.
.This time, the statement wasn't nitpicking and refers to the question 'monoecious or dioecious'. Subdioecious is only a sub-category of dioecious. All depends on how many shades of grey you want to use. Already Linnaeus described Cannabis sativa as dioecious (at that time, the term subdioecious was not yet invented). Furthermore, the presence of chromosomal sex determination and the instability of monoecious modern varieties (and the stability of other dioecious ones) prove that cannabis is in fact dioecious. Some local forms or varieties may be subdioecious (though the 'perfect' flowers are usually imperfect and sterile), whereas others are subgynoecious (several of the modern 'monoecious' varieties) or even dichogamous, but most of the not purely dioecious ones are in fact polygamodioecious. One can not generalise and apply such a term to the whole genus Cannabis; it only applies to species or even subspecies but we don't know yet how many there are... that's why we have to describe each variety, local form etc. separately.
Besides, cannabis may simply be in midst or stuck in evolution from monoecious to dioecious. Furthermore, many of what you call subdioecious varieties are only very susceptible to external influences which mess with the internal (dioecious) sex determination; if this environmental sex determination is accepted as second mechanism and hence affects the term we use (i.e. dioecious or polygamodioecious) remains IMHO a matter of debate.
So much to being nitpicking
The first attempts at breeding monoecious hemp (Cannabis sativa var. sativa and not our beloved drug C. indica) were done by Grischko in the year 1931. Schurig followed in the years 35/36 and Belowitzkaja, Gretschuchin, and Hoffmann joined the picture a year later. Neuer and Sengbusch started their investigation on the inheritance of monoecious hemp in the 40s.
. BTW, the most useful publication in this regard I have at hand right now is: H. Neuer und R. v. Sengbusch, Die Geschlechtsvererbung bei Hanf und die Züchtung eines monözischen Hanfes, Der Züchter, 15. Jahrgang, 1943, Heft 3, pp. 49-63. ). .Subdioecious would imply that a plant shows unisexual and bisexual (perfect) flowers with eventual unisexual flowers of the opposite sex. This is usually not the case because only the two types of unisexual flowers are present. Whether males or females show hermaphrodism doesn't matter in either case. Hence, the proper term would be polygamodioecious.
In that regard, it doesn't matter how cannabis or any other dioecious plant for that matter became dioecious. I do not know from where you got the numbers neither what exactly you mean with that sentence. Monoecious varieties were selected from 'hermaphroditic females' due their obvious advantage over 'hermaphroditic males' although the latter are as (un-)common as the former and likely would behave the same were they used to create male monoecious variety.
The first attempts at breeding monoecious hemp (Cannabis sativa var. sativa and not our beloved drug C. indica) were done by Grischko in the year 1931. Schurig followed in the years 35/36 and Belowitzkaja, Gretschuchin, and Hoffmann joined the picture a year later. Neuer and Sengbusch started their investigation on the inheritance of monoecious hemp in the 40s.
All of these authors state that hemp is DIOECIOUS and the basis of the monoecious varieties were found in a very few plants (less than 0.1%) showing some male flowers very late into flowering (the infamous 'banana'). Said male flowers were caused by stress, injury, or drought amongst other things, are therefore not biologically relevant and do not change the state of hemps sexual life (i.e. hemp being dioecious).
@YD I propose, if you're not already fluent in German, that you learn it and then read the original papers! THEN we can discuss again
Not only Bocsa did backcross to dioecious varieties, it's common practice nowadays. Since the beginning, it was clear that the few males popping up in the population come from stray dioecious pollen. Experiments by Neuer and Sengbusch in a well isolated place in Germany revealed that and proved that without stray pollen, there are no true males showing monoecious varieties (in fact, he proved his 'theory' to be true
The same experiments didn't work out in the former UdSSR due the abundance of wild and cultivated hemp; I think this was the reason why Bócsa chose the strategy with 'unisex' varieties where some stray pollen wouldn't hurt.
EDIT: And BTW, the argument in the book Johnnyseed posted is settled in favour of von Sengbusch because we have now proof of the XX/XY allosome system in hemp.
What remains open is whether we are talking about 'hemp' or 'cannabis'
For those interested in the 'conflict', here the two publications by Walther Hoffmann as answer to von Sengbusch (I haven't read them yet):
Walther Hoffmann, Die Vererbung der Geschlechtsformen des Hanfes (Cannabis sativa L.) I, Der Züchter, 17./18. Jahrgang, 1947, Heft 9, pp. 257-277.
