Artificial Emotion
Bluelighter
Everything I've read about species vs. Varieties says that there is an ongoing debate. To me they seem more like Varieties. Look at roses, they can look completely different but they are still just varieties of roses.
I think you're confusing a strain with a species.
Yes there some debate currently going on in the area which is hardly surprising but the general consensus among scientists specialising in the area is now the original species of Cannabis Sativa L. is appropriately subdivided into three separate species that naturally occur in the wild - cannabis sativa, cannabis indica and cannabis ruderalis.
Basically they all stemmed from the same line, but evolution and diversity have caused them to develop and evolve independently around the globe. The definition in biology of different species is that they cannot crossbreed. Cannabis along with several other examples is actually an exception to this. So although you have an almost endless variety of different strains, they are classified according to each species type even if mainstream botany has only one classification of the cannabis species, Cannabis Sativa L. In my opinion they possibly need to update their understanding of what constitues a species in the first place as there are many other examples of different species being able to interbreed and produce fertile progeny. This would be a much better idea rather than trying to erroneously refer to cannabis indica/ruderalis/sativa simply as different varieties or strains.
The reason Cannabis Sativa L. is the only recognized species type by some Western biologists is largely due to legal reasons rather than because of plant classification systems/taxonomy. After Cannabis Indica was introduced into the West it was originally thought that it did not fall under the control of prohibtion laws. The courts refused to acknowledge the existence of the separate species of indica/sativa and therefore lumped all the cannabis species into just one category - 'Cannabis Sativa L' and unfortunately this fallacy has persisted to this day, even when it is so patently wrong. In fact many courts have been forced to dismiss cases against growers growing these plants because of this technicality. R.E. Schultes of Harvard and other respectable botanists such as William A. Emboden started testifying in the courts starting from 1972 to show that cannabis could be expressed as belonging to three unique and distinctive discrete species types rather than just one, Cannabis Sativa L.
In 1975 Ernest Small, of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs attempted to solve this problem for the courts to try and stop people getting away with growing the potentially legal cannabis indica by trying to state the cannabis indica, ruderalis were simply just variations of cannabis sativa L. and not separate subspecies. Today the debate continues as is evident by your comment but it has been established amongst cannabis researchers that there are three distinct species of cannabis and I dare say has been the consensus for quite some time (according to our current understanding).
Because taxonomy doesn't have a clear and concise definition of what actually constitutes a species, it does cause some confusion some confusion. As said, one rule of what a species is, is that separate species shouldn't be able to break the confines of their so called 'species breeding barrier', meaning different species should not be able to breed with each other. Donkeys and horses being able to breed is an example of exception to this rule, however their offspring do not appear to ever be fertile. This led to scientists explaining that different species are characterised by populations that can breed with each other and produe fertile offspring. However offspring as the mule, or a liger (tiger x lion) are artificial creations and not a product of the natural world. Geographical isolation in nature usually prevents such breeding from ever happening and it is thought that this isolation eventually creates a complete species breeding barrier. This prevents separate species from being interfertile and what we are seeing with some species interbreeding is just a moment of their evolutionary development allowing for interfertility. However ooner or later this would become impossible as their isolation from one another is continued to be maintained. As we know, globalisation, cheap travel/shipping, mankind has started to interfere as anyone can bring cuttings or seeds halfway around the world and introduce this into the wild or local farmers growing native landrace strains. This process where a species does not take advantage of their interfertility in the wild because of their geographical isolation but does so when mankind interferes is termed a ring species, with another example being the salamander. Some species of salamander can in fact interbreed whilst other species are not able to.
So really the concept that there is only one cannabis species i.e. Cannabis Sativa L. is outdated science influenced by an archaic legal concept introduced to try and prosecute indica growers. So the articles you've been reading are most either written by someone not clued up on the issue, biased or just old and written before the mor recent research papers were written. I'm certain that if mankind were made extinct, Cannabis Indica/ruderalis/Sativa would eventually lose their ability to crossbreed with each other and would evolve separately to the point where they no longer looked anything like each other at all.
I hope that helps! To be honest I'm glad the issue was brought up as it can be the source of a lot of confusion amongst growers.
Last edited: