User talk:Skalle-Per Hedenhös

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC).

Cannabis discussion

Following your move on the cannabis article that it is a monotypic genus with one species and many subspecies or variants. Should the the subspecies or variants be in separate articles? My opinion is that the genus should have an article and the species too but as it is a monotypic genus (currently) there is no need to have a separate article for the genus and the species. The original classification by Carl von Linné was one species and no subspecies though he identified several varieties. His classification may be more actual than ever (most cultivars are so called hybrids).

@Skalle-Per Hedenhös: Given that the consensus is that subspecies and varieties are more than likely non-natural, that is are products of selective breeding, the praxis on WS is not to have separate pages or even acknowledge them, but treat both the genus and species as monotypic. I know that some editors do add cultivated taxa, but it is generally frowned on. We keep the species page for a monotypic genus, as we like to have one page per "accepted" taxon. I would not recommend separate taxon pages for the subspecies etc., even if we could find consensus, but pages exist for two subspecies and single variety. I will not remove them yet, as a justification can be found for their existence, but McPartland (2018) and Small (2015) are pretty definitive in my opinion. If I feel thry need to go then, in this case, I would get in touch with the original editors for their opinions first. Andyboorman (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is 200 years old and the experts may never reach a solution but my opinion is that no variete or subspecie should have a separate article if this is the norm. Some botanical experts seem to use the THC:CBD-ratio (chemotype) for classification and this is problematic cause the subspecie seem to be useless information for experts like Ethan Russo that work with the biochemical aspect of the plant and it say nothing about the quality of the fiber, nutritional value of the seed or mechanism of reproduction. It is useful information if you want the cerebral effect though. The myth of fiber-hemp and drug-hemp as separate species was debunked by the first known botanical description in ancient china: c.214 bce Erh-Ya, China describes dioecious status, superiority of males for fiber, females for intoxication(Carr 1979; Russo 2007) From Handbook of Cannabis Oxford University Press. Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I have a question about the native distribution. As I understand it the general opinion is that the plant origin from asia because it separated from Hops there. This was millions of years ago. In Scandinavia it was cultivated 2000 years ago (at least). This was without a doubt the variant spontanea aka autoflowering because short-day plants do not flower this far north and the oldest data is from pollen samples in the middle of Scandinavia so it was not imported seeds, drugs or fiber. It was cultivated. We have no traces from anything since the last ice-age (around 15000 years ago). What is classified as a native species if 2000 years ago is not native and 20000 years ago only ice was native? Maybe you know. Thank you. Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A native cultivated variant is not the same as a species/subspecies/variety that has evolved independently under natural conditions. Proving spontanea is natural is going to be very difficult. Andyboorman (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to look into this here is some information and sources I can search for if interested. Oldest recorded pollen sample is from Jämtland around 2000 years ago. Many more recent pollen samples has been found. In the nordic flora it is marked on the map as belonging to even further north by the arctic circle north of the bothnian bay. Of course there is no possibility that a short-day cannabis plant can make seed this far north because it is only dark in the winter. These old variants seem to be nationally exterminated since all hemp was illegal and the current nordic hemp Finola origin from variants saved by the Vavilov Institute. Even wild hemp plants and fiber hemp was illegal for a period of 30 years. My guess is that this northern cannabis plant must have been similar to the image I posted on the cannabis article or similar to the plant in the swiss herbarium. This is clearly an autoflowering plant adapted to a short summer with sunlight 24/7 It is clearly not a very productive fiber plant. Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Skalle-Per Hedenhös: As to distribution, it is entered on a WS taxon page, more or less as an afterthought as WS is primarily a taxonomic database with other information added on an editors discretion and not policy. Cannabis sativa L. var. ruderalis (Janisch.) S.Z.Liou (1988) syn. Cannabis sativa L. var. spontanea Vav. (1922) could have arisen spontaneously in the "wild" and it may be fascinating to study this theory. Again WS presents only! Andyboorman (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. This makes sense. I want to explain myself so no misunderstanding. I do not mean that spontanea is a species or that spontanea means that it has not been cultivated. This is the autopilot variety as opposed to the short-day plant as I understand mr.Vavilov but I am no expert and do not understand russian. Spontanea is a more accurate description than ruderalis in my opinion. Sativa means cultivated so I have no motivation to argue for that any variety is truly wild (without human interaction) but it is also important to acknowledge that the plant is much older than the modern human so at some point such varieties must have existed and traits from before humanity cultivated the plant is still there. This trait can still make it a subspecie or variety today. The autoflower trait is such a trait in my opinion. It may even be the original and that the photoperiod variety have evolved when the plant was introduced to the south. As far as I see one can grow the autoflower variety in the south but can not grow the photoperiod in the north so one way is more plausible than the other but no one knows. Homever if distribution is mentioned it should be correct and in Scandinavia we have cultivated this at least 2000 years. I will study the article about apples and see how you do it with other plants.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to compare with other plants maybe salvia is a good candidate. This plant is also a drug (very strong hallucinogenic) and it is used for culinary purposes and is cultivated as decorative plant, medicinal plant and for religious purpose.