Walther Hoffmann, Die Vererbung der Geschlechtsformen des Hanfes (Cannabis sativa L.) II, Der Züchter, 22. Jahrgang, 1952, Heft 4-5, pp. 147-158.
And another one by von Sengbusch:
Walther Dierks und Reinhold von Sengbusch, Studium der Vererbung des Geschlechts und des Wuchstyps beim Hanf, Der Züchter, 37. Jahrgang, 1967, Heft 1, pp. 12-15.
Herein they show that a pure male monoecious variety be impossible to obtain due the lethality of male pollen obtained from such a plant/line.
. And no; think about the spinach and iron story. That one was in a book too but look where it got use. No matter if it's in black on white or whatever, you've got to compare, use your wits, and take own observations into account. No matter how I turn it, the outcome remains the same AND I know that one shall not read reference works and books without critically consulting the original publications (and where and if possible perform own experiments). Popeye wouldn't exist if folks writing books about healthy veggies had than that before 50 years had gone by.Subdioecious would imply that a plant shows unisexual and bisexual (perfect) flowers with eventual unisexual flowers of the opposite sex. This is usually not the case because only the two types of unisexual flowers are present. Whether males or females show hermaphrodism doesn't matter in either case. Hence, the proper term would be polygamodioecious.
In that regard, it doesn't matter how cannabis or any other dioecious plant for that matter became dioecious. I do not know from where you got the numbers neither what exactly you mean with that sentence. Monoecious varieties were selected from 'hermaphroditic females' due their obvious advantage over 'hermaphroditic males' although the latter are as (un-)common as the former and likely would behave the same were they used to create male monoecious variety.
The first attempts at breeding monoecious hemp (Cannabis sativa var. sativa and not our beloved drug C. indica) were done by Grischko in the year 1931. Schurig followed in the years 35/36 and Belowitzkaja, Gretschuchin, and Hoffmann joined the picture a year later. Neuer and Sengbusch started their investigation on the inheritance of monoecious hemp in the 40s.
All of these authors state that hemp is DIOECIOUS and the basis of the monoecious varieties were found in a very few plants (less than 0.1%) showing some male flowers very late into flowering (the infamous 'banana'). Said male flowers were caused by stress, injury, or drought amongst other things, are therefore not biologically relevant and do not change the state of hemps sexual life (i.e. hemp being dioecious).
@YD I propose, if you're not already fluent in German, that you learn it and then read the original papers! THEN we can discuss again
Not only Bocsa did backcross to dioecious varieties, it's common practice nowadays. Since the beginning, it was clear that the few males popping up in the population come from stray dioecious pollen. Experiments by Neuer and Sengbusch in a well isolated place in Germany revealed that and proved that without stray pollen, there are no true males showing monoecious varieties (in fact, he proved his 'theory' to be true
The same experiments didn't work out in the former UdSSR due the abundance of wild and cultivated hemp; I think this was the reason why Bócsa chose the strategy with 'unisex' varieties where some stray pollen wouldn't hurt.
EDIT: And BTW, the argument in the book Johnnyseed posted is settled in favour of von Sengbusch because we have now proof of the XX/XY allosome system in hemp.
What remains open is whether we are talking about 'hemp' or 'cannabis'
For those interested in the 'conflict', here the two publications by Walther Hoffmann as answer to von Sengbusch (I haven't read them yet):
Walther Hoffmann, Die Vererbung der Geschlechtsformen des Hanfes (Cannabis sativa L.) I, Der Züchter, 17./18. Jahrgang, 1947, Heft 9, pp. 257-277.
Walther Hoffmann, Die Vererbung der Geschlechtsformen des Hanfes (Cannabis sativa L.) II, Der Züchter, 22. Jahrgang, 1952, Heft 4-5, pp. 147-158.
And another one by von Sengbusch:
Walther Dierks und Reinhold von Sengbusch, Studium der Vererbung des Geschlechts und des Wuchstyps beim Hanf, Der Züchter, 37. Jahrgang, 1967, Heft 1, pp. 12-15.
Herein they show that a pure male monoecious variety be impossible to obtain due the lethality of male pollen obtained from such a plant/line.
.
Assuming flowered has the higher CBC ratio, but which by your testing?
