Sativa=Indica
Indica=Afghani
Ruderalis=Sativa
^Click Me^
I'm gonna go tend to my Afghanica-Sativa's...
Indica=Afghani
Ruderalis=Sativa
^Click Me^
I'm gonna go tend to my Afghanica-Sativa's...
Last edited:
New Grower You're All Wrong!
- Thread starter DirtyN0rth
- Start date
All wrong about what?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 13,081
- Reputation
- 5,396
- Reaction score
- 46,428
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- yo arse
I'm with nam on this one - I will await enlightenment
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 13,081
- Reputation
- 5,396
- Reaction score
- 46,428
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- yo arse
Decided to go pro-active with this.
I noticed that some of the writing was green, hmm, is the writing green because it was a link, yup indeed it was.
I followed the link and then copied and pasted the article here.
I personally find the copy and paste method, a lot easier to read,as I don't have to leave the forum to read something, it will probably get more people reading it too.
Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis – Did We Get It All Wrong?
By: Mitchell ColbertJanuary 26, 2015
Since the 1970s, cannabis has been divided into three sub-species (often confused as different species), C. indica, C. sativa, C. ruderalis, with ruderalis largely being considered ‘wild cannabis,’ not fit for medicinal or recreational uses. A common lay-persons distinction is between marijuana, which is bred for high cannabinoid content, and hemp, which is bred for industrial uses like fiber.
Any of the three subspecies can be bred as a hemp or marijuana plant. John McPartland, a researcher affiliated with GW Pharmaceuticals, presented a study at the 2014 meeting of the International Cannabis Research Society, proposing a new nomenclature for cannabis. The original report on O’Shaughnessy’s contains more information than I can reproduce here, and has a wonderful chart; it is definitely worth your time to read.
It seems Richard Evans Schultes, the man who created the original taxonomy for cannabis in the 1970s, misidentified a C. afghanica plant as a C. indica plant. That one mistake began 40 years of confusion which has only been dispelled by McPartland’s research this year.
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. As it turns out, C. sativa should have been identified as C. indica, because it originated in India (hence indica). C. indica should have been identified as C. afghanica, because it actually originated in Afghanistan. Finally, it seems that C. ruderalis is actually what people mean when they refer to C. sativa.
If that sounds confusing, refer to this handy table, or the original chart.
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.
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.
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.
This new nomenclature should come to replace the old system, because it is grounded in the actual genetics of the plant and is scientifically sound. Despite that, it is likely that this new naming scheme will face resistance from cannabis users and those in the medical cannabis industry who will have become used to decades of convention firmly establishing an inaccurate taxonomy.
This is reminiscent of the Brontosaurus, a dinosaur that never existed but we were all taught in school it was real, or the former 9th planet of Pluto (now a ‘dwarf planet’). Sometimes science gets it wrong and it is up to modern scientists with better methods, like McPartland, to correct our old mistakes.
The difficult part will be getting mass acceptance of his newly proposed taxonomy. What seems likely is that a split may develop between academics and laymen, with academics adopting the new system and laymen continuing to adhere to the old system, at least for a few more years.
Perhaps in time C. afghanica, C. indica, and C. sativa will come into the vogue, but that largely depends on the willingness of the medical cannabis industry to adopt this new system and thus pass it on to the patients and growers. But it seems unlikely that the cannabis industry would wholeheartedly jump on board, given the risk that this new nomenclature could confuse patients who may be used to seeing only “indicas” and “sativas” on the shelf.
Time will tell.
copied and pasted from - http://theleafonline.com/c/science/2015/01/indica-sativa-ruderalis-get-wrong/
I noticed that some of the writing was green, hmm, is the writing green because it was a link, yup indeed it was.
I followed the link and then copied and pasted the article here.
I personally find the copy and paste method, a lot easier to read,as I don't have to leave the forum to read something, it will probably get more people reading it too.
Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis – Did We Get It All Wrong?
By: Mitchell ColbertJanuary 26, 2015
Since the 1970s, cannabis has been divided into three sub-species (often confused as different species), C. indica, C. sativa, C. ruderalis, with ruderalis largely being considered ‘wild cannabis,’ not fit for medicinal or recreational uses. A common lay-persons distinction is between marijuana, which is bred for high cannabinoid content, and hemp, which is bred for industrial uses like fiber.
Any of the three subspecies can be bred as a hemp or marijuana plant. John McPartland, a researcher affiliated with GW Pharmaceuticals, presented a study at the 2014 meeting of the International Cannabis Research Society, proposing a new nomenclature for cannabis. The original report on O’Shaughnessy’s contains more information than I can reproduce here, and has a wonderful chart; it is definitely worth your time to read.
