-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
91'chemdog
- Thread starter Good Ole Dog
- Start date
jessejames12345
Member
An interesting update on this thread, if nobody has seen it yet. Phylos Bioscience recently did genetic sequencing on Nspecta / CSI Humboldt's cuts of TK and Chem91.
Chem 91: https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/p8r77xlo
TK: https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/1oeyydn8
Two interesting points - One, it looks like Chem91 is either the immediate pollen or pistil donor to TK. According to this testing as I understand it, Chem91 is the direct parent of TK.
Two, look at all the samples Phylos has received that are genetically identical to TK!
Chem 91: https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/p8r77xlo
TK: https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/1oeyydn8
Two interesting points - One, it looks like Chem91 is either the immediate pollen or pistil donor to TK. According to this testing as I understand it, Chem91 is the direct parent of TK.
Two, look at all the samples Phylos has received that are genetically identical to TK!
Last edited:
Beta, that's actually a REALLY gross misstatement.
No one fully understand the complexity of the Phylos clusters because they are formed based on limited data and the gaps filled in by algorithm. It's a limitation of their procedures.
This algorithm does not allow for fine enough distinction - ANYONE - who has had TK, SFV, JoshD/Ghost, etc, etc - KNOWS they are NOT the exact same plant.
What the galaxy HAS shown us - is that OG Kush, IS a direct relative of Chem '91 and Rob Clarke Ghani.
The only part of that related to this thread - is that the Chem story checks out. '91 IS related to Chem D, Chem 4. Chem Sis, is not in the galaxy.
It is also important to note - if I turn in an OG Kush plant labled as blueberry, then there will be a blueberry entry at the OG303 cluster. There are ways to create error. The only entries in the galaxy you can trust are from individuals who are KNOWN for over a decade to hold these special / rare / elite cuttings.
dank.Frank
No one fully understand the complexity of the Phylos clusters because they are formed based on limited data and the gaps filled in by algorithm. It's a limitation of their procedures.
This algorithm does not allow for fine enough distinction - ANYONE - who has had TK, SFV, JoshD/Ghost, etc, etc - KNOWS they are NOT the exact same plant.
What the galaxy HAS shown us - is that OG Kush, IS a direct relative of Chem '91 and Rob