| Revision as of 13:53, 27 February 2007 view source193.63.133.97 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:57, 28 February 2007 view source Easy orgasms (talk | contribs)1 edit ←Replaced page with 'BEST SHIT EVER!!!!!!!!!!'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| BEST SHIT EVER!!!!!!!!!! | |||
| {{TOCleft}} | |||
| {{wiktionary}}{{Taxobox | |||
| | color = lightpink | |||
| | image = Cannabis sativa Koehler drawing.jpg | |||
| | image_width = 203px | |||
| | regnum = ]ae | |||
| | divisio = ] | |||
| | classis = ] | |||
| | ordo = ] | |||
| | familia = ] | |||
| | genus = '''''Cannabis''''' | |||
| | genus_authority = ] | |||
| | subdivision_ranks = Species | |||
| | subdivision = | |||
| ]<br /> | |||
| ]<br /> | |||
| ] | |||
| }} | |||
| :''This article is about the plant genus Cannabis. For use as a psychoactive drug, see ]. For use as a therapeutic drug, see ]. For non-drug cultivation and uses, see ].'' | |||
| '''Cannabis''' is a ] of ] that includes one or more species. The plant is believed to be indigenous to Central Asia, China, and the north-west ]. The common name for ''Cannabis'' is ], although this term is sometimes used to refer only to strains cultivated for "industrial" (non-drug) use. ''Cannabis'' plants produce a unique family of compounds called ], several of which produce mental and/or physiological effects when consumed. The crude ] usually comes in the form of dried flowers and leaves, ] (]), or various extracts.<ref name=”erowid”>Erowid. 2006. . Retrieved on 25 Feb 2007</ref> The cultivation or possession of ''Cannabis'' for drug purposes is outlawed in most countries. | |||
| == Species == | |||
| ] | |||
| Putative species: | |||
| * ''C. indica'' Lam. | |||
| * ''C. ruderalis'' Janisch. | |||
| == Description == | |||
| ''Cannabis'' is an ], ], ] ]. The ] are ], with ] ]s. The first pair of leaves usually have a single leaflet, the number gradually increasing up to a maximum of about thirteen leaflets per leaf (usually seven or nine), depending on variety and growing conditions. At the top of a flowering plant, this number again diminishes to a single leaflet per leaf. The lower leaf pairs usually occur in an opposite ] and the upper leaf pairs in an alternate arrangement on the main stem of a mature plant. | |||
| ''Cannabis'' usually has ] ] with ] "male" and ] "female" flowers occurring on separate plants,<ref name=”lebel1997”>Lebel-Hardenack, S. and S. R. Grant. 1997. Genetics of sex determination in flowering plants. ''Trends in Plant Science'' '''2'''(4): 130–136.</ref> although ] flowers sometimes occur.<ref name="moliterni2005">Cristiana Moliterni, V. M., Luigi Cattivelli, P. Ranalli. and Giuseppe Mandolino. 2005. . ''Euphytica'' '''140'''(1-2): 95-106. Retrieved on 25 Feb 2007</ref> Male flowers are borne on loose ]s, and female flowers are borne on ]s.<ref name="bouquet1950"> Bouquet, R. J. 1950. . United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> It is not unusual for individual plants to bear both male and female flowers in some strains, a condition called monoecy.<ref name="mignoni1999">Mignoni, G. 1999. . United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved on 5 Oct 2006</ref> On ] plants, flowers of both sexes may occur on separate ]s, or on the same inflorescence.<ref name="moliterni2005"/> | |||
| ], ], and and other volatile compounds are secreted by glandular ] that occur most abundantly on the floral ]es and ]s of female plants.<ref name="mahlberg2001a">Mahlberg, Paul G. and Eun Soo Kim. 2001. . ''The Hemp Report'' '''3'''(17). Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> | |||
| All known strains of ''Cannabis'' are ]<ref name="clarke1991a">Clarke, Robert Connell. 1991. ''Marijuana Botany'', 2nd ed. Ronin Publishing, California. ISBN 0-914171-78-X</ref> and produce "]s" that are technically called ]s.<ref name="small1975c">Small, E. 1975. Morphological variation of achenes of ''Cannabis''. ''Canadian Journal of Botany'' '''53'''(10): 978-987.</ref> Most strains of ''Cannabis'' are ]s <ref name=clarke1991a/>, with the possible exception of ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''sativa'' var. ''spontanea'' (= ''C. ruderalis''), which is commonly described as "auto-flowering" and may be ]. | |||
| ''Cannabis'' is naturally ], having a ] complement of 2n=20, although polyploid individuals have been artificially produced.<ref name=”small1972a”>Small, E. 1972. Interfertility and chromosomal uniformity in ''Cannabis''. ''Canadian Journal of Botany'' '''50'''(9): 1947-1949.</ref> | |||
| == Taxonomy == | |||
| The genus ''Cannabis'' was formerly placed in the ] (]) or ] (]) family, but is now considered along with ] (''Humulus'' sp.) to belong to the ] family (]). | |||
| Various types of ''Cannabis'' have been described, and classified as ], ], or ]:<ref name="small1975b">Small, Ernest. 1975. . ''Bulletin on Narcotics'' '''27'''(3): 1-20. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> | |||
