External morphological features of a monecious plant of Cannabis sativa L.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X24851Abstract
The the external morphological features of a monoecious plant Cannabis sativa L. were studied. These features were compared with those of dioecious plant described by CARAUTA (1) and COSTA & JACCOUD (2) and the following conclusions were reached: 1) the monoecious plant presents external characteristics similar to the male dioecious plant; 2) in the monoecious plant do occur, aproximately in the same proportion, flowers with 2 and 3 stigmas, while the dioecious plant normally has 2 stigmas present; 3) in branches on which modified flowers occur, the general aspect of the flowers suggests that the male flowers give origin to female flowers.
Downloads
References
CARAUTA, J.P.P. Canabáceas. Flora Ilustrada Catarinense. Itajai, Santa Catarina, 1975. l7p.
COSTA, O.de A. & JACCOUD, R.J. de S. Algumas considerações farmacognósticas referentes ao Cannabis sativa L. Rev. Bras. Farm. 48 (1): 3 - 25. 1967.
FOSTER, A.S. Techniques for study of venation patterns in the leaves of Angios perms. Stocklolm, Proc. 7th Int. Congr.: 586-587. 1950.
HAMMOND, C.T. & MAHLBERG, P.G. Morphology of glandular hairs of Cannabis sativa from scanning electron microscopy. Amer. J. Bot. 60 (6): 524 - 528. 1973.
SMALL, E. & CRONQUIST, A. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25 (4): 405 - 435. 1976.
VALLE, J.R. do. Contribuições antigas, de Garcia da Orta e de Frei Veloso, a propósito do cânhamo ou maconha. Ciência e Cultura, 23 (4): 459 - 463. 1971.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
