Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis, Did We Get It All Wrong?

[Azreal]

Some mabey not so new news, and sorry if this is a repost.

New naming convention proposed after a new genetic study. Here is a clip from the article.

Cannabis Indica (Formerly Sativa)

Origin: India

Morphology: Taller (>1.5m) than their short and stocky Afghanica cousins, with sparser branches and less dense buds/flowers.

Physiology: Longer flowering time, between nine and fourteen weeks. Minimal frost tolerance with a moderate production of resin.

Chemistry: Much greater THC than CBD and other cannabinoids, this leads to the “head high” many users report.

Psychoactivity: Stimulating.

Cannabis Afghanica (Formerly Indica)

Origin: Central Asia (Afghanistan, Turkestan, Pakistan)

Morphology: Shorter (<1.5m) than Indica strains with dense branches with wider leaves, and much denser buds/flowers

Physiology: Shorter flowering time, as little as seven to nine weeks. Good frost tolerance with high resin production. Afghanica strains can be susceptible to mold due to how dense the buds and branches are.

Chemistry: More variable than Indica strains. THC is often still the predominant cannabinoid but some strains have 1:1 ratios and some may have even higher CBD than THC.

Psychoactivity: Sedating.

Cannabis Sativa (Formerly Ruderalis)

Origin: Usually feral or wild. From Europe or Central Asia.

Morphology: Variable, depending on origin.

Physiology: The flowering time is short and variable, many varieties exhibit autoflowering traits (flowering independently of sun cycles). Moderate frost tolerance with relatively low resin production.

Chemistry: More CBD than THC. Prominent terpenes include caryophyllene and myrcene, giving these strains a floral flavor and scent.

Psychoactivity: Usually lacking.

Here's the full article
http://theleafonline.com/c/science/2015/01/indica-sativa-ruderalis-get-wrong/

Cheers!

 

[Growin Grass]

Hmm I defiantly agree that the commen nomenclature needs cleaned up but saying sativas have more cbd than thc?

Clarke and Merlin's Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany seems to lay it all out pretty well

Cheers

 

[Azreal]

Thanks for the tip, I'll look that up.

Btw, he says what we call ruderalis which he believes should be called sativa typically has more cbd than thc.

And sativa which should now be called indica, typically has far more thc than cbd.

 

[Growin Grass]

I just started studying it(it's a serious text book) but from what I've gathered most cannabis had very small amounts and fairly equal ratios of cannabanoids until the human influence on breeding. I could be misenterprering it and/or it could be wrong. Just my understanding

 

[Azreal]

I was referring to the article I posted in my last comment. As far as compound amounts I would assume he is referring to modern cannabis. Text book you say? Well now I'll definantly have to pick up a copy. On another note I'm very interested in aquiring landrace beans or as close as I can get. Do you know of a good resource for that? I want to sprout some and take embryonic tissue cultures of others. Also any good research papers or other text books you could recommend?

 

[Azreal]

Rad found a copy of that text book for $65.00 new, which is a good thing considering most other sellers were offering it for $135.00

 

[Growin Grass]

Here's an article that is cited a lot in Clarke and Merlin's book
A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis

and the way I'm reading this does support the idea that plants with little THC are lumped into the species C. Sativa
One thing I do keep running into, though, is that this is all semantics

"McPartland was the first researcher to look at the genetic markers on the three subspecies of cannabis using the plant’s genome to conclusively identify where it originated. He also proved conclusively that they are all the same species, just different subspecies."

and from Cannabis

"...Clarke (1981) provided additional insight into this confusing taxonomic situation, contending that all classifications to date are "more semantic than scientific and data can be interpreted differently by various taxonomists." Clarke argued that the uses of the plants "are our most important keys to distinguishing individual varieties, strains or species" "

On another note
It looks like Hillig's work concluded with the idea that Afghanica is a ssp of C. Indica not its own species.

Rad found a copy of that text book for $65.00 new

That's about what I paid for it.

Do you know of a good resource for that?

I wish, lots of people selling "them." I've just wanted to take a trip to India or Afghanistan myself and see what I could find.

Also any good research papers or other text books you could recommend?

I usually just look for good gardening info and research, most info on cannabis is half baked and unsupported.

 

[Growin Grass]

I want to sprout some and take embryonic tissue cultures of others.

Anything you're looking for or just seeing what you see?