| *plants cultivated for fiber and seed production, described as low-intoxicant, non-drug, or fiber types | |||
| *plants cultivated for drug production, described as high-intoxicant or drug types | |||
| *escaped or wild forms of either of the above types. | |||
| ''Cannabis'' plants produce a unique family of terpeno-phenolic compounds called cannabinoids, which produce the "high" one experiences from smoking marijuana. The two cannabinoids usually produced in greatest abundance are cannabidiol (]) and/or Δ<sup>9</sup>-tetrahydrocannabinol (]), but only THC is psychoactive. Since the early 1970's, ''Cannabis'' plants have been categorized by their chemical ] or "chemotype," based on the overall amount of THC produced, and on the ratio of THC to CBD.<ref name="small1973a">Small, E. and H. D. Beckstead. 1973. Common cannabinoid phenotypes in 350 stocks of ''Cannabis''. ''Lloydia'' '''36''': 144–165.</ref> Although overall ] production is influenced by environmental factors, the THC/CBD ratio is genetically determined and remains fixed throughout the life of a plant.<ref name="meijer2003a">Etienne P. M. de Meijer, Manuela Bagatta, Andrea Carboni, Paola Crucitti, V. M. Cristiana Moliterni, Paolo Ranalli, and Giuseppe Mandolino. 2003. ''Genetics'' '''163'''(1): 335-346. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> Non-drug plants produce relatively low levels of THC and high levels of CBD, while drug plants produce high levels of THC and low levels of CBD. When plants of these two chemotypes cross-pollinate, the plants in the first filial (F<sub>1</sub>) generation have an intermediate chemotype and produce similar amounts of CBD and THC. Female plants of this chemotype may produce enough THC to be utilized for drug production.<ref name=small1973a/><ref name="hillig2004a">Hillig, Karl W. and Paul G. Mahlberg. 2004. . ''American Journal of Botany'' '''91'''(6): 966-975. Retrieved on 22 Feb 2007</ref> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Whether the drug and non-drug, cultivated and wild types of ''Cannabis'' constitute a single, highly variable species, or the genus is polytypic with more than one species, has been a subject of debate for well over two centuries. This is a contentious issue because there is no universally accepted definition of a ].<ref name=”small1979a”>Small, E. 1979. ''The Species Problem in Cannabis'', vol. 1: Science. Corpus Information Services. Toronto, Canada.</ref> One widely applied criterion for species recognition is that species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."<ref name="glossary">Rieger, R., A. Michaelis, and M. M. Green. 1991. ''Glossary of Genetics'', 5th ed. Springer-Verlag, pp. 458-459. ISBN 0-387-52054-6</ref> Populations that are physiologically capable of interbreeding, but morphologically or genetically divergent and isolated by geography or ecology, are sometimes considered to be separate species.<ref name=glossary/> ] are not known to occur within ''Cannabis'', and plants from widely divergent sources are interfertile.<ref name=”small1972a”>Small, E. 1972. Interfertility and chromosomal uniformity in ''Cannabis''. ''Canadian Journal of Botany'' '''50'''(9): 1947-1949.</ref> It remains controversial whether sufficient morphological and genetic divergence occurs within the genus as a result of geographical or ecological isolation to justify recognition of more than one species.<ref name="small1975a"> Small, Ernest. 1975. . ''Plant Science Bulletin'' '''21'''(3): 34-39. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref><ref name="emboden1981a">Emboden, W. A. 1981. The genus ''Cannabis'' and the correct use of taxonomic categories. ''Journal of Psychoactive Drugs'' '''13''': 15–21.</ref><ref name="schultes1980a">Schultes, R. E., and A. Hofmann. 1980. ''Botany and Chemistry of Hallucinogens''. C. C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, pp. 82–116.</ref><ref name=”hillig2005a”>Hillig, Karl W. 2005. . ''Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution'' '''52'''(2): 161-180. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> | |||
| === Early classifications === | |||
| The ''Cannabis'' genus was first ] using the "modern" system of taxonomic ] by ] in 1753, who devised the system still in use for the naming of species.<ref name="linnaeus1753">Linnaeus, C. 1753. ''Species Plantarum'' '''2''': 1027. Salvius, Stockholm. </ref> He considered the genus to be monotypic, having just a single species that he named ''Cannabis sativa'' L. (L. stands for Linnaeus, and indicates the authority who first named the species). Linnaeus was familiar with European hemp, which was widely cultivated at the time. In 1785, noted evolutionary biologist ] published a description of a second species of ''Cannabis'', which he named ''Cannabis indica'' Lam.