It seems Richard Evans Schultes, the man who created the original taxonomy for cannabis in the 1970s, misidentified a C. afghanica plant as a C. indica plant. That one mistake began 40 years of confusion which has only been dispelled by McPartland’s research this year.
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. As it turns out, C. sativa should have been identified as C. indica, because it originated in India (hence indica). C. indica should have been identified as C. afghanica, because it actually originated in Afghanistan. Finally, it seems that C. ruderalis is actually what people mean when they refer to C. sativa.
If that sounds confusing, refer to this handy table, or the original chart.
Cannabis Indica (Formerly Sativa)
Origin: IndiaMorphology: 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.
This new nomenclature should come to replace the old system, because it is grounded in the actual genetics of the plant and is scientifically sound. Despite that, it is likely that this new naming scheme will face resistance from cannabis users and those in the medical cannabis industry who will have become used to decades of convention firmly establishing an inaccurate taxonomy.
This is reminiscent of the Brontosaurus, a dinosaur that never existed but we were all taught in school it was real, or the former 9th planet of Pluto (now a ‘dwarf planet’). Sometimes science gets it wrong and it is up to modern scientists with better methods, like McPartland, to correct our old mistakes.
The difficult part will be getting mass acceptance of his newly proposed taxonomy. What seems likely is that a split may develop between academics and laymen, with academics adopting the new system and laymen continuing to adhere to the old system, at least for a few more years.
Perhaps in time C. afghanica, C. indica, and C. sativa will come into the vogue, but that largely depends on the willingness of the medical cannabis industry to adopt this new system and thus pass it on to the patients and growers. But it seems unlikely that the cannabis industry would wholeheartedly jump on board, given the risk that this new nomenclature could confuse patients who may be used to seeing only “indicas” and “sativas” on the shelf.
Time will tell.
copied and pasted from - http://theleafonline.com/c/science/2015/01/indica-sativa-ruderalis-get-wrong/
It looks pretty legit...
"The difficult part will be getting mass acceptance of his newly proposed taxonomy. What seems likely is that a split may develop between academics and laymen, with academics adopting the new system and laymen continuing to adhere to the old system, at least for a few more years."
...copy and paste method employed. Thanks for the enlightenment arty zan
"The difficult part will be getting mass acceptance of his newly proposed taxonomy. What seems likely is that a split may develop between academics and laymen, with academics adopting the new system and laymen continuing to adhere to the old system, at least for a few more years."
...copy and paste method employed. Thanks for the enlightenment arty zan
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 13,081
- Reputation
- 5,396
- Reaction score
- 46,428
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- yo arse
Hey Dirty
The confusion wasn't about legitimacy!
The confusion was caused by not understanding that some of what was in your post was actually a link, the link did no appear as a web adress and instead just looked like some text.
I worked out that it was a link and posted the article here and added the fact it was copied and pasted and included the web address.
Nice find and share, which I shall now read.
If I could ask a favor, - would it be possible to make it more obvious that a link is a link? Something like - "Link here" - or even better copy and paste the article and supply the address where you copied from, this will avoid any confusion.
Thanks m8
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 13,081
- Reputation
- 5,396
- Reaction score
- 46,428
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- yo arse
Here is the picture of the new corrected nomenclature of cannabis copied and pasted from http://www.beyondthc.com/mcpartlands-corrected-vernacular-nomenclature/
I'm not sure how long it will take for people to adjust to these new identifications of sub species of cannabis before they become the accepted vernacular.
An ambitious call to standardize the names used by non-scientists in reference to Cannabis plants —to create an accurate vernacular nomenclature— was made by Dr. John McPartland at the 2014 meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society and will be published in O’Shaughnessy’s upcoming print edition.
McPartland’s ICRS paper, co-authored by Dr. Geoffrey Guy, used “DNA barcodes” to determine whether or not Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa are separate species.
The answer was not. C. indica andC. sativa are subspecies —separate varieties of one Cannabis species.McPartland traced the confusion that prevails today among plant breeders and the pot-loving masses to the 1970s, when a C. afghanica plant collected by botanist Richard Evans Schultes was incorrectly identified as C. indica.
Biologist Ryan Lee saw our graphic summarizing McPartland’s overview and sent him the following inquiry:
I'm not sure how long it will take for people to adjust to these new identifications of sub species of cannabis before they become the accepted vernacular.
An ambitious call to standardize the names used by non-scientists in reference to Cannabis plants —to create an accurate vernacular nomenclature— was made by Dr. John McPartland at the 2014 meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society and will be published in O’Shaughnessy’s upcoming print edition.
