Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
More modern methods using Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) led to a better understanding of chemotaxonomical relationships in genus Cannabis. [20,21,22]
[20] R. Gillan, M.D. Cole, A. Linacre, J.W. Thorpe, N.D. Watson: Comparison of Cannabis sativa by Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and HPLC of cannabinoids: a preliminary study. Science & Justice Volume 35 (3): 1995, p 169–177.
[21] Vidya Jagadish, James Robertson, Adrian Gibbs: RAPD analysis distinguishes Cannabis sativa samples from different sources. Forensic Science International Volume 79 (2): 1996, 113–121.
[22] Daniela Pacifico, Francesca Miselli, Mirta Micheler, Andrea Carboni, Paolo Ranalli, Giuseppe Mandolino: Genetics and Marker-assisted Selection of the Chemotype in Cannabis sativa L. Molecular Breeding 17 (3): 2006, 257-268.
The characterisation of genus Cannabis is nowadays facilitated by a combination of chemical and taxonomical means. Therefore the varieties are grouped in various phenotypes. Phenotypes are mainly characterized by their chemical ingredients, therefore phenotypes are also chemotypes. Based on a combination of chemical constituent analysis and DNA characterisation, Hilling published a genetic study of genus Cannabis. [18,19]
[18] Karl W. Hillig: Genetic evidence for speciation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52, 2005, 161–180.
[19] Karl W. Hillig; Paul G. Mahlberg: A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae). American Journal of Botany 91, 2004, 966–975.
The lack of distinct, systematical taxonomical description of genus Cannabis was noted by Schultes et al. [14].
There have been described some other Cannabis varieties, but all of that former work is mostly based on morphological characters, which are varying in this genus. Up to now, only Cannabis sativa Linn. and Cannabis indica Lam. are accepted on a species level by most botanist. The current botanical knowledge is reviewed by Small and Cronquist [8,10].
Ernest Small and William Emboden grouped Cannabis varieties into phenotypes, mostly based on botanical morphological characters. [15, 16, 17]
[14] Richard Evans Schultes; William M. Klein; Timothy Plowman; Tom E. Lockwood: Cannabis: an example of taxonomic neglect. Botanical Museum Leaflets, Harvard University 23 (9): 1974, 337-367.
[15] Ernest Small; H.D. Beckstead: Common cannabinoid phenotypes in 350 stocks of Cannabis. Lloydia 36: 1973, 144-165.
[16] Ernest Small; Perry Y. Jui; L. P. Lefkovitch: A numerical taxonomic analysis of cannabis with special reference to species delimitation.
Systematic Botany Vol. 1 (1): 1976, 67-84.
[17] William A. Emboden; Cannabis — a polytypic genus. Economic Botany 28 (3): 1974, 304-310. ISSN 0013-0001
Dmitrij E. Janischewsky described another Cannabis variety in 1924 [11], C. sativa var. ruderalis, which he later upgraded to be a distict species, Cannabis ruderalis [11, 12], considerably synonym to a variety described from Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, Cannabis sativa var. spontanea Vavilov. [13]
[11] Janischewsky, Dmitrij E.: Trudy Glavnago Botanícheskago Sada 43, 1930, 84.
[12] Janischewsky, Dmitrij E. Forma konopli na sornykh mestakh v Yugo-vostochnoi Rossii. Uchenye zapiski 2(2): 1924, 3-17. University of Saratov, Saratov, U.S.S.R.
[13] Vavilov, Nikolai Ivanovich: Field crops of South-Eastern European Russia. (Chapter X: Fibre Plants, p. 139–149). Trudy po prikladnoj botanike i selekcii (Petrograd) Vol. 13 (Suppl. 23), 1922, p. 147-148.
Hemp, botanical name Cannabis sativa, is a genus from the family of Cannabaceae. It is mostly represented by only one species, Cannabis sativa Linn., first described by Carl Linneaus. [7]
The predominant (sub)species found in the Indian subcontinent an China was considered to be a separate species, named as Cannabis indica Lamarck in 1783, and was reconsidered as a separate species by Ernest Small and Arthur John Cronquist. [8,10].
In the taxonomical history of genus Cannabis, Lamarck re-considered also other, formerly described species like Cannabis famina, Cannabis mas, but all of these descriptions of Cannabis species were found to be more or less varieties of one and the same species Cannabis sativa, adopted to various conditions. [9]
[7] Linnaeus, Carl: Species Plantarum, 2, 1753, 1027. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Plantarum
[8] E. Small; A. Cronquist: A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25 (4): 1976, 405–435. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1220524?uid=3737864&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104863558993
https://de.scribd.com/doc/148145472/small-1976-pdf
[9] Jean-Baptiste Lamarck: Encyclopédie Méthodique, Botanique 1(2): 1783, 695 (publ. 1785). Web: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/15259#page/3/mode/1up
[10] Ernest Small: On Toadstool Soup and Legal Species of Marihuana. PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN. A Publication of the Botanical Society of America, Inc. Vol. 21 (3), 1975, 34-38. http://botany.org/PlantScienceBulletin/psb-1975-21-3.php
Along the use of this crop in the manufacture of fibres (clothing, ropes, etc.) the use of hemp seed oil (not the essential oil) has also gained many attention, and it is already used in nutrition and cosmetics [2,3,4,5a] and as biodiesel [5b]. Due to abuse of the plant as a recreational drug, there is considerable interest for law- and policymakers on the legalization of the cultivation of this plant. [6]
[2] J. C. Callaway: Hempseed as a nutritional resource: An overview. Euphytica 140 (1-2): 2004, 65-72. ISSN 0014-2336
[3] Paolo Ranalli, Gianpietro Venturi: Hemp as a raw material for industrial applications. Euphytica 140 (1-2): 2004, 1-6. ISSN 0014-2336
[4] I.S. Carvalho, I. Miranda, H. Pereira: Evaluation of oil composition of some crops suitable for human nutrition. Industrial crops and products 24 (1): 2006, 75–78. ISSN 0926-6690
[5a] Bertrand Matthäus* and Ludger Brühl: Virgin hemp seed oil: An interesting niche product. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 110 (7): 2008, 655–661. DOI: 10.1002/ejlt.200700311
[5b] Si-Yu Lia, James D. Stuart, Yi Lic, Richard S. Parnas: The feasibility of converting Cannabis sativa L. oil into biodiesel. Bioresource Technology 101 (21): 2010, 8457–8460. ISSN 0960-8524
[6] Bryce Pardo: Cannabis policy reforms in the Americas: A comparative analysis of Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay. International Journal of Drug Policy 25 (4): 2014, p. 727–735. ISSN 0955-3959
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.05.010
Bayport should reconsider it's use of hemp oil in the intended manufacture of the skin creams. There might be a considerable good marketing potential.