<ref name="lamarck1785">de Lamarck, J.B. 1785. ''Encyclopédie Méthodique de Botanique'', vol. 1, pt. 2. Paris, France, pp. 694-695</ref> Lamarck based his description of the newly named species on plant specimens collected in India. He described ''C. indica'' as having poorer fiber quality than ''C. sativa'', but greater utility as an ]. Additional ''Cannabis'' species were proposed in the 19th century, including strains from China and Vietnam (Indo-China) assigned the names ''Cannabis chinensis'' Delile, and ''Cannabis gigantea'' Delile ex Vilmorin.<ref name="small1976a">Small, E. and A. Cronquist. 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for ''Cannabis''. ''Taxon'' '''25'''(4): 405–435.</ref> However, many taxonomists found these putative species difficult to distinguish. In the early 20th century, the single-species concept was still widely accepted, except in the Soviet Union where ''Cannabis'' continued to be the subject of active taxonomic study. The name ''Cannabis indica'' was listed in various ]s, and was widely used to designate ''Cannabis'' suitable for the manufacture of medicinal preparations.<ref name=”winek1977”>Winek, Charles L. 1977. Some historical aspects of marijuana. ''Clinical Toxicology'' '''10'''(2): 243-253.</ref> | |||
| === 20th Century === | |||
| In 1924, Russian botanist D.E. Janischevsky concluded that ] ''Cannabis'' in central Russia is either a variety of ''C. sativa'' or a separate species, and proposed ''C. sativa'' L. var. ''ruderalis'' Janisch. and ''Cannabis ruderalis'' Janisch. as alternative names.<ref name=small1975b/> In 1929, renown plant explorer ] assigned wild or feral populations of ''Cannabis'' in Afghanistan to ''C. indica'' Lam. var. ''kafiristanica'' Vav., and ruderal populations in Europe to ''C. sativa'' L. var. ''spontanea'' Vav.<ref name="hillig2004a">Hillig, Karl W. and Paul G. Mahlberg. 2004. . ''American Journal of Botany'' '''91'''(6): 966-975. Retrieved on 22 Feb 2007</ref><ref name=small1976a/> In 1940, Russian botanists Serebriakova and Sizov proposed a complex classification in which they also recognized ''C. sativa'' and ''C. indica'' as separate species. Within ''C. sativa'' they recognized two subspecies: ''C. sativa'' L. subsp. ''culta'' Serebr. (consisting of cultivated plants), and ''C. sativa'' L. subsp. ''spontanea'' (Vav.) Serebr. (consisting of wild or feral plants). Serebriakova and Sizov split the two ''C. sativa'' subspecies into 13 varieties, including four distinct groups within subspecies ''culta''. However, they did not divide ''C. indica'' into subspecies or varieties.<ref name=small1975b/><ref name="serebriakova1940">Serebriakova T. Ya. and I. A. Sizov. 1940. Cannabinaceae Lindl. In: Vavilov N. I. (ed.), ''Kulturnaya Flora SSSR'', vol. 5, Moscow-Leningrad, USSR, pp. 1-53. </ref> This excessive splitting of ''C. sativa'' proved too unwieldy, and never gained many adherents. | |||
| ] | |||
| In the 1970's, the taxonomic classification of ''Cannabis'' took on added significance in North America. Laws prohibiting ''Cannabis'' in the United States and Canada specifically named products of ''C. sativa'' as prohibited materials. Enterprising attorneys for the defense in a few drug busts argued that the seized ''Cannabis'' material may not have been ''C. sativa'', and was therefore not prohibited by law. Attorneys on both sides recruited botanists to provide expert testimony. Among those testifying for the prosecution was Dr. Ernest Small, while Dr. Richard E. Schultes and others testified for the defense. The botanists engaged in heated debate (outside of court), and both camps impugned the other's integrity.<ref name=small1975a/><ref name=emboden1981a/> The defense attorneys were not often successful in winning their case, because the intent of the law was clear.<ref name=”watts2006”>Watts, G. 2006. . BMJ 332: 175-176. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> | |||
| In 1976, Canadian botanist Ernest Small<ref name=”smallbiography”>. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> and American taxonomist ] published a taxonomic revision that recognizes a single species of ''Cannabis'' with two subspecies: ''C. sativa'' L. subsp. ''sativa'', and ''C. sativa'' L. subsp. ''indica'' (Lam.) Small & Cronq.<ref name=small1976a/> The authors hypothesized that the two subspecies diverged primarily as a result of human selection; ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''sativa'' was presumably ] for traits that enhance fiber or seed production, whereas ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''indica'' was primarily selected for drug production. Within these two subspecies, Small and Cronquist described ''C. sativa'' L. subsp. ''sativa'' var. ''spontanea'' Vav. as a wild or escaped variety of low-intoxicant ''Cannabis'', and ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''indica'' var. ''kafiristanica'' (Vav.) Small & Cronq. as a wild or escaped variety of the high-intoxicant type. This classification was based on several factors including interfertility, chromosome uniformity, chemotype, and numerical analysis of ] characters.<ref name=small1973a/><ref name=small1976a/><ref name="small1976b">Small, E., P. Y. Jui, and L. P. Lefkovitch. 1976. A numerical taxonomic analysis of ''Cannabis'' with special reference to species delimitation. ''Systematic Botany'' '''1'''(1): 67-84.</ref> | |||