McPartland’s ICRS paper, co-authored by Dr. Geoffrey Guy, used “DNA barcodes” to determine whether or not Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa are separate species.
The answer was not. C. indica andC. sativa are subspecies —separate varieties of one Cannabis species.McPartland traced the confusion that prevails today among plant breeders and the pot-loving masses to the 1970s, when a C. afghanica plant collected by botanist Richard Evans Schultes was incorrectly identified as C. indica.
Biologist Ryan Lee saw our graphic summarizing McPartland’s overview and sent him the following inquiry:
When I saw the diagram in the pre-publication layout, I questioned the reclassification of ‘ruderalis’ as ‘sativa,’ and
after going over some of the work by Ernest Small, I thought it wise to contact you directly about it before offering my
own input/perspective. Is it correct that you are proposing a renaming of ‘ruderalis’ as ‘sativa’? “Sativa,” derived from
the feminine form of the Latin word indicating “cultivated,” in my mind is more appropriately referencing the cultivated
forms of NLH (Narrow Leaf Hemp), which I consider a domesticated and selected form of the wild relative. The tall
habit of ‘sativa’ or NLH, to me shows selection by humans, presumably for the length of the fiber, and fertilization,
which implies a domesticated form, thus ‘sativa’ being a different varietal selection of ‘ruderalis.’‘Ruderalis’, clearly
derives from the word “ruderal,” indicating growing on an area of refuse or waste disturbed by human activity. This
seems to fit what Vavilov presented as ‘spontanea,‘ forms of which I’ve seen growing in Austria and elsewhere. I’m
having difficulty making the leap from‘ruderalis’ to ‘sativa,’ as the habit and phenotype of NLH and ‘spontanea’ are
remarkably different under cultivation. I don’t have the O’Shaughnessy’s diagram in front of me, so please excuse me
if I have mis-interpreted your presentation.
John McPartland replied:after going over some of the work by Ernest Small, I thought it wise to contact you directly about it before offering my
own input/perspective. Is it correct that you are proposing a renaming of ‘ruderalis’ as ‘sativa’? “Sativa,” derived from
the feminine form of the Latin word indicating “cultivated,” in my mind is more appropriately referencing the cultivated
forms of NLH (Narrow Leaf Hemp), which I consider a domesticated and selected form of the wild relative. The tall
habit of ‘sativa’ or NLH, to me shows selection by humans, presumably for the length of the fiber, and fertilization,
which implies a domesticated form, thus ‘sativa’ being a different varietal selection of ‘ruderalis.’‘Ruderalis’, clearly
derives from the word “ruderal,” indicating growing on an area of refuse or waste disturbed by human activity. This
seems to fit what Vavilov presented as ‘spontanea,‘ forms of which I’ve seen growing in Austria and elsewhere. I’m
having difficulty making the leap from‘ruderalis’ to ‘sativa,’ as the habit and phenotype of NLH and ‘spontanea’ are
remarkably different under cultivation. I don’t have the O’Shaughnessy’s diagram in front of me, so please excuse me
if I have mis-interpreted your presentation.
Clarification: I propose reclassifing the VERNACULAR use of “ruderalis” as “sativa” (always in quotation marks).
That’s because all the photos of“ruderalis” by cannabis breeders, beginning with Nevil Schoenmaker’s 1986 edition of
the Seed Bank, illustrate sativa that has escaped from cultivation —not true wild-type plants. Schoenmaker’s plant
shows a robust morphology, apical dominance, and determinate flowering. These traits are consistent with C. sativa,
a spontaneous escape of cultivated fiber hemp. These traits are not consistent with Vavilov’s or Janischevsky’s
concepts of wild-type plants.Ernest Small published papers on wild-type Cannabis between 1972 and 2003. He adds
precision to the notoriously ambiguous terminology that describes wild-weedy-cultivated plants:· Wild plants are well-
and-truly native, indigenous, aboriginal plants—plants that have never been domesticated. Wild plants include the
progenitors (i.e., the precursors or ancestors) of domesticated crop plants. Small doubts if such plants still exist.·
Feral plants (i.e., weedy plants, feral hemp) are naturalized plants that escaped human cultivation. They may be
ruderal, spontaneous, or volunteers.· Ruderal hemp (Latin: ruderalis) ambiguously refers to either wild or weedy
plants. They grow beyond areas of human habitation.· Spontaneous hemp (Latin: spontanea) denotes plants that
appear locally as a result of human activities, but do not spread—they too can be wild or weedy plants.· Cultivated
plants are domesticated crops. They include volunteer plants—weedy plants arising from crops planted the previous
year, or arising around the edges of cultivated fields.CHECK WITH MCP BEFORE RUNNING THE ABOVEDid you
really see C. sativa var. ruderalis growing in Austria? To me, true wild-type plants have a unique seed morphology.
