Cannabis macrosperma from what he considered to be C. 
sativa (with ‘‘nuts lenticular-globose’’) on the basis of its 
‘‘oblong’’ achenes, indicating without explanation of his 
exact meaning, that the new species “‘is from C. indica’’ 
In 1849, the name Cannabis chinensis appeared in a 
seed catalogue issued by the Montpellier Botanical Gar- 
den in France. This binomial is a nomen nudum referring 
probably to a form of cultivated hemp from China. 
In Sturm’s Flora von Deutschland of 1905, E.H.L. 
Krause published the description of a new species, Can-. 
nabis generals, stating that its original home was Asia 
and, without distinguishing the two concepts, indicating 
that it represents a species present in the flora of Germany 
in addition to C. sativa and C. indica. No type specimen 
is cited. The description and illustration of Cannabis 
generalis indicate it to be one of the many Kuropean 
variants of the concept that has long gone under the 
name of C. sativa. 
In 1911, Houghton and Hamilton published the bi- 
nomial Cannabis americana to refer to ‘‘American grown 
hemp’. The binomial is another romen nudum, published 
without a description and with the clear indication that 
the authors believed it to be synonymous with Cannabis 
sativa. It need not enter any taxonomic consideration 
and is mentioned here only because—to the confusion of 
Cannabis nomenclature—it has been cited in later un- 
critical pharmacological literature. 
Crévost published the binomial Cannabis gigantea in 
1917 for a kind of hemp grown in Indochina. No de- 
scription, no citation of specimen, no precise locality 
were given. he heading of his discussion of hemp in 
Indochina ‘‘Cannabis sativa (Lin.) et Cannabis gigantea’ 
constitutes a clear indication that he considered the two 
concepts to be different species. Although referring possi- 
bly to a distinct kind of Cannabis, the binomial cannot 
[ 858 | 