| Professors William Emboden, Loran Anderson, and Harvard botanist ] and coworkers also conducted taxonomic studies of ''Cannabis'' in the 1970's, and concluded that stable ] differences exist that support recognition of at least three species, ''C. sativa'', ''C. indica'', and ''C. ruderalis.''<ref name=”schultes1974a”>Schultes, R. E., W. M. Klein, T. Plowman, and T. E. Lockwood. 1974. ''Cannabis'': an example of taxonomic neglect. ''Harvard University Botanical Museum Leaflets'' '''23''': 337–367.</ref><ref name=”anderson1974a”> 1974. A study of systematic wood anatomy in ''Cannabis''. ''Harvard University Botanical Museum Leaflets'' '''24''': 29–36. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref><ref name=”anderson1980a”> 1980. Leaf variation among ‘’Cannabis’’ species from a controlled garden. ''Harvard University Botanical Museum Leaflets'' '''28''': 61–69. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref><ref name=emboden1974a>Emboden, W. A. 1974. ''Cannabis'' – a polytypic genus. ''Economic Botany'' '''28''': 304-310.</ref> For Schultes, this was a reversal of his previous interpretation that ''Cannabis'' is monotypic, with only a single species.<ref name="schultes1970a">Schultes, R. E. 1970. Random thoughts and queries on the botany of ''Cannabis''. In: Joyce, C. R. B. and Curry, S. H. (eds), ''The Botany and Chemistry of Cannabis''. J. and A. Churchill, London, pp. 11-38.</ref> According to Schultes' and Anderson's descriptions, ''C. sativa'' is tall and laxly branched with relatively narrow leaflets, ''C. indica'' is shorter, conical in shape, and has relatively wide leaflets, and ''C. ruderalis'' is short, branchless, and grows wild in ]. This taxonomic interpretation was embraced by ''Cannabis'' aficionados who commonly distinguish narrow-leafed "sativa" drug ] from wide-leafed "indica" drug strains.<ref name="clarke2005a">. 1 Jan 2005. NORML, New Zealand. | |||
| Retrieved on 19 Feb 2007</ref> | |||
| === Ongoing research === | |||
| ] developed in the late twentieth century are being applied to questions of taxonomic classification. This has resulted in many reclassifications based on ]. Several studies of Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (]) and other types of genetic markers have been conducted on drug and fiber strains of ''Cannabis'', primarily for plant breeding and forensic purposes.<ref name=”faeti1996a”>Faeti, V., G. Mandolino, and P. Ranalli. 1996. Genetic diversity of ''Cannabis sativa'' germplasm based on RAPD markers. ''Plant Breeding'' '''115''': 367–370.</ref><ref name=”forapani2001a”>Forapani, Silvia, Andrea Carboni, Claudia Paoletti, V. M. Christiana Moliterni, Paolo Ranalli, and Giuseppe Mandolino. 2001. . ''Crop Science'' '''41''': 1682-1689. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref><ref name="mandolino2002a">Giuseppe Mandolino and Paolo Ranalli. 2002. . ''Journal of Industrial Hemp'' '''7'''(1): 7-23. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref><ref name=”gilmore2003a”>Gilmore S., R. Peakall, and J. Roberts. 2003. . ''Forensic Science International'' '''131'''(1): 65-74. Retrieved on 25 Feb 2007</ref><ref name=”kojoka2002a”>Kojoka M., O. Iida, Y. Makino, S. Sekita, and M. Satake. 2002. DNA fingerprinting of ''Cannabis sativa'' using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) amplification. ''Planta Medica'' '''68'''(1): 60-63.</ref> Dutch ''Cannabis'' researcher E.P.M. de Meijer and coworkers described some of their RAPD studies as showing an "extremely high" degree of genetic polymorphism between and within populations, suggesting a high degree of potential variation for selection, even in heavily selected hemp cultivars. <ref name="meijer2003a">Etienne P. M. de Meijer, Manuela Bagatta, Andrea Carboni, Paola Crucitti, V. M. Cristiana Moliterni, Paolo Ranalli, and Giuseppe Mandolino. 2003. ''Genetics'' '''163'''(1): 335-346. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> They also commented that these analyses confirm the continuity of the ''Cannabis'' gene pool throughout the studied accessions, and provide further confirmation that the genus comprises a single species. | |||
