From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016[edit]

Tamara Alshater (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

genus or not genus[edit]

@Sasata and Signedzzz: Please don't edit war, I'll start the discussion for you not. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the edit war is over if the genus is monospecific. There is a controversy regarding the different species and varieties of Cannabis but what do modern sources say? Many taxonomic listings of the genus show both classifications for C. inaliea and C. ruderalis. Perhaps some history could be added here...The genus cannabis used to belong to the Nettle (Urticaceae) or Mulberry (Moraceae) family, but it has now been included along with hops (Humulus sp.) to belong to the Hemp fa (Cannabaceae).
--Moxy (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a content dispute? As far as I can tell all botanists agree that Cannabis is a genus. I think we have a grammar dispute. To say that Cannabis is a flowering plant sounds grammatically strange to my ears. If there was a common count noun for Cannabis plants, something like "a canave, by any other name, would smell as sweet", it would work to start the article by writing "A canave is a flowering plant of the genus Cannabis". But we have no such name. Doing this with a mass noun doesn't work.  --Lambiam 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
We should try to use easier to understand English at least in the leads of our article. Thus saying it is a type of plant I believe is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Doc James is probably not right. For some reason I had some suspicion that you couldn't have a monospecific genus, hence the kerfuffle. Wiktionary:genus didn't help; User:Sasata finally set me straight. So there's no content dispute. There's enough material in the references listed above by Moxy for a comprehensive section which would bring the article up to date. The lead could be finalised after that. So I think User:KrakatoaKatie should unprotectzzz (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC) (Edited, now in favour of keeping "genus" per comment below by Lambiam) zzz (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
There you go. No more dumbness, guys, k? :-) Katietalk 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The argument would be stronger if this was/would be one of only a few articles that start off with "Soandso is a genus of plants...". But, in fact, our articles Aa (plant), Acanthospermum, Achlyphila, Achnatherum, Achudemia, Acidocroton, Acioa, Acmella, Acnistus, Acrotome, Acrymia, Acsmithia, Actinocephalus, Adenocalymna, Adenocline, Adenopappus, Afrobrunnichia, Afrocalathea, Aganosma, Agarista (plant), Agonandra, Agonis, Ajugoides, Albidella, Algrizea, Aliciella, Alona (plant), Alseodaphne, Alvesia, Amasonia, Amethystea, Amorpha, Amorphospermum, Ampelozizyphus, Amphineurion, Anacyclus, Ancistrachne, Anemanthele, Anisoptera (plant), Anredera, Anthephora, Anthoxanthum, Anthyllis, Antirrhinum, Apetahia, Aphelia (plant), Apluda, Apoballis, Apodanthera, Aralidium, Arctostaphylos, Aremonia, Argentina (plant), Argyrotegium, Argythamnia, Aristocapsa, Asarum, Aspidoglossum, Asplundia, Athroisma, Atractylis, Atraphaxis, Atrichoseris, Atuna, Aulotandra, Australopyrum, Austrobuxus, Austroeupatorium, Axonopus, Azima, ..., Zea (genus), Zeugandra, Zieria, Zilla (plant), Zinnia, Zinowiewia, Zizaniopsis, and Zotovia, all start that way (or with "... is a genus in the plant family ..."). Several of these genera are also monospecific. In fact, the different phrasing in the present article might lead the attentive reader onto the garden path of thinking that there are characteristics that make plants of possibly different genera be "cannabis", like some plants are sarmentoses ("A sarmentose is a type of plant which has long slender stolons"), and others are perennials, shrubs, and so on and so forth. So I'm happy the word "genus" has (at this moment) been restored, and I hope it will remain so.  --Lambiam 21:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Monotypic genus or several species?[edit]

Perhaps this is a continuation of the previous section but I believe the majority of modern botanical and taxonomic works classify sativa, indica, and ruderalis as subspecies synonyms of (or some intraspecific classification within) C. sativa.

Therefore, I have proposed moving the articles into subspecies articles (See their corresponding talk pages). I believe all of these articles should be updated to reflect this classification consensus. Although I didn't propose it just yet, Cannabis sativa could be moved to Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa. I think Cannabis should discuss both the genus and the species C. sativa as most works now state only one species, possibly with or without several subspecies, and certainly we need to retain language describing the many varieties/cultivars/strains/hybrids of types.--MCEllis (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, the subspecies articles could all be merged into one very long Cannabis sativa or Cannabis article, but what's the best way to handle it? Perhaps take a look at the way the corresponding French articles handled the update. Even they leave confusion and contradiction because of article titles. See fr:Cannabis indica for example.--MCEllis (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from the OUP Handbook: "... a characterization of groups within the genus/species in nontaxonomic terms seems most appropriate". As I understand it that would exclude the term subspecies, in favour of cultonomic classification. The ICNCP "provides two categories, 'Group' and 'cultivar' ... The implementation of a system according to the ICNCP would be useful" (capitalisation in original, emphasis added). zzz (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

