Splitting is often accompanied by“rank inflation”—the elevation of groupings to
a higher rank (especially to the species level) than justified. Taxonomic splitting and
rank elevation are attractive to some scientists because these practices amplify the
quantity and ranking of taxonomic groups for which they receive credit. However,
over-recognition of some groups has resulted in distortion of the nature and sig-
nificance of studies of biodiversity, ecology and conservation (Chaitra et al. 2004 ;
Padial and de la Riva 2006 ).
Isaac et al. ( 2004 ) noted that populations assigned species rather than a lower
rank are often regarded as more important, and that“This encourages elevation to
species rank of populations that need protection, regardless of whether there is
scientific support for this status...Such inflation will be biased towards charismatic,
large-bodied, rare and endangered forms...that attract high public, scientific and
conservation interest.”
In the 1970s, a curious forensic debate was founded on splitting what had been
widely understood up to that time as the speciesC. sativainto three species (called
C. sativain a narrow non-conventional sense,C. ruderalisJanischevsky andC.
indicaLamarck). In many Western countries, legislation governing illicit cannabis
preparations defines the material as originating from“Cannabis sativaL.”Court
cases prior to 1970 witnessed some defenses of individuals accused of marijuana
offences on the argument that the material in question came from one or more“legal
species”ofCannabis(i.e., species in addition toC. sativa). This claim failed until
1971 because of the prevailing opinion (at least in the Western world) that there is
only one species ofCannabis,C. sativa. However, in 1971 a court challenge was
successful, based on the testimony of several botanists that there is more than one
species ofCannabis. Subsequently for a decade the legal issue was raised in
hundreds of courtrooms, especially in the United States and Canada. The ploy was
successful because talented lawyers represented taxonomy as simply a factual
assessment of existential groups called species (hence expert witnesses were suf-
ficient to decide the “facts”), whereas in reality one taxonomist’s species is
another’s variety. The issue eventually became moot as judges came to realize that
recognition of more than one species ofCannabisis based merely on splitting ofC.
sativainto several species, and that taxonomic opinion on whether splitting is
scientifically correct is irrelevant because theintentof legislation using the name
“Cannabis sativaL.”was clearly to designate all forms ofCannabis(and certainly
the marijuana forms, which many lawyers had speciously argued were exempt from
prosecution because they belonged to“C. indica,”allegedly a“legal species”). The
history of the legal-taxonomic debate is detailed in Small (1979a,b).
The above discussion points out that scientific (Latin) names, despite having
been coined by professional scientists, can be quite ambiguous. A name like
“Engelbert Humperdink”may by quite specific with respect to the individuals
denoted, but to understand the range of individuals included in a name like
“Cannabis sativa”requires knowledge of the intent of the user of the name.
42 E. Small