| Karl W. Hillig, a ] student in the laboratory of long-time ''Cannabis'' researcher Paul G. Mahlberg<ref name=”mahlbergNAIHC”>. North American Industrial Hemp Council. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> at ], conducted a systematic investigation of genetic, morphological, and ] variation among 157 ''Cannabis'' accessions of known geographic origin, including fiber, drug, and feral populations. In 2004, Hillig and Mahlberg published a chemotaxomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in their ''Cannabis'' ] collection. They used ] to determine cannabinoid content and to infer ] frequencies of the ] that controls CBD and THC production, within the studied populations.<ref name=hillig2004a/> Hillig and Mahlberg concluded that the patterns of cannabinoid variation support recognition of ''C. sativa'' and ''C. indica'' as separate species, but not ''C. ruderalis.'' The authors assigned fiber/seed landraces and feral populations from Europe, central Asia, and Asia Minor to ''C. sativa''. Narrow-leaflet and wide-leaflet drug accessions, southern and eastern Asian hemp accessions, and feral Himalayan populations were assigned to ''C. indica.'' In 2005, Hillig published a genetic analysis of the same set of accessions (this paper was submitted ahead of his 2004 manuscript with Mahlberg, but was delayed in publication), and proposed a three-species classification, recognizing ''C. sativa'', ''C. indica'', and (tentatively) ''C. ruderalis''.<ref name=”hillig2005a”>Hillig, Karl W. 2005. . ''Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution'' '''52'''(2): 161-180. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> In his doctoral ] published the same year, Hillig stated that ] of ] (morphological) traits failed to differentiate the putative species, but that ] resulted in a high degree of discrimination of the putative species and infraspecific taxa.<ref name=”hillig2005b”>Hillig, Karl William. 2005. A systematic investigation of ''Cannabis''. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Biology, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana. Published by . Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> Another paper published by Hillig on chemotaxonomic variation in the ] content of the essential oil of ''Cannabis'' revealed that several wide-leaflet drug strains in their collection had relatively high levels of certain ] alcohols, including guaiol and isomers of eudesmol, that set them apart from the other putative taxa.<ref name="hillig2004b">Hillig, Karl W. 2004. . ''Biochemical Systematics and Ecology'' '''32''': 875-891. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> Hillig concluded that the patterns of genetic, morphological, and chemotaxonomic variation support recognition of ''C. sativa'' and ''C. indica'' as separate species. He also concluded there is little support to treat ''C. ruderalis'' as a separate species from ''C. sativa'' at this time, but more research on wild and weedy populations is needed because they were underrepresented in their collection. | |||
| As of 2007, most taxonomy web sites continue to list ''Cannabis'' as a single species.<ref name="GRIN">USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. , National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref><ref name="APNI">Barlow, Snow. 2006. . Multilingual Multiscript Plant Name Database. The University of Melbourne. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref><ref name="ITIS">. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref><ref name="taxonomicon">. Universal Taxonomic Services. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2007</ref> | |||
| === Popular usage === | |||
| The scientific debate regarding taxonomy has had little effect on the terminology in widespread use among cultivators and users of drug-type ''Cannabis''. ''Cannabis'' aficionados recognize three distinct types based on such factors as morphology, native range, aroma, and subjective psychoactive characteristics. "Sativa" is the term used to describe the most widespread variety, which is usually tall, laxly branched, and found in warm lowland regions. "Indica" is used to designate shorter, bushier plants adapted to cooler climates and highland environments. "Ruderalis" is the term used to describe the short plants that grow wild in Europe and central Asia. | |||
| Breeders, seed companies, and cultivators of drug type ''Cannabis'' often describe the ancestry or gross ] characteristics of ]s by categorizing them as "pure indica," "mostly indica," "indica/sativa," "mostly sativa", or "pure sativa." | |||
| In September of 2005, ] reported that researchers at the Canberra Insitute of Technology had identified a new type of ''Cannabis'' based on analysis of ]l and ] DNA.<ref name=”newscientist”>2005. . ''New Scientist'' '''2517''': 12. Retrieved on 24 Feb 2007</ref> The New Scientist story, which was picked up by many news agencies and web sites, indicated that the research was to be published in the journal ''Forensic Science International''. As of 25 Feb 2007 the article is listed as "in press," and there is no mention in the abstract of "Rasta."<ref name=gilmore2007a>Simon Gilmore, Rod Peakall, and James Robertson. 2007. . ''Forensic Science International''. In Press. Retrieved on 25 Feb 2007</ref> | |||
| == Geographical distribution == | |||
| {{sectstub}} | |||
| === Wild cannabis === | |||