I don't know if chemotype is used to classify this plant but such a classification is strange cause you can not classify a chemotype by microscope. If the trichomes are used to classify the subspecies the type (shape and distribution) of the trichomes should be a higher criteria and the general opinion seem to be that the species can be identified by the unique trait of bear-claw shaped trichomes on the leaf and the soft trichomes on the underside of the leaf. The chemical components of the trichomes define the chemotype and can not be seen by microscope. The chemotype can easily by manipulated by cultivation within only one generation and it may not be a trait that define anything else than a cultivar.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

A diplomatic and neutral solution could be to make it so that ruderalis, sativa and indica is at same level subspecie or variety. Then it is possible to keep the subspecie indica and sativa in the genus article but link it to the same article named var. kafiristan. In the current situation there are reasons to keep and not to keep the articles but there is no good reason to rank sativa or indica above ruderalis at variety level. Wild hemp was listed as common in the first nordic flora 1806. It makes no sense that this previously common nordic variety (most probably spontanea) is ranked below a cultivated variety in kafiristan. Subspecie sativa and indica in genus article may still be named so but linked to the same article as synonymous. This article may be named var. kafiristan. Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Editors on WS, as all Wikis, are forbidden to use the sites to publish original research. OK sometimes things slip through, but get taken down eventually. At the moment, there are probably only two games in town. Subspecies "indica", var. "ruderalis" and the autonym subspecies "sativa" versus a single species with no infraspecies segregates. Compare Govaerts (2019) with Hassler (2019) for a summary of synonymy. I will contact Michael Hassler and see if COL will likely change and if not why not. In the meantime I will make some changes to the infraspecies segregates here on WS and see what happens! Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You have the knowledge and the professional approach. It is great. However I wish you was right but I highly doubt the time is ripe to do research within the legal framework. The autoflower trait was lost from the genepool until it mysteriously re-appeared recently. It may be controversial to further research this cause if the ecosystem loose a key component ultimately our existance is threatened. To take such a risk for the benefit of whatever reason is not political correct so most likely research will be hampered for prestigous reasons. Your question is spot on though.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your thoughts regarding nordic variants could be very interesting in academia. Have you thought about contacting a local university botany department to see whether or not you could pursue a research degree of some sort working in this field? I can think of a number of research questions, such as the broad; "What are the phylogenetic, morphological and taxonomic implications of Cannabis sativa plants capable of viable perennation under Nordic conditions?" It will need focus, of course. Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is very much so. This is one of the plants that is most researched on yet the natural ecosystem is unknown so most of this research is made on plants that is grown outside of the original habitat. It is a shame cause UV-light do have a known effect on the chemical composition and in the north the UV-light is less intense. It is most probably several scandinavian varieties because the peninsula is reaching far in latitude. It may also be an arctic species lost or on the way to extinction. Not many of the earths plants do reproduce north of the botnian bay.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have migrated the discussion here, as I feel that it is of greater interest to you. Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so but it should be to everyone that is interested in taxonomy and distribution. This plant seem to thrive together with many other plants like Linaria vulgaris for example. It is very drought resistant too. Linaria is not monotypic and is widely distributed. I very much accept the monotypic definition with many varieties but the current classification and distribution system seem to be non-scientific.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That may very well be true, however please remember that Wikispecies is only a database for taxa, taxonomy, biological systematics, type repositories, and information about the authors and references needed to verify that data. Nothing else. From a nomenclatural viewpoint a taxon's resistance to drought, parasites, pathogenic fungi etc. and whether or not it coexists with for example Linaria sp. is of no interest. Equally, data about geographical distribution is unlikely to contribute with any useful information in regards to taxonomy. Such data is often suitable for Wikipedia, but not Wikispecies. This is described in the What Wikispecies is not policy, at least to some extent. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC).