 

[Azreal]

looking

Not looking for any one thing, just looking for older genetics, I have a few projects in mind, and I'd like to start from scratch or close to it.

 

[Azreal]

I would like to figure out as much about afghanicas original natural conditions, soil makeup, companion plants, climate, etc. unfortunately since we first showed up in that region to train bin laden and his buddies to fight the Russians over 90% of the forest in that area has been cut down. I make my own soil, and what I'm using currently is desert soil, like someone would use for cacti or succulents, I like to tailor my soils to mimic the areas where the plants I grow are found (I have a few green houses with a lot of cacti and succulents, and many other things). In that text book you have, do they talk about the different climates in the Hindu Kush, among other places where land races were found, as well as soil, etc? It seems like the book covers a pretty broad spectrum, so I could see how those details would be left out.

 

[Azreal]

On another note
It looks like Hillig's work concluded with the idea that Afghanica is a ssp of C. Indica not its own species.

Oh really, I thought it was the other way around, so did everything start in India?

 

[IronLeaf]

Perhaps genetically speaking, renaming the varietals makes sense, however as "Sativa" and "Indica" have become recognized names and deeply ingrained in pot-culture, changing the names now would be a seriously uphill battle that I strongly doubt you'd ever win. Interesting post though.

I am relatively new to farming and I honestly had never heard of Ruderalis before, so your post really opened my eyes to that. As I have been looking to grow Mid THC/High CBD strains, this information is right up my alley. I'd love to live in a state where experimentation were easier, but I am limited to 12 plants. I'd love to try crossing some Ruderalis with other hybrids and come up with that "perfect strain" for medicinal/light recreational use.

 

[Growin Grass]

Oh really, I thought it was the other way around, so did everything start in India?

It looks like the broad leaf drug variety did start in the hindu kush region, I think they just wanted to keep indica and sativa as the "species" for lack of confusion. After all the reading I've done on this, I'm convinced it's just all cannabis that has adapted to different regions and the growing conditions they provide. Keep in mind we've been breeding it and spreading it for several thousand years.

 

[Growin Grass]

In that text book you have, do they talk about the different climates in the Hindu Kush, among other places where land races were found, as well as soil, etc?

They might go slightly into that, but it's not at all a "growing" book. Saw a few bad reviews from people thinking it was that

 

[Azreal]

I think that you are correct in that it's all just cannabis, but I think that it would be worthwhile to support the correct sub species nomenclature, even if that goes against habit and popularity of cannabis culture.

I think there is evidence to suggest that the "drugs" in the drug strains are an adaptation to high altitude and harsh conditions, thc for one is used as a sunblock to protect the plant from UVB and other ultraviolet spectrums found in abundance at high altitude, also the tricombs where it's produced offers protection from dehydration. Cannabis is far from the only plant to produce tricombs, the manufacturing of these compounds in the tricombs protects the plant from these toxic substances, as they are extremely dangerous to the plants tissues. Beyond sunscreen they offer a wide range of advantages to the cannabis plant, such as antibacterial/anti fungal properties.

Yes it's true that we have been selectively breeding cannabis for thousands of years, but I imagine that the drug strains were present before human manipulation became common place, though not nearly as potent.

Sorry I'm scatterbrained today so I might be all over the board in my posts.

 

[Growin Grass]

Sorry I'm scatterbrained today so I might be all over the board in my posts.

On a good day I'm a whirlwind

I think that you are correct in that it's all just cannabis, but I think that it would be worthwhile to support the correct sub species nomenclature, even if that goes against habit and popularity of cannabis culture.

Agreed, not sure that putting a threshold on thc % is the best way to do that

Ah fuck, I wanted to write more on this but I can't think yet, all my brain is say is "need coffee"

 

[Azreal]

Agreed, not sure that putting a threshold on thc % is the best way to do that

I know the article doesn't go into detail, I need to dig up a copy of the paper it references. I don't think cannabaniod levels are what he used to catagorize the ssp's, it was the genetic evidence that led to the renaming. the genetic study showed that indica didn't originate in India, rather Afghanistan, so indica becomes afghanica, and so on. Cannabaniod content was thrown in there I believe because cannabis culture knows indicas and sativas, and ruderalis by their predominant cannabaniod content, growth structure, and narcotic effects, etc. Also when the author of an article doesn't have a science background and is interviewing a scientist, the findings are often misinterpreted when relayed to the reader.