What about cannabis taxonorny?

- Trabajos originales What about cannabis taxonorny? Problemática de la taxonomía del género cannabis MERZOUKI, A.; ED-DERFOUFI, F. and MOLERO, J. Departamento de Biología Vegetal. Facultad de Farmacia. Universidad de Granada. 18071 Granada. �spaña. RESUMEN Se considera el cáñamo como una de las plantas más extendidas, sin embargo existe hoy un consenso entre los botánicos que están de acuerdo con una sola especie Cannabis sativa L. Hay que reconocer qué variedades de otros epititos específicos están todavía usadas por algunos autores, especialmente C. ruderalis Janisch. y C. indica Lam. Palabras clave: Cáñamo, Cannabis sativa L., Epititos. ABSTRACT Hemp is considered as one of the widespread plants. Although a consensus of botanists today agree that only one species, Cannabis sativa L. It should be reconized, that a variety of other specific epithets, specially C. ruderalis Janisch. and C. indica Lam., are still used by sorne authors. Key words: Hemp, Cannabis sativa L., epithets. Recibido: 19-5-94. Aceptado: 24-6-94. BIBLID [0004-2927(1994) 35:2; 289-297] "The hemp is a green plant, a very abundant and ubiquitous plant, an unusually valuable economic plant, possibly a dangerous plant, certainly in many ways a mysterious plant". Schultes (1970) It was nominated the sad star by Miege (1) and the cheat hemp by Nahas (2). It was at the page one for many centuries. In africa, it caused l' Amok, this furíous madness of the malians and the death of Malik in 1092 and Raymond of Trípoli in 1152; wasn 't it the cause of the rnisfortune of Conrad de Monserrat, who was stabbed the very day he was to be crowned as the king of Jerusalem in 1192? Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994 290 MERZOUKl, A.; ED-DERFOUFI, F. y MOLERO, J. The Balouba of Kasai vowed it veritable cult after a religious political revolution. According to the crusaiders, the old man of the mountains, the Chiite Hassan Sabbah, creator of the Ismailite sect in 1090 made drunk his disciples by means of a mixture based on hashish and obtained from them unlimited devotion. Don't we say the word assassin is derived only from the word hashashines (consumer of hashish in arabic)? The meeting of the humanity with this plant goes back to the very first time and its domestication to 6.000 years. Its culture is thought to be one of the oldest that has ever been discovered by the Man; the oldest document tbat deals with hemp goes back to 15 centuries B. c.; it is treating about Rhy-Ya, treatise of the chinese botanic. Heredotus, 450 years B.C., reported that the Scythians Aral laKe people of the Caspian sea were driving themselves mad inhaling the smoke evolved from the seeds of hemp thrown in the fire. The hemp plant was cultivated in Palestine and Mesopotarnia at the time of Christ, but the earliest Roman mention of it was made about 100 B. C. The "Vedas", sacred book of tbe "Indians" reported hemp and the priests used it during the religious ceremonies to excite the fanatism of the women priests in order to impress the faithfuls. According to arabo-islamic manuscripts, hashish was introduced in Persia in the 650th year of the Hegir, then in minor Asia and in Egypt; the arabic invasions had probably introduced it in the north of africa and Spain. In the treatise of the "simples" oflbn al Baytar (3), the author made of it an extraordinary compilation of the bibliographical data dealing with hemp, starting, in a chronogical order, by Discorides, Galen, A vicenne, Razes and Ishak ibn Amran before achieving by his own description. It was of a remarkable precision; in fact, he described the botanical characters, the pharmacological properties and the relationship between the Man and Hemp plant. Finally, he distinguished two varieties, the wild type and the cultivated one, and used the binomial denomination "Al Kanab al Hindi" which corresponds to cannabis indica described by Lamarck, five centuries later. The moslem treatises became abundant concerning Kannab (cannabis) between the 1 ph and the 15th century (41). Cannabis was cultivated for the fibre of its stems, the oil of its seeds and its resio which provides hallucinogenous and medicinal properties. In