One small point: rather than moving to Cannabis sativa sativa, botanical nomenclature requires specifying the rank, so Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Good eye, I meant Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa rather than Cannabis sativa sativa. Corrected above and on cooresponding talk pages.--MCEllis (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually it needs to be styled as Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa; the connecting form is not italicized. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Correct. It was just was faster to italicize it all. Fixed in my comments--MCEllis (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
My substantive point is that I don't see the evidence for any subtaxa. The Plant List, following the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (in review), treats all the subspecies names as synonyms for the species. Tropicos appears to present evidence for a similar view, e.g. if you look at accepted names for Cannabis indica you see three usually reliable sources saying it's a synonym for C. sativa. Where is the reliable evidence that there are any subtaxa of C. sativa? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: My sense is that because these plants are so cultivated/hybridized/domesticated, this single taxon approach may be the best approach botanically, and agrees with interpretation within the Handbook of Cannabis, which was actually a very nice read (above) discussing the current status of subtaxa/varieties. So the question is, what is the best path forward for the Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis articles? I think they still can be considered general types/varieties of Cannabis, but perhaps not as subspecies. If it is indeed a Monotypic genus, what should be done with the Cannabis sativa article? If humans had not meddled so heavily with the genetics of these plants, I feel definitive/regional subspecies would still exist, but we have essentially demolished the distinctions between these subtypes through genetic pollution/mixing.--MCEllis (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
As regards botanical species, sources suggest to me that the Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis articles should be merged into Cannabis sativa. Whether there is sufficient consensus to create articles at ICNCP names (cultivars, Groups) I really don't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: If Cannabis is indeed a Monotypic genus, is it actually appropriate to even have a Cannabis sativa article? I was under the impression Monotypic genera are described at the genus level on Wikipedia, with no species article. What's the best policy in this case?--MCEllis (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The initial rationale for describing monospecific genera at the genus was that the genus is usually better known than the species; there's then the secondary issue of consistency. But plants that are well-known for their use rather than their botany can be an exception. Personally, I don't mind either way, but we need some more input before making any decision. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
From what I've seen, the discussion on monotypic genera had a large contingent of paleontology editors (who had already decided not to create articles below genus rank in most cases), so there's that. If we treat Cannabis as monotypic, I'd argue for turning Cannabis into a disambiguation page (with a link to a redirect from Cannabis (genus) to Cannabis sativa). Cannabis attracts a lot of links that should be going to Cannabis (drug). Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, covering a monotypic genus concept at C. sativa is a bad idea. People searching for C. indica will be very confused to just get a Wikipedia page for C. sativa. I still think it might be worth moving the genus off the base title to allow links to Cannabis to be disambiguated. I'm not convinced the genus is the primary topic. Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there's general agreement among botanists that in situations like this it "would be useful" to use ICNCP names. The problem is that ICNCP names simply haven't been published for many groups, including Cannabis (ornamental plants follow ICNCP more than vegetables). And where they have been published, they can be difficult to verify if there's no registration authority (there's no registrar for Cannabis) I'm not finding any evidence that drug strains are ever formatted as ICNCP cultivars (though I am turning up some hemp strains, e.g. 'ICAR 42-118'). That's understandable, as absent a way to publish ICNCP cultivar/Group names anonymously, formally naming Cannabis cultivars may expose the author to legal action. ICNCP isn't a viable way to resolve this at present.