And this is why:
Hemp is a very useful crop, and has gained some more interest in recent years at potential use in various products manufactured from it. An introduction to this topic can be found here:
[1] Roulac, J.W.: Industrial hemp: practical products - paper to fabric to cosmetics. Hemptech, 1996, 48 p.
ISBN-10: 188687400X; ISBN: 978-18-8687400-8
http://agris.fao.org/aos/records/US9604792
Publication in stock at the Information Systems Division, National Agricultural Library, HOMEPAGE: http://www.nal.usda.gov/
I don't remember the exact words of the notice, but I would think, that you are right. Was there any expertise from experts, other than a lawyer, that stated that the use of seed oil would be in conflict with any laws? Did they do any own research about the ingredients of the seed oil, that would limit its use for the purpose they intended to use it? The advice of the counceler is maybe only with respect of the content of cannabinoids, which can be found in some parts of the plant, when treated properly. But the use of the plant, for example for the use of the manufacture of fibres in production of clothing is not limited at all and there is no danger that the use of plant fibres is in conflict with any law.
As to what I remember is, that they decided to get out of the MJ business themself. Whatever, they already decided to concentrate on other business activities, by exiting the MJ business, which is probably not wrong, and will give the company a better future outlook.
Yes, I agree. They have promised more details to the audit last year, instead this, they stepped in the MJ business and exited it soon after again. Not yet clear, what's going on.
They announced last year, that they were not selling shares anymore, contribution to income. And in addition, they announce this year to initiate a financing for 5 million from another source. I do not know if they realised that yet, but I would suspect, that they were successful with it, since Their also went to new cooperations, and increasing business activities, for which tehy of course also need new funds, at leats for the pipeline project. i am sure, that this new cooperation and their investment to new wells/ pipelines will pay out.
Hmmm, let's see.
As long they do not issue countless shares, pps of this company is in fair condition. Only 70-80% down post-R/S.
But they hold still 700 millions as authorized shares after R/S, about the fate of these shares nothing is known up to date, but this is probably dependend on their business activities.
Yes, nice story, and in the reported case the stock seems to executed some forward splits. You had a good investment those days!
I had those kind of stocks, too.
Tiny start today, again.
Good luck to you, too.
Some fundamental change for Bayport could also turn out to be good for shareholders. I hope of course, that Bayport's business is advancing. But as you know, there are always some handicaps, which are to be overcome.
Maybe you're right. Nevertheless, I would stay here a a little longer, in the hope, the new pipeline will work out.
Already in production, and new wells will come to an entry to a big pipeline net.
Yes, that is what I was thinking, too, when they announced cooperation.
A lot of details can be inside the contracts. If it affects shareholder value, or at least an outlook on future activities, they will probably announce that in some of the next company reports. This will increase trust in the company, and they can sell their shares than again to a broader audience. Maybe these actvitiea are also part of the audit.
Go, go, go!
The wells are still producing. Let's hope for more on their business outlook.
Right, prices for energy are always going up on the long trem-trend.
Very good contribution, thanks Jonny. Im thoughts are also within the management. The have probably already done the audit.
Hmm, maybe not all are selling at the same moment
Zero Volume up to now, so it seems shareholders are waiting.
Also, the audit probably does not cover recent business changes which they have initiated. If they are audited, this probably covers the developments at those pont at which they announced to do so. The new business cooperations in the gas- and oil industry were initiated in July this year.
I'm sorry, but if you follow the messages line, it comes clear.
In this point, I agree with you. Already last year they have ordered that audit, or at least they have promied to do so. In the meanwhile they only made some business announcment and exits in the MJ industry and then some have undergone some cnew cooperations with other oil- and gas exploreres. Although they have not yet made the audit, these new business arrangments sound much better to me. Let's see, how this will get further.
The price target which you stated yesterday. Unfortunately some pennies were missing.
We are on the way to there.
Would agree with you.
They announced they have sold all of the formerly 1.5 Billion shares to date of end of December 2013. After that they made an R/S and incresaed # of authorized shares.
I do not count the preffered shares, which are not stock listed.
Right, they have not announced, they have sold any of the A/S.
It also would be in public interest that tesetaxel could be available to doctors and those patients not taking part in studies.
The same I hope also.
It is clear that tesetaxel will be an advanced drug for treatment of cancers.
I'm just sceptical, but I will let me surprise, what the court decide. The court decision can have a negative impact on shareholders, but a positve decision would be very fruitful for commerzialization and improvement of health for patients.
We are in the reds with pps post-reverse split. But the recent anouncements sounded good.
Indeed, no volume up to no. Whay are all the shareholders holding their shares? This is like trading back 50 years ago.