fact, cannabis presents an important source of cellulose, its fibres are composed of 70% of cellulose and are used for the production of cords and resistant clothes. The numerous seeds of the plant provide 30% of fatty materials and constitute, for many years, an important nutritional source for people and animals. Nowadays, the hemp seeds are exploited to extract oils which serve to the elaboration of paioting and vamish. The narcotics properties of the cannabis were not introduced to Europe till the 16th century (4); the preparations rich in resin (Kaf, Kif, Hashish, marihuana, Bangi, Dacka, Malasch, Bhang, ...... ) are the main purpose of the most important world trade. The different uses of the plant gave rise to Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994 WHAT ABOUT CANNABIS TAXONOMY? 291 a considerable interest for the specialists as well as for the profanes. There are more than 7.000 publications dealing with botany, pharmacology, chemistry, agriculture and others. The cannabis that concems the pharmacologist in many ways: its actif principIes are original s, the cannabinoides are unique in plant kingdom; an important review of its products has been published by Tumer el al. (5). The biosynthetics processes that lead to the formation of its derivatives are of great interest. Moreover tbis point, ultrastructural studies succeded to establish the different stages of the formation of the structure responsible of the cannabis derivatives secretion (6, 7, 8, 9). On the other hand, to admit or not the monotypic genus of the cannabis, we observe that the plants rich in resin are poor in cellulose and in the contrary those wbich are rich in cellulose are narcotics actif principIes lacking. Apart from the scientific interest, the leamings acquired in these different areas invest with a particular importance since they would allow to influence the biological processes managing the fibres in order to increase their production in the plant and so to obtain a cheaper source of cellulose. The editorial 2001 of Frankfurt has just published a book printed on sheet of cannabis and entitled "the discovery of cannabis as a usefull plant". It seems that the paper pulp obtained from five hectares of forest wood may be extracted from only one hectare of cannabis culture. the improvement of the selection of hemp fibre variety will pro mote the differenciation of the resin variety and therefore will prevent any illegal and fraudulent use of the cannabis. The diversity of the plant utilisation is according to Schultes (10), the cause of the great diversity in the size and aspect of the plant. This diversity of utilization would be a consequence of its domestication aH over the world with sometimes a step back to the wild type. The question remains in the identification of the cannabis from the plants grown from Afghanistan to Africa and from Mandshuria to Mexico, from Nepal to Norway, and from Europe to American continent. IS THE GENUS CANNABIS MONOTYPIC OR NOT? The systematicians sets here a complicated problem: Must we Jom the specie c. sativa of Linné to C. indica of Lamarck for the specie resin rich and the C. ruderalis of Janischewski corresponding to the wild types. ARE THESE T AXONS SPECIFICS OR SUBSPECIFICS? According to Dewey (11), hemp which was cultivated for the fibres of its stems, the oil of its seeds and the resin extracted from its flowers, formed Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994 292 MERZOUKI, A.; ED-DERFOUFI, F. y MOLERO, J. progressively 3 types or groups of fairly different forrns. It has been reported (11), that the most typed extreme forrns of each group composed different species, however the existence of the interrnediary ones and their instability, once cultivated in other conditions, make impossible to confmn this hypothesis. The faculty of adaptation of hemp plant to very different climates complicate its systematic classification. The study of the plasticity of the genus cannabis goes back to the last century (12). Many authors have demonstrated that the plants resulting from seeds original s from India, cultivated in Europe produce no more inebriant resin in the future generations. The seeds