specimen (1171.1), which does not resemble the concept 
that we now commonly recognize as Cannabis sativa, is 
actually the specimen upon which Linnaeus wrote 
‘sativa’. here is no indication of a specific epithet 
written on the other specimen (1177.2). 
With the thousands of herbarium collections now 
available for study and years of attention to cultivated 
forms in many parts of the world, taxonomists should 
be able to examine these two specimens with much more 
perspicacity than Linnaeus himself was able to do. The 
question arises—even though this material is not critical 
to our taxonomic studies in the genus—** Why are these 
two specimens so very unlike’ Was the staminate speci- 
men on which Linnaeus wrote ‘‘sativa’’ a branch from 
an abnormal plant? Or did perchance Linnaeus actually 
have at hand after 1758 representatives of two different 
species / 
Although he did no basic taxonomic study on Canna- 
bis, Scopoli, in 1772, twenty years after Linnaeus’ pub- 
lication of Cannabis sativa and the name of the hops 
plants, Humulus Lupulus, reduced the genus Humulus 
to synonymy under Cannabis, calling the hops plant 
Cannabis Lupulus. This point of view has never gained 
acceptance, although both genera, Cannabis and Humu- 
lus, are now almost unanimously considered to be closely 
allied and to be members of the same family, Cannaba- 
ceae. 
Thirty years after Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum, in 
1783, the French naturalist Lamarck described another 
species, Cannabis indica, in his Encyclopédie Méthodique. 
This new species was based upon a specimen certainly 
of Asiatic origin. According to Lamarck, it was collected 
by a French naturalist, M. Pierre Sonnerat (1748(49)— 
1814) in India. Again, we are at a loss to indicate a 
definite area, partly because of vagueness of geographical 
850 | 