And taxonomy and distribution is?Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not know if the drought resistance and the semi-wild, semi-cultivated similiarity with Linaria may be important. I am trying to do two things. First to have the plant listed as native to scandinavia because it is. Other plants are called native if it was introduced by christianity around 12th century. This plant is much older, 20-30 million years old and it was here at least by the first century but it is still not listed as native. This is a mystery. The second mystery is how the ruderalis/spontanea/autoflower variety can be a variety of either supsp. sativa or indica that are chemotypes. Chemotype is not within taxonomy. If the plant is drought resistant it may be because it is symbiotic with the nordic mushrooms. Now if I suggested that the cacti is native to scandinavia I hope it would be ok to say it is drought resistant too... I do not understand the purpose of your comments. This is evolution. Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I may misunderstand or disagree with your comment about geography. The geography of the peninsula is very interesting regarding the taxonomy because it is a peninsula with a bottleneck north of the bothnian bay. The distribution in the current nordic flora correlate with the melting of the glacier 7000 to 6000 years ago.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This is precisely my point. Most of your comments in the above two paragraphs regards evolution and/or ecology, not taxonomy. Stating that cacti, Homo sapiens, European badgers, lions, dandelions, Eucalyptus or any other taxa are native to Scandinavia and/or whether any of them are drought/cold/UV etc. resistant may be true or not – however that's not a question of taxonomy and hence out of the scope of Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

Distribution is listed on wikispecies so the question if the plant is native to the peninsula is well within the scope of wikispecies. Also the subspecies indica and sativa is listed on wikispecies yet it is impossible to categorize the plant on the images as neither. This is strange cause it is possible to identify the variety with knowledge of the geography because this plant is most likely autoflower. Neither are your comments about taxonomy or the question if the plant is native or not. Do you know another species where the subspecies is a short-day chemotype with a variety that is not a short-day plant with another chemotype? It is more constructive to accept that the taxonomy and native distribution most likely is flawed than to mark my words.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ The fact that distribution is sometimes listed on Wikispecies doesn't make it right. The Help:General Wikispecies guideline clearly states that "Distribution and range data can be included in the talk page of an article, or (eventually) in Wikidata" (my emphasis). In other words, it shouldn't be listed on the main taxon pages at all, since it's generally not seen as part of the taxonomy. It's sometimes done anyway, by people who doesn't agree with our policies or consensus – and quite frankly most admins aren't bothered enough to remove their edits. By the way the same goes for vernacular names: since many years back we have a more or less ongoing discussion whether such items as range, vernacular names etc. should even be listed at all. (These discussions often include related templates, for example the {{Nadi}} i.e. "Native Distribution" template.)