resulted from the European yarieties producing fibres of high quality are exported to Egypt in order to manifacture ships ropes. Sorne generations later, the quality of the fibres decreased under arid climate while the plant started to produce more res in. Many authors (13, 14) are inclined to the unicity of the cannabis genus. however, in 1970, sorne authors supported the polytypicity of the genus and Schultes et al. (15), as experts distinguish between C. sativa considered as a resin variety and C. indica as a fibre one. Severals botanic denominations proposed in the scientific litterature to designe hemp are shown in the following table 1, (39). Table 1.-Botanic denominations of Cannabis. Cannabis sativa Cannabis mas Cannabis foemina Cannabis erratica Cannabis rupulus Cannabis sterilis Cannabis fo liis digitalis Cannabis indica Cannabis foetens Cannabis macrosperma Cannabis chinensis Cannabis generalis Cannabis americana Cannabis gigantea Cannabis ruderalis Cannabis interstitia BAUHIN et LINNE D' ALECHAMPS, DODOENS, BAUHIN D' ALECHAMPS, DODOENS, BAUHIN D' ALECHAMPS, DODOENS, BAUHIN, SIEV SCOP. D' ALECHAMPS, DODOENS, BAUHIN LINNE LAMARCK GILIBERT STOKES DELILE KRAUSE Pharm. ex WEHMER CREVOST JANISCHEVSKY SOJAK 1623 et 1753 1587 1587 1587 1623 1623 1738 1785 1792 1812 1849 1905 1911 1917 1924 (hybride) In this way, the terrns C. sativa and C. mas, used by D' Alechamps, Dodens and Bauhin are refered to the female plants and the denominations C. erratice, C. foemina and C. sterilis to the mal e plants. Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994 WHAT ABOUT CANNABIS TAXONOMY? 293 Linne (16), in bis Hortus cliffortianus of 1738 used the following denominations: C. foliis digitalis, C. erratica, C. mas and C. foemina as synonymes and regroups them in 1735 in bis species plantarum under the name of denomination of C. sativa, followed by the first plant detailed description as well as of two specimens. Lamarck (17), has observed that C. indica is different from C. sativa of Linne based on a specimen imported from india and which described in 1785. Many botanists have supported Lamarck description as being the one of the resin specie, however, this thesis has been debated by numerous authors. Small (18) said that Lamarck has found in C. indica a distinct specie as a result of a superficial study and nowadays, we consider fairIy obscure bis conception of an original specie. In 1792, Gilibert (15), introduced le C. foetens wbich constituted indeed a synonyme of C. saliva, then Stokes (15), described in 1812 the C. macrosperma distinguishing it from C. saliva by its oblongs seeds. In 1849, the C. chinensis appeared in the catalogue of the botanical garden seeds of Montpellier. De Candolle (13), in 1869 described many cannabis varieties (Kif, Vulgaris, Pedemontana and Chinensis already reported by Delile in 1849. In 1905, Krause (15), described a hemp originating from Asia and wbich he called C. gen era lis and in 1908, Houghton & Hamilton (19), and Hamilton (20), refered to the cannabis grown in America as C. americana. In 1917, Crevost (15), utilized the binomial C. gigantea for the hemp grown in Indochina. The most recent taxonomy investigation of the cannabis genus is that of the Russian botanist Janischevsky (21), in 1924. He described carefulIy the differences between a wild specie of the south east of Russia and the cultivated specimens. he used the denomination of C. ruderalis for the wild specimen. The cannabis genus polytipicity supporters dont accept among the numerous proposed denominations only the binomial s C. sativa and C. indica and C. ruderalis. Serebriakova and Sivov (22) singles out in a detailed study two species: the C. saliva and C. indica. Sorne botanists as Stearn (23), express themselves with a lot of aloofuess and extol a detailed study in order to eliminate any doubts concerning the nomenclature. Small (24), on the contrary, desagrees with the idea of existence of many hemp species. In 1972, he demonstrated that the genus is completely diploide (n=10). The existence of polyploides is artificial, the pollen is easily transported by the wind along hundreds of kilometers and the hybridation has no barriers, he finally