a plant of a much denser and more compact growth than 
the Linnaean specimen which gives the impression of 
having come from a rather laxly branched plant. We 
have also Lamarck’s direct remark that the plant is 
‘“‘smaller’’ and ‘‘very much branched’’, which might 
well be interpreted to indicate a plant with branches 
more densely spaced than is the usual condition in what 
has long been called Cannabis sativa. 
There were no further ca in Cannabis tax- 
onomy and nomenclature until 1792, when the French 
botanist Gilibert published 7 ree ie in his Lawer- 
citia Phytologica. This work, which is not consistently 
binomial, did not accept Linnaean names. After a very 
adequate description of what is obviously Cannabis sativa 
(as now typified), he commented mainly on differences 
in growth habits between the Cannabis that he knew in 
France and that which he had found in Lithuania. There 
is no indication that he was attempting to differentiate 
Cannabis foetens from C. sativa. The name Cannabis foe- 
tens must, therefore, be considered a nomen illegitimum. 
The next event in the nomenclatural history of Can- 
nabis was Sievers’ casual enumeration in 1796 of ‘‘Can-_ 
nabis erratwa’’ (a binomial dating from pre-Linnaean 
times) ina list of plants encountered ona trip to Siberia. 
Since Sievers did not describe this binomial, it represents 
a nomen nudum without scientific status. 
Half a century after Linnaeus’ publication of Canna- 
bis sativa, Stokes described Cannabis macrosperma in 
1812 in his 4 Botanical Materia Medica. While Stokes 
legitimately described the concept, no specimen is cited 
and no locality is given, although, by inference, Asia— 
and probably India—is indicated. There is little hope 
that we can now ascertain what Stokes had at hand, but 
it is probable that he had an unusually large-seeded form 
of either Cannabis sativa or C. indica. He distinguished his 
[ « xe) 7 
392 J 
