Cannabis classification.  
It therefore seems to be clearly the case that (a) three different classifications of Cannabis are provided by  (b) 4 distinct sources, and that (c) agreement that the genus comprises a single species is not at all redundant, but rather corroboration by multiple independent sources. 
Chondrite 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The databases are not in question. What is being pointed out is that USDA is using the primary source of Small and that ITIS, GRIN, MMPND are citing the secondary source of the USDA to form there own secondary sources. There is nothing wrong with this but GRIN also lists Hillig's model http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genus.pl?2034 and calls Cannabis indica Lam a Synonym for  Cannabis sativa L. subsp. indica (Lam.) E. Small & Cronquist. GRIN also calls the Genus: Cannabis L., citing Hillig and says American Journal of Botany 91:966–975. [supports two species in genus].  title, A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae) Karl W. Hillig and Paul G. Mahlberg (Simonapro 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GRIN does acknowledge Hillig et al., but does indicate that a polytypic classification is accepted.  See Synonym (botany). -- Chondrite 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously you can't read. Cannabis L., citing Hillig and says American Journal of Botany 91:966–975. [supports two species in genus]. Is there something else I should highlight about there being two species in genus, published by the AJB? (Simonapro 06:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarification, the genus page for Cannabis at GRIN identifies several publications by Hillig et al., and notes that one of those papers (Hlling and Mahlberg) supports two species in the genus.  That does not state or imply that GRIN accepts Cannabis as a polytypic genus, and in fact the page currently cited by the article explicitly accepts Cannabis as a monotypic genus.  Chondrite 08:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong. For clarification. GRIN cites both HILLIG AND the American Journal of Botany 91:966–975. [supports two species in genus].. GRIN does not say anything about monospecies or a single species cannabis. Cite your sources. It does cite support for a two species model. In some cases a taxonomy has several synonyms but where does it say single species? (Simonapro 08:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  GRIN very clearly accepts Cannabis as a monotypic genus.  Chondrite 09:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No citation, no source, POV. Since you refuse to respond to the fact that the AJB clearly implies two species, I can only guess that you just don't want to see any polyspecies models being used by leading scientific botanical bodies that refute your POV. (Simonapro 09:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is GRIN.  GRIN accepts a monotypic classification of Cannabis.  Chondrite 09:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where does GRIN state that Cannabis is monotypic? No quote = POV. (Simonapro 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  GRIN Species Records of Cannabis To make it perfectly clear, select the synonyms option, and press the Get new report buttion.  The new report will be accepted names only.  See also Abbreviations & symbols in GRIN Taxonomy.  -- Chondrite 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What you have there on those two links is exactly what I am saying which contradicts your assertion and quite plainly now, a POV, uncited, and the sources you have given show the different names for species of cannabis including subspecies and their synonyms. It presents BOTH the single species and the multi species models and does not side with any one of them. GRIN DOES NOT HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE SINGLE SPECIES VIEW. I fail to see why you haven't understood that? (Simonapro 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't understood that because it is complete nonsense and factually inaccurate. Chondrite 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online taxonomy databases