conc1uded in the uniqueness of the specie (25, 26, 27, 28) with subspecies, the C. sativa ssp sativa growing in the temperate regions, rich in fibres, poor in THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) «0.3%) and relatively rich in CBD (Cannabidiol) and the ssp indica in the warm regions, rich in resin (THC>0.3%) but poor in fibres and in CBD. The c1assification of hemp based on its chemical composition was proposed Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994 294 MERZOUKI, A.; ED·DERFOUFI, F. y MOLERO, J. in the first time by Grlic in 1968 (38), he proposed a system based ori ripening stages of cannabis plant. Tumer et al. (5), concluded from tbe cannabinoides components that the results, of this classification, must be discussed with precaution. The che mi cal classification would be difficult because of tbe bigh plasticity of hemp plant. Fetterman et al. (29), used (THC)+(CBN)/(CBD) ratio in order to characterize the phenotype of a variety or a population. If the ratio exceeded 1, the variety is classified as "drog phenotype", otberwise, it is considered as a "fibre phenotype". Small and Beckstead (26), proposed 3 phenotypes, drog, intermediate and fibre according to the richness of hemp plant in THC and CBD in both sexes, (tab. 2). Table 2.-Characterization of Phenotypes by THC and CBD percentage. Phenotype THC % l. Drug 2. Intennediate 3. Fibre (non drug) >0.3 (in both sexes) >0.3 (in females) <0.3 (in females) CBD % <0.5 (in both sexes) <0.5 (in both sexes) >0.5 (in both sexes) Foumier and Paris (30), moved tbis limit to 0.5% of THC for fibrous varieties and so they distinguish two phenotypes, !ibre and drog, (tab. 3). Table 3.-Characterization of c;annabis phenotypes by THC/CBD ratio. Phenotypes THC % CBD % Fibre Drug <0.5 >0.5 >0.5 <0.5 THC/CBD <1 >1 For the Russian varieties, Virovets reported by Meijer et al. (31), considered 0.2% of THC as a maximum for the fibrous variety. Many authors agree with the opinion of Small and Cronquist; tbey consider the specie as instable and presents a great morpbological and genetical plasticity (5, 15, 27, 28). In fact, in this plant, the taxonomy is not the unique aspect of discrepancy, but other aspects as resin are matters of debats. The resin resulting from female plants has been considered for a long time as the unique active one, but Valle et al. (32), has demonstrated that the resin of the male plants may also be active. The analysis of canabinoides leads to the conclusion of the similarity of tbe chemical components of both mal e and female (29, 33 ,34). Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994 WHAT ABOUT CANNABIS TAXONOMY? 295 Another aspect more frequently studied is the influence of the climate and the environmental conditions on the Cannabis composition (35). It is obvious that the cultivatedplants in the warm regions, rich in resin loose this capacity once cultivated in a temperate region, this phenomenon takes place after 2 or 3 generations. However, the fibrous varieties of the temperate regions when transported to warm regions, Egypt or Morocco, produce worse fibre quality and high quantities of resin (36, 37). Schultes el al. (15), known as a defender of hemp polytypicity, distin guishes a great difference in the chemical composition, not only at cannabinoides levels but al so at essential oils and flavonoides and others secondary metabolits. Lewig-Berger (39), proposed a cherniotaxonomical approach based on a study of the chemical composition of hemp akene (enzymes, proteins, fatty acids, phenols and cannabinoides) in order to distinguish between resin and fibre varieties. Coupled with a morphological study of the akene, the author concluded that its fairely difficult to distinguish from Cannabis plant the chernical varieties. According to Takhtajan (42), the Urticales order is connected with Hamamelidales and perhaps derived directly from them. The botanists in gene ral agree with the following classification (27, 28, 42) : Division: Class: Subclass: Superorder: Order: Familly: Genus: Magnoliophyta Magnoliopsida Hamamelididae Hamamelidanae Urticales Cannabaceae Cannabis At the present, the most common used denomination is that of Linne (40), Cannabis saliva L.. According to Cronquist (28), The Cannabaceae family consist of only two genera, Humulus with two species native to North temperate regions and Cannabis with a single highly variable species C. saliva L. which has diversified under cultivation into a more northem subspecies saliva, cultivated principally for fiber (hemp), and a more tropical subspecies indica (Lam.) Small & Cronq., cultivated principally for psychotropic drugs (Marijuana, Hashish). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are thankful to F. Chibi for the English text traduction. Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994 296 MERZOUKI, A.; ED-DERFOUFI, F. y MOLERO, J. REFERENCES (1) MIEGE, J. (1970), Triste vedette, Musée de Geneve 104, 7-12. (2) NAHAS, G. (1975), le chanvre trompeur. P.U.F., p. 434. (3) IBN AL BAYTAR, A. (1291), Al yami' Ii-mufradat al-adwiya wa-I-agdiya, Bulaq ed., 4 parts, 2 vol. (4) FAIRBAN, 1. W. (1976), J. D. P. Graham ed., Acad. Press, London, 3-19. (5) TURNER, C. E., ELSOHLY, M. A. & BOEREN, E. G. (1980), J. Nat. products, 43 (2), 169-234. (6) HAMMOND, C. T. & MAHLBERG, P. G. (1977), Am. J. Bot., 64, 1023-103l. (7) KIM, E. S. & MAHLBERG, P. G. (1991), Am. J. Bot., 78, 220-229. (8) MAHLBERG, P. G. & KIM, E. S. (1991), Am. J. Bot., 78, 1113-1128. (9) MAHLBERG, P. G. & KIM, E. S. (1992), Am . .!. Bot., 79, 166-173. (10) SCHULTES, R. E. (1970), C. R. B. Joyce et R. H. Curry, Churchill, London, 11-33. (11) DEWEY, L. H. (1914) Hemp U. S. D. A. yearbook 19 13, 283-346. (12) BOUQUET, R. J., 1950.- Bull. Stupéfiants 2 (4), 14-30. (13) DE CANDOLLE, A. (1869), Pars XVI, sect. 1., Masson et Fils, Paris, p. 492. (14) SMALL, E. (1976), J. Forensic Sciences, 21, 239. (15) SCHULTES, R. E., KLEIN, W. M., PLOWMAN, T. & LOCKWOOD, T. E. (1974), Bot. Mus. Leafl. Harv. Univ., 23, p. 337. (16) LINNE, C. (1738), Hortus Cliffortianus, Stockholm. (17) LAMARCK, J. B. (1785), Encyclopédie de Botanique, vol. 1 (2), p. 694. (18) SMALL, E. (1975), Bull. des Stupéfiants, 27 (3), 1-20. (19) HOUGHTON, E. M. & HAMILTON, H. C. (1908), Am. J. Pharm., 80, 16-20. (20) HAMILTON, H. C. (1912), J. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1, 200-203. (21) JANISCHEVSKY, D. E. (1917), Ucen. Zapo Saratovsk. Gosud Univ., 2 (2), 3. (22) SEREBRIAKOVA, T. 1. & SIZOV, l. A. (1940), Cannabinaceae Lindl, Moscou. (23) STEARN, W. T. (1974), Bot. Leafl. Harv. Univ. 23, 325-336. (24) SMALL, E. (1972), Can. J. Bot. 50, 1947-1949. (25) SMALL, E. (1974), Am. J. Bot. 61 (5 suppl.), p. 50. (26) SMALL, E., BECKSTEAD, H. D. & CHAN, A. (1975), Econ. Bot. 29, 219-232. (27) SMALL, E. et CRONQUIST, A. (1976), Taxon 25 (4), 405-435. (28) CRONQUIST, A. (1981), An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants, Columbia University Press, New York, 1.262 p. (29) FETTERMAN, P. S., KEITH, E. S., WALLER, C. W., GUERRERO, O., DOORENBOS, N. J. & QUIMBY, M. W. (1971), J. Pharm. Sci. 60, 1246-1249. (30) FOURNIER, G. & PARIS M. (1980), Physiol. Vég., 18, 349-356. (31) MEIJER, E. P. M., VAN DER KAMP H. J. & VAN EUWIJK F. A. (1992), Euphytica, 62, 187-200. (32) VALLE, J. R., LAPPA, J. A. et BAVROS G. G. (1968), J. Ph., Pharm. 20, 798-799. (33) DOORENBOS, N. J., FETTERMAN, P. S., QUIMBY, M. W. & TURNER, C. E., (1971), Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 191, 3-14. (34) OHLSSON, A., ABDOU-CHAAR, C. 1., AGURELL, S., NILSSON, 1. M., OLOFSSON, K. & SANDBERG. F. (1971), Bull. des Stupéfiants, 23 (1), 29-32. (35) FAIRBAIRN, J. W. & LIEBMANN, J. A. (1974), J. Ph. Pharmacol, 26, 413-419. (36) MIEGE, E. (1938), Les cultures complémentaires au Maroc, Direction des Affaires Economiques, Gouvernement chérifien, Rabat, 1973. (37) SMALL, E. & BECKSTEAD, H. D., Lloydia, 36, 144-165. (38) GRLIC L. (1968), Bull. Narcotics, 20 (3), 25-29. Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994 WHAT ABOUT CANNAB1S TAXONOMY? (39) LEWIG-BERGER, C. (1982), These 2059, Univ. de Geneve, p. 154. (40) LINNE, C. (1753), Species p1antarum, Stockholm, vol. 2, p. 1072. 297 (41) ROZENTHAL, F. (1971), The Herb, Hashish versus in the medieval muslim society, E. J. Brill ed., 212 p. (42) TAKHTAJAN, A. L. (1980), Bot. Review, vol. 46, 3, 263-267. Ars Pharmaceutica, 35:2; 289-297, 1994