| Wild ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''indica'' is mainly confined to hash producing areas such as ], and parts of ]. Wild ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''sativa'' shows great local variation; for example, in warm places, it can reach heights up to 20 feet (6 m) tall, but in colder climates it can be as short as 1 foot (30 cm) in height. Almost every single flower branch bears a seed. The wild ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''sativa'' has long, thin and airy buds and a Christmas tree shape structure. Wild ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''indica'' remains compact and bushy with thick buds for the most part, and is sometimes used by the locals for hashish production. Generally, there are far fewer seeds in wild ''C. sativa'' subsp. ''indica''. | |||
| In many areas, wild or naturalized populations of ''Cannabis'' are considered ], and are often targeted by government-sponsored eradication programmes. | |||
| == Reproduction == | |||
| === Breeding systems === | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ''Cannabis'' is predominantly ],<ref name=clarke1991a/><ref name="ainsworth2000">Ainsworth, C. 2000. . ''Annals of Botany'' '''86'''(2): 211-221. Retrieved on 24 Feb 2007</ref> although many monoecious varieties have been described.<ref name="meijer1999a">de Meijer, E. P. M. 1999. ''Cannabis'' germplasm resources. In: Ranalli P. (ed.). ''Advances in Hemp Research'', Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY, pp. 131-151.</ref> Subdioecy (the occurrence of monoecious individuals and dioecious individuals within the same population) is widespread.<ref name="mignoni1999"/><ref name="schumann1999">Schumann, E., A. Peil, and W. E. Weber. 1999. . ''Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution'' '''46'''(4): 399-407. Retrieved on 24 Feb 2007</ref><ref name="ranalli2004a">Ranalli, Paolo. 2004. Current status and future scenarios of hemp breeding. ''Euphytica'' '''140'''(1): 121-131.</ref> Many populations have been described as sexually labile.<ref name="hirata1924">Hirata, K. 1924. Sex reversal in hemp. ''Journal of the Society of Agriculture and Forestry'' '''16''': 145-168.</ref><ref name="schaffner1931">Schaffner, J. H. 1931. The fluctuation curve of sex reversal in staminate hemp plants induced by photoperiodicity. ''American Journal of Botany'' '''18'''(6): 424-430.</ref><ref name="mandolino2002a"/> | |||
| As a result of intensive selection in cultivation, ''Cannabis'' exhibits many sexual phenotypes that can be described in terms of the ratio of female to male flowers occurring in the individual, or typical in the cultivar.<ref name="truta2002a">Truta, E., E. Gille, E. Toth, and M. Maniu. 2002. . ''Journal of Applied Genetics'' '''43'''(4): 451-462. Retrieved on 24 Feb 2007</ref> Dioecious varieties are preferred for drug production, where the ] are preferred. Dioecious varieties are also preferred for textile fiber production, whereas monoecious varieties are preferred for pulp and paper production. It has been suggested that the presence of monoecy can be used to differentiate between licit crops of monoecious hemp and illicit dioecious drug crops.<ref name="mignoni1999"/> | |||
| === Mechanisms of sex determination === | |||
| ''Cannabis'' has been described as having one of the most complicated mechanisms of ] among the dioecious plants.<ref name="truta2002a"/> Many models have been proposed to explain sex determination in ''Cannabis''. | |||
| Based on studies of sex reversal in ], it was first reported by K. Hirata in 1924 that an ] is present.<ref name="hirata1924"/> At the time, the XY system was the only known system of sex determination. The ] was first described in Drosophila spp in 1925.<ref name=”bridges1925”>Bridges, C. B. 1925. Sex in relation to chromosomes and genes. ''American Naturalist'' '''59''': 127-137.</ref> Soon thereafter, Schaffner disputed Hirata's interpretation,<ref name="schaffner1929">Schaffner, J. H. 1929. Heredity and sex. ''Ohio Journal of Science'' '''29'''(1): 289-300.</ref> and published results from his own studies of sex reversal in hemp, concluding that an X:A system was in use and that futhermore sex was strongly influenced by environmental conditions.<ref name="schaffner1931"/> | |||
| Since then, many different types of sex determination system have been discovered, particularly in plants.<ref name="ainsworth2000"/> Dioecy is relatively uncommon in the plant kingdom, and a very low percentage of dioecious plant species have been determined to use the XY system. In most cases where the XY system is found it is believed to have evolved recently and independently.<ref name=”negrutiu2001”> Negrutiu, I., B. Vyskot, N. Barbacar, S. Georgiev, and F. Moneger. 2001. Dioecious plants; a key to the early events of sex chromosome evolution. ''Plant Physiology'' '''127'''(4): 418-424.</ref> | |||
| Since the 1920's, a number of sex determination models have been proposed for ''Cannabis''. Ainsworth<ref name="ainsworth2000"/> describes sex determination in the genus as using "an X/autosome dosage-type." | |||
| ] | |||
