Response to the Erroneous Critique of my Cannabis Monograph by R. C. Clarke and M.D. Merlin

Abstract

I have been involved in debates in scientific journals concerning the classification of Cannabis sativa for almost a half century. Its variation pattern is by no means more complex than posed by thousands of other plant species, which usually receive just a paragraph of mention in the literature. However, because it is the world’s most controversial plant, C. sativa has attracted very widespread interest, not only by scientists but indeed by the public, who regrettably have been confused by its classification and nomenclature. Even in recent scientific publications there is frequent misunderstand about names applied to forms of C. sativa. The issues are not merely academic, since appropriate classification is the means by which certain biotypes are authorized for industrial and medical purposes, or subject to civil and criminal penalties. Accordingly, the evolutionary classification of C. sativa is very important, and I am very grateful to the editors of Botanical Review for having permitted me to publish a very extensive article on the subject (Small, 2015). Of course, as with most controversial issues, there is not unanimity of opinion on all aspects, as reflected by the criticism of Clarke and Merlin (2015). While I do not question their expertise, as detailed in the following, every one of their substantive criticisms of my contribution is mistaken. Much of the presentation of Clarke and Merlin quotes or rephrases material I presented in my paper, and of course I have no quarrel with this. My rejoinder is limited to their challenges regarding facts or interpretations in my presentation.