On the Legality of Cannabis: The Responsibility of the Expert Witness

The possibility that the genus Cannabis comprises more than one species has been a matter for considerable controversy over a long period of time. The literature on the botany of Cannabis is complicated and confusing because of numerous specific and varietal names, most of which have never been properly published or described according to the rules of botanical nomenclature. Thus, the genus has been considered to be monotypic and most taxonomists have, in the past, agreed that Cannabis sativa Linnaeus included all variants. A recent publication by Schultes et al [1] listed some of the specific epithets which have so far been proposed in the literature: Cannabis americana Houghton et Hamilton in Am. Journal Pharm. 80 (1908) 17, nomen nudum Cannabis erratica Sievers ex Pallas Neue Nord. Beytr. 7 (1796) 174, nomen nudum Cannabis foetens Gilibert Exercit. Phytol. 2 (1792) 450, nomen illegitimum Cannabis generalis E. H. L. Krause in Strum. Fl. Deutchland, Ed. 2, 4 (1905) 199 Cannabis gigantea Crevost in Bull. Econ. Indochine, n.s., 20 (1917) 613 Cannabis indica Larmarck Encycl. 1 (1783) 695 X Cannabis intersita Sojak in Novit. Bot. Del. Sem. Hort. Bot. Univ. Carol Prage (1690) 20 Cannabis lupulus Scopoli Pl. Carniol. Ed. 2, 2 (1772) 263 Cannabis macrosperma Stokes Bot. Mat. Med. 4 (1812) 539 Cannabis pedemontana Camp, J. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 36 (1936) 114, nomen nudum in synon Cannabis ruderalis Janischewsky, Uchenyl Zap. Gas. Saratov. Univ. 2, pt. 2 (1924) 14 Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. (1753) 1027