| The question of whether heteromorphic sex chromosomes are indeed present is most conveniently answered if such chromosomes were clearly visible in a ]. ''Cannabis'' was one of the first plant species to be karyotyped, however, this was in a period when karyotype preparation was primitive by modern standards (see ]). Heteromorphic sex chromosomes were reported to occur in staminate individuals of dioecious 'Kentucky' hemp, but were not found in pistillate individuals of the same variety. Dioecious 'Kentucky' hemp was assumed to use an XY mechanism. Heterosomes were not observed in analyzed individuals of monoecious 'Kentucky' hemp, nor in an unidentified German cultivar. These varieties were assumed to have sex chromosome composition XX.<ref name="menzel1964">Menzel, Margaret Y. 1964. Meiotic chromosomes of monoecious Kentucky hemp (''Cannabis sativa''). ''Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club'' '''91'''(3): 193-205.</ref> According to other researchers, no modern karyotype of ''Cannabis'' had been published as of 1996.<ref name=”hong1996a”>Shao Hong and Robert C. Clarke. 1996. . ''Journal of the International Hemp Association'' '''3'''(2): 55-60. Retrieved on 25 Feb 2007</ref> Proponents of the XY system state that Y chromosome is slightly larger than the X, but difficult to differentiate cytologically.<ref name="peil2003">Peil, A., H. Flachowsky, E. Schumann, and W. E. Weber. 2003. Sex-linked AFLP markers indicate a pseudoautosomal region in hemp (''Cannabis sativa'' L.). ''Theoretical and Applied Genetics'' '''107'''(1): 102-109.</ref> | |||
| More recently, Sakamoto and various co-authors<ref name=”sakamoto1995a”> Sakamoto, K., K. Shimomura, Y. Komeda, H. Kamada, and S. Satoh. 1995. ''Plant & Cell Physiology'' '''36'''(8): 1549-1554. Retrieved on 25 Feb 2007</ref><ref name=”sakamoto2005a”> Sakamoto, K., T. Abe, T. Matsuyama, S. Yoshida, N. Ohmido, K. Fukui, and S. Satoh. 2005. ''Genome'' '''48'''(5): 931-936. Retrieved on 25 Feb 2007</ref> have used ] to isolate several ] sequences that they name Male-Associated DNA in Cannabis (MADC), and which they interpret as indirect evidence of a male chromosome. Several other research groups have reported identification of male-associated markers using RAPD and ].<ref name=”torjek2002”>Törjék, O., N. Bucherna, E. Kiss, H. Homoki, Z. Finta-Korpelová, I. Bócsa, I. Nagy, and L. E. Heszky. 2002. Novel male specific molecular markers (MADC5, MADC6) for sex identification in hemp. ''Euphytica'' '''127''': 209-218.</ref><ref name=mandolino2002a/><ref name=meijer2003a/> Ainsworth commented on these findings, stating that "It is not surprising that male-associated markers are relatively abundant. In dioecious plants where sex chromosomes have not been identified, markers for maleness indicate either the presence of sex chromosomes which have not been distinguished by cytological methods or that the marker is tightly linked to a gene involved in sex determination."<ref name=ainsworth2000/> | |||
| Environmental sex determination is known to occur in a variety of species.<ref name=”tanurdzic2004”>Tanurdzic, M. and J. A. Banks. 2004. Sex-determining mechanisms in land plants. ''Plant Cell'' '''16''' (suppl.): S61-71.</ref> Many researchers have suggested that sex in ''Cannabis'' is determined or strongly influenced by environmental factors.<ref name=schaffner1931/> Ainsworth reviews that treatment with ] and ] have feminizing effects, and that treatment with ] and ] have masculinizing effects.<ref name=ainsworth2000/> It has been reported that sex can be reversed in ''Cannabis'' using chemical treatment.<ref name=”mohanram1982”>Mohan Ram, H. Y., and R. Sett. 1982. Induction of fertile male flowers in genetically female ''Cannabis sativa'' plants by silver nitrate and silver thiosulfate anionic complex. ''Theoretical and Applied Genetics'' '''62''': 369-375.</ref> | |||
| == Aspects of ''Cannabis'' production and use == | |||
| ] | |||
| *] discusses its use as a medication. | |||
| *] discusses its use as a recreational ]. | |||
| *] discusses sacramental and religious use. | |||
| *] discusses its uses as a source of ], ], ], ], and industrial materials. | |||
| *] discusses aspects of cultivation for medicinal and recreational drug purposes | |||
| *] focuses on the law and enforcement aspects of growing, transporting, selling and using cannabis as a drug. | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| *] discusses the ], physical, and mental effects of ''Cannabis'' when used as drug. | |||
| == Etymology == | |||
| The plant name '''cannabis''' is of ] origin: ; However, the earlier ] language used the word "kanubi", which means 'cane of two (sexes?)'. This is possibly the source for the Semitic usage. | |||
