served to address the issue of names for major divisions of domesticated plants
within species or species groups (i.e. groups of cultivars or strains), nor how to
distinguish such major divisions from related wild plants.
The cultivated plant code (ICNCP) has been the subject of debate, particularly as
it relates to the plant code applying to all plants (ICNAFP). There have been
attempts to introduce a parallel term,“culton,”for the term“taxon”(see McNeill
( 1998 ) for a critique). Mostly in the past, cultivars were sometimes grouped in
“convarieties,”a troublesome category because it has been used to indicate rank
according to the comprehensive nomenclatural code for plants. A peculiarity of the
ICNCP, pointed out by McNeill ( 2004 ), is that it does“not presume that desirable
groupings are necessarily non-overlapping”(i.e., according to Article 3.4, a given
cultivar can simultaneously belong to more than one group). Such“overlapping
classification”is controversial, but is often useful in pointing out that a given
individual within one group may share traits of interest with other groups (remi-
niscent of how people may belong to different specialty clubs).
A key feature of the ICNCP provides for recognition of“groups”of cultivars,
allowing considerableflexibility in their formation (“Criteria for forming and
maintaining a group vary according to the required purposes of particular users”),
but insisting that“All members of a Group must share the character(s) by which
that Group is defined.”(A special group category,“grex,”applies only to horti-
cultural hybrids of orchids.) The group concept isflexible in choice of characters
serving to define membership (of course, there may be disagreements among
specialists about which characters should be the basis for group recognition).
Because the group concept of the cultivated plant code has only a single rank (really
no rank), it does not provide for using taxonomic rankings as an indication of
phylogenetic history.
The group concept provides a simple, sound alternative way of labelling vari-
ation of domesticated forms in the genusCannabis. It eliminates the need to
consider rank; what various authors may have treated as species, subspecies or
varieties can be reduced to the same level. The four domesticated assemblages
noted in Table2.2can simply be recognized as groups. There is considerable
hybridization inCannabis, which often makes identification problematical, but the
same is true of most important domesticated plants. Groups that are hybrids
between other groups can simply be recognized as separate groups. Small ( 2015 )
formally classified the six kinds of domesticated groupings discussed in Sect.2.7as
groups under the cultivated plant code.
1.11.3 Classification of Cannabis Assemblages
as Non-formal Groups
“Formal”botanical taxonomic treatment refers to the strict use of the categories and
nomenclatural conventions for designating groups specified in at least one of the
48 E. Small