As for the images: if they're wrong or for whatever other reason questionable they shouldn't be added in the first place. This is regardless whether the taxonomy itself is questionable or the specimen in the pictures can't be properly identified (and unfortunately Wikimedia Commons serves us quite a lot of pictures with mis- or unidentified organisms). Also, it is Wikispecies praxis to only add images depicting the actual taxon for a specific taxon page, at least for ranks below genus. Pictures for subgenera, subspecies and varieties etc. should only be used on the specific taxon pages for those unique ranks, i.e. not on the page for their nominate parents. That's one of the main reasons why Wikispecies is fairly void of pictures: for most taxa there simply are no images available with correctly identified organisms.

Last but certainly not least I wish to stress that I do agree with you that the taxonomy regarding Cannabis and its daughter taxa most likely is flawed – or at least outdated if we put it mildly... However (and as Andy Boorman already mentioned) there's really nothing much we can do about it here at Wikispecies. Our objective is to reference the current situation in regards to taxonomy and biological nomenclature, not to actively take part in any of the actual work with the systematics. Hence even though the taxonomy regarding a certain taxon may sometimes be incorrect it's still our job to cite that data as is, flaws and all... I know that there are a lot of taxonomists here who are in close and frequent contact with Kew, IPNI, ICZN and so forth, however none of that can be presented on Wikispecies until the work is made final and published elsewhere. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC).

The easy way is to remove the pages about the subspecies and varieties because then the information about distribution will be removed too. Even if they find a cannabis plant that can grow in total darkness it will not be classified as a separate species so such a move will last.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of any ongoing research about the systematics, but over the years the University of Uppsala Botanical Garden has housed several specimens of Cannabis sativa L. both as a repository and for other scientific reasons. (Furthermore, Uppsala isn't only my own home town, but of course also the old hometown of Carolus Linnæus himself...)

Earlier this year Prof. Em. Fred Nyberg (biological research on drug dependence, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University) held several seminars at different Swedish campuses about the medical aspects of Cannabis. Albeit not directly related to his discipline, perhaps he can give some valuable information in regards to the research about (Nordic) Cannabis variants and their systematics? He can be reached at fred.nybergfarmbio.uu.se or +46 (0)18–471 41 66 (UTC+1) and most likely know whom to contact at the Uppsala Botanical Garden and/or the Department of Organismal Biology or their labs.

Please note that I do not know Prof. Nyberg myself, nor have I contacted him in this matter. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC).

Thanks but I hope you are joking cause if it is the famous Fred Nyberg from the association for a drug free society we do not share common interest in any way. I know Carl von Linné was head of Uppsala University but it was long time ago and now it's the university that gave an honor degree to Gabriel Nahas. His book is not good. I better not contact Uppsala botanical garden. Not because I do crime but because I prefer to stomp our native plants without help from the authority.

Current plan is to find where and when the Vavilov institute refresh the scandinavian seed stock so I can nick a sprout or two. That is a crime but them animals do it all the time. I think you can see it on the image that our wild friends took a bite or two. That is how it works outside of the botanical garden. The native animals care for our plant and the plant cares for them. Perfect symbiosis as if you looose your wallet and someone give it back. Then you give finders fee.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist: If you do contact the botanical garden and they have something useful to provide preferably viable seeds it will solve the problem. Then we may have the ability to see if it is a new species, subspecie or a variety. The seeds are legal and is not theirs because it is cultural heritage and belong to future generations. Their word that the nordic varieties was rope-hemp or came from india without narcotic properties is not very reliable if they do not provide the genetics. Not after the school told us that the drug came here with hippies during the 70's and we know that was a lie. Kind regards.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not very likely that I will contact the University of Uppsala Botanical Garden any time soon – even though in my opinion it's a very good institution. However I have no intention of doing any research on plants, at least not in the overseeable future. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to contribute to the research with anything of real value, on account of the fact that I'm not a botanist. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC).

Hopefully you are right and it is a good institution that have refreshed the seed stock regularly though if it is not a good institution the seeds are old and do not sprout. Anyone that can grow a nettle can make hundreds of seeds from a dozen cause that is what the plant is made to do. It is more difficult to stop it from reproduction so the botanical garden may be too busy with the exotic plants. If I visit them I will ask if they want help. Thank you for the tip.Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)