because it contains none, or too little, of the chemical constitu- 
ents to elicit the biological effect that the law was meant to 
control. The fact that strains of C. sativa have been found which 
are virtually devoid of A® and/or A’-tetrahydrocannabinols, the 
active principles, is well documented in the scientific literature 
(Small 1979). 
There is still disagreement concerning the botanical classifica- 
tion of Cannabis. It has been put into different families: in the 
Urticaceae (Nettle Family) in earlier periods; then into the 
Moraceae (Mulberry Family) during the last century and even 
today; finally, into a separate family—the Cannabaceae—to- 
gether with Humulus, the hop plant, which assignment is now 
widely accepted. The major taxonomic problem, however, con- 
cerns the number of species in the genus—whether one or 
several. While botanists have generally tended to believe that 
Cannabis is monotypic, the polytypic concept is not new, going 
back to 1785. A number of Russian botanists have long held that 
Cannabis has at least three species. Schultes and co-workers 
(Schultes et al. 1974) have studied the problem in the literature, 
have examined hundreds of herbarium specimens, have studied 
plants from many parts of the world cultivated at the University 
of Mississippi and in the field in several localities, especially in 
Afghanistan. They are of the opinion that three species do exist: 
C. sativa, C. indica Lam. and C. ruderalis Jan. More recently, 
Anderson (Anderson 1974) studied the wood anatomy of Can- 
nabis. Although few samples were examined, the magnitude of 
the differences was “impressive in a system as conservative as 
wood”. His studies convinced him that he was dealing with two 
species: C. sativa and C. indica. Material of C. ruderalis was not 
then available. Emboden, who has also investigated Cannabis in 
the field and herbarium, has accepted the polytypic concept 
(Emboden 1974 and 1981). 
Small has defended the monotypic concept, stating correctly: 
“It should be understood that the taxonomic debate concerning 
Cannabis represents the first rigorous examination of the impli- 
cations of biological taxonomy for legislation.” He then dis- 
cussed for a forensic readership (Small 1976) the concepts 
involved in plant classification and nomenclature, the degree of 
subjectivity involved, ambiguities of biological names and the 
129 