Ernest Small: small size, a protuberant, tapered base with a prominent abscission layer, rapid disarticulation from the
plant, and a persistent and camouflage-colored perianth. The distinctive protuberant base has been given various
names—a “horseshoe,” circular torus, callus-ring, caruncle, basal constricted zone, and elaiosome. Small makes a
discouraging observation that I agree with: He estimated that plants that escaped from cultivation in Canada reverted
to a wild-type phenotype within 50 generations (years) of prohibition in North America. Thus the wild-type phenotype
cannot distinguish between true wild-type plants and domesticated plants abandoned by humans for a while. We
need genetics.Tangentially: Ernest Small recognizes Vavilov’s spontanea taxon rather than Janischevsky’s ruderalis
taxon for wild-type plants. That’s a debate for another day.
That’s because all the photos of“ruderalis” by cannabis breeders, beginning with Nevil Schoenmaker’s 1986 edition of
the Seed Bank, illustrate sativa that has escaped from cultivation —not true wild-type plants. Schoenmaker’s plant
shows a robust morphology, apical dominance, and determinate flowering. These traits are consistent with C. sativa,
a spontaneous escape of cultivated fiber hemp. These traits are not consistent with Vavilov’s or Janischevsky’s
concepts of wild-type plants.Ernest Small published papers on wild-type Cannabis between 1972 and 2003. He adds
precision to the notoriously ambiguous terminology that describes wild-weedy-cultivated plants:· Wild plants are well-
and-truly native, indigenous, aboriginal plants—plants that have never been domesticated. Wild plants include the
progenitors (i.e., the precursors or ancestors) of domesticated crop plants. Small doubts if such plants still exist.·
Feral plants (i.e., weedy plants, feral hemp) are naturalized plants that escaped human cultivation. They may be
ruderal, spontaneous, or volunteers.· Ruderal hemp (Latin: ruderalis) ambiguously refers to either wild or weedy
plants. They grow beyond areas of human habitation.· Spontaneous hemp (Latin: spontanea) denotes plants that
appear locally as a result of human activities, but do not spread—they too can be wild or weedy plants.· Cultivated
plants are domesticated crops. They include volunteer plants—weedy plants arising from crops planted the previous
year, or arising around the edges of cultivated fields.CHECK WITH MCP BEFORE RUNNING THE ABOVEDid you
really see C. sativa var. ruderalis growing in Austria? To me, true wild-type plants have a unique seed morphology.
Ernest Small: small size, a protuberant, tapered base with a prominent abscission layer, rapid disarticulation from the
plant, and a persistent and camouflage-colored perianth. The distinctive protuberant base has been given various
names—a “horseshoe,” circular torus, callus-ring, caruncle, basal constricted zone, and elaiosome. Small makes a
discouraging observation that I agree with: He estimated that plants that escaped from cultivation in Canada reverted
to a wild-type phenotype within 50 generations (years) of prohibition in North America. Thus the wild-type phenotype
cannot distinguish between true wild-type plants and domesticated plants abandoned by humans for a while. We
need genetics.Tangentially: Ernest Small recognizes Vavilov’s spontanea taxon rather than Janischevsky’s ruderalis
taxon for wild-type plants. That’s a debate for another day.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 13,081
- Reputation
- 5,396
- Reaction score
- 46,428
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- yo arse
All is an illusion, nothing is real lol , but seriously this is very interesting, however with peoples current & general acceptance of what a Sativa,Indica,Afghan & Ruderalis it is hard to see these accepted names changing any time soon.
The seed companies also refer to these titles in their info & descriptions too.
It may be possible that they gonna be sticking around in adverts, strain descriptions and in forums for quite some while, partly because it avoids confusion and from blowing peoples minds.
On a scientific note, this new/corrected nomenclature may become accepted by the scientific community as it is important to display the facts correctly and scientifically.
In time if this does become the accepted nomenclature, then more scientific papers will be written using it and so it will become a greater part of our everyday vernacular and it will be seen as the correct way to refer to these sub species of cannabis.
The more scientists who refer to this corrected nomenclature, the more likely it will be to spawn debates and conversations regarding it, but sometimes this type of thing can be painfully slow to be accepted as the new norm.
Last edited:
Similar threads