From what I'm seeing, treating indica as a subspecies or variety is even less popular than the alternatives (treating it as a species or lumping into sativa with no infraspecific taxa recognized). I'm OK with the status quo. It's not great from a general taxonomist/botanist's perspective, but there's a lot of specialist literature that makes a distinction between Indica and Sativa, and I think readers are likely better served by separate articles on the topics. (hmm, wondering what time I'll get stamped for my signature bah, UTC. It was 4:20 in my time zone) Plantdrew (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Plantdrew:Where are you seeing that it would be unpopular to call indica or ruderalis varieties subspecies, (other than WCSP in review)?
I was just starting to think we could leave the articles separate as long as we clarify they are varietiesin the first sentence, basically following what the French did but not calling them subspecies I still believe these should be considered subspecies. --MCEllis (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: If stick with the status quo you will notice the opening line of Cannabis indica states "Cannabis indica, formally known as Cannabis sativa forma indica", this seems better than not indicating the monotypic genus, but can we at least update the Taxobox to reflect the species as being Cannabis sativa? This would leave the title as Cannabis indica but at least have a correct Taxobox.--MCEllis (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding unpopularity. I'm mostly going with a Google test, which certainly has flaws. Also Tropicos, which reports that the Jepson Manual, Flora of China and Flora of Pakistan don't recognize subspecies. I'm OK with the French solution; subsp. in taxobox, but treat as species in title. Title/taxobox mismatch is a little weird, but one could argue that "Cannabis indica" is the COMMONNAME (common name sensu Wikipedia; the term that most commonly appears in reliable sources) of the subspecies. Thysanura is another case where Wikipedia has a taxonomically deprecated scientific name masquerading as the COMMONNAME in the article title.Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Here are (some) databases that put indica at Cannabis sativa subsp. indica:
As far as WCSP and The Plant List, we only know what's in review from WCSP, an incomplete dataset. My feeling is we currently have more evidence to support this at the subspecies level than at any other. I really feel like these wikipedia articles are spreading much misinformation to the public and I really wish we could do something to address the public misconception that there are multiple Cannabis species.--MCEllis (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree about WCSP in review. I had actually looked at some of those above I regard as more reliable, such as USDA and GRIN. (Tropicos doesn't take stances, merely reviewing taxonomy, which is one reason why TPL's use of it is so, so faulty.) USDA links to its sources, such as here – too old to be reliable in a molecular age. The most convincing recent underlying database source I've found so far is the Ulmaceae and Cannabaceae of North America Update, database (version 2011), as reflected in ITIS, but it's limited in geographical scope. The table on p. 261 of Small's 2015 review offers the best overview I've found to date. The conclusion seems to be that (1) there's one species (2) the forms can be divided into subspecies or Groups (3) Small (2015) votes for Groups (it's a good read). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@MCEllis: This list of databases is a little misleading. They're not all independent. GBIF and uBio follow CoL. EoL incorporates multiple sources including NCBI and CoL (default view for Cannabis is CoL). USDA PLANTS is derived from BONAP, and Dave's Garden is derived from PLANTS. ITIS is also heavily based on PLANTS (though seems to have an independent source in this case).
@Peter coxhead: OK, so Small apparently gives us some ICNCP compliant Groups. But they're quite different from the traditional indica/sativa distinction, so I do think we'd need to see some evidence that Small's classification is being adopted by others. And Small seems to have gotten the terms used in the narcotic trade backwards. My understanding is that indica (sensu narcotics) is high THC and sativa has more CBD than indica. Small says sativa is high THC and indica is balanced THC/CBD. Oh, and Small's group 6 represents hybrids between groups 5 and 6. Should be 3 and 4 presumably rather than a recursion of 6. Plantdrew (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Everything I've read says that indica is higher CBD than sativa, buy a sizable margin. In both (excepting particular strains like Charlotte's Web) the amount of CBD is still dwarfed by the THC. This is one reason dispensaries use hybrids to get the higher THC of sativa but the more compact structure of indica, which makes indoor cultivation more manageable when using artificial lights. Dennis Brown - 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
According to what I've read the theory that indica correlates with THC (or CBD) level is false. zzz (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. I don't have WP:RS sources, but I work with dozens of dispensaries and commercial growers all over the US (I sell UV lights to boost THC content, own the company), however, and this is the conventional wisdom among them. Dennis Brown - 10:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

proposed merger[edit]

I propose that Cannabis_(drug) be merged into Cannabis. I think that the content in the Cannabis_(drug) article can easily be explained in the context of Cannabis, and the Cannabis article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Cannabis_(drug) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --Potguru (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Response: You claim it is technically possible to merge the articles but dont say why you want to do so. Can you please explain, otherwise the debate will need to be closed down quickly as snowballed and without any real justification. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 02:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not convinced. One article is about the plant. The other about the use of the plant. Both articles are already large. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose both articles to big and developed to merge and are about different topics. -- Moxy (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. However I agree our cannabis articles need restructuring. I think this article could be made into Recreational use of cannabis to match Entheogenic use of cannabis, Medical Cannabis, and Cannabis (industrial use). Cannabis can then focus on coverage of the genus and branch off to these other articles to examine different uses. Sizeofint (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose' Why would we want to merge two huge articles. Talking from the biology point of view the drug stuff would clog the article up. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be like merging cow and hamburger. As per the good Doctor above, one is about the biological being, the other is about a singular use of that thing. It is also why we have an article on hemp. This kind of merge would force to create articles too large to be useful.....forcing us to split them. Dennis Brown - 01:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I have removed the tag from the 2 articles, partly because this is snowballing and partly because the editor, Potguru, when challenged on his talk page as to why he was requesting the move, said it was to tests consensus. Well the consensus has been tested. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Time to end the proposed merge. --Potguru (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016[edit]

Minor edit. The taxonomy states that "Cannabis plants produce a unique family of terpeno-phenolic compounds called cannabinoids, which produce the "high" one experiences from consuming marijuana."

As only a few of the cannabinoids produce the "high", it should more accurately read "... some of which produce the high..."

See the next few sentences in the paragraph for confirmation of this fact.

Emet.kees (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Well spotted! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)