| The Biblical Hebrew term ''qěnēh bośem'', literally "reed of balm", probably<ref name="labarre1980">]. 1980. ''Culture in Context; Selected Writings of Weston Labarre''. Duke University Press. (source not confirmed)</ref> refers to cannabis according to some etymologists,<ref name="bookofgrass">Benetowa, Sara = (]). 1936. Tracing one word through different languages. Institute of Anthropological Sciences, Warsaw. Reprinted 1967 In: ''The Book of Grass''. George Andrews and Simon Vinkenoog (eds.) Grove Press, New York, "pp. 15-18.</ref> but is more commonly thought to be lemon grass, calamus, or even sweet cane, due to widespread translation issues.<ref name=”low1924”>Immanuel Löw. 1924-1934. ''Flora der Juden'', vol. I-IV. Reprinted 1967. Hildeshein: Georg Olms (source not confirmed)</ref> The Hebrew Bible mentions it in ] where God commands ] to make a holy oil of ], ], ''qěnēh bośem'' and ] to anoint the ] and the Tabernacle (and thus God's Temple in Jerusalem). Notably, this anointing oil is a special herbal formula that functions as a kind of polish and fragrance for the Ark and Tabernacle, and the Bible forbids its manufacture and use to anoint people (]) with the exception of the Aaronic priesthood (]). | |||
| Elsewhere, the Hebrew Bible simply uses "reed" ''qānēh'' as the name of a plant in four places whose context seems to mean "reed of balm" as a fragrant resin, ], ], ] and ]. The Hebrew name "reed of balm" comes from ''qěnēh'' (the noun construct form of ''qāneh'') means a "reed" or "cane" and ''bośem'' means "balm" or "aromatic" resin. Hebrew may have adapted the name ''qannabbôs'' from "reed of balm" ''qěnēh bośem'' as a substitute for the ambiguous name "reed". | |||
| This Biblical Hebrew term is often mistranslated as "]", also called "lemon grass" (Cymbopogon citratus) or "sweet flag" (Acorus calamus), following an ancient misunderstanding in the Greek ] translation. The Hebrew Bible was written across centuries well up to the 5th Century BCE. However, centuries later, by the time the Septuagint was written around the 2nd Century BCE, the archaic Hebrew word ''qěnēh bośem'' appears to have already abbreviated into the later Hebrew form ''qannabbôs'', which is attested in Post Biblical Hebrew literature. Thus, the Septuagint did not recognize the Hebrew expression "reed of balm" and mistook it to refer to some unidentified plant. As a dynamic equivalent, the Septuagint rendered it as "calamus" (Greek ''kalamos''), which indeed is a "balmy" (scented) reed. The calamus plant was known in Greek mythology and processed into an aphrodisiac. | |||
| Unambiguous Hebrew or Aramaic references to cannabis are rare and obscure. Syriac has qanpa (a loan from kannabis) and tanuma (see the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.) but neither is found in the Peshitta, the Syriac Bible. Late Syriac Ahiqar texts include qanpa as "ropes of hemp" (tunbei de-qanpa). The Hebrew word qanbes, a loan word from kannabis, is used in the Mishnah as hemp in the sense of a constituent of clothing or other items. | |||
| The ] term ''cannabis'' probably derives from a Semitic origin as well. Sara Benetowa of the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw is quoted in the Book of Grass<ref name=bookofgrass/> as saying: | |||
| <blockquote>''The astonishing resemblance between the Semitic 'kanbos' and the Scythian 'cannabis' lead me to suppose that the Scythian word was of Semitic origin. These etymological discussions run parallel to arguments drawn from history. The Iranian Scythians were probably related to the Medes, who were neighbors of the Semites and could easily have assimilated the word for hemp. The Semites could also have spread the word during their migrations through Asia Minor.''</blockquote> | |||
| Likely, the name 'cannabis' was known from the Semitic merchants who sold this commodity throughout the ancient trade routes of Southeast Asia. | |||
| Comparing the English word ''hemp'' and the ] word ''kannabis'' shows that the word came down from the presumed ]. Words like ''kanapish'' for "hemp" occur in some ] languages. It is likely that, soon after ] started, ] as a cultivated plant spread widely, carrying its name with it. Source of Rus. konoplja, Pers. kanab, Lith. kanapes "hemp," and Eng. canvas and hemp. | |||
| {{Herbs & spices}} | |||
| == References == | |||
| <!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Footnotes for a | |||
| discussion of different citation methods and how to generate | |||
| footnotes using the <ref>, </ref> and <reference /> tags | |||
| ----------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| <div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| <references /></div> | |||
| == See Also== | |||
| ] | |||
| == Further reading == | |||
| * ''Cannabis: A History'' (2005) Martin Booth ISBN 0-312-32220-8 | |||
| * | |||
| == External links == | |||
| {{Portal}} | |||
| {{Wikispecies|Cannabis}} | |||
| {{commons|Cannabis sativa}} | |||
| * | |||
| * - Contains medical information to the Endocannabinoid System | |||
| {{Cannabis resources}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| "Smoke weed every day"- Dr. Dre | |||
Revision as of 11:57, 28 February 2007
BEST SHIT EVER!!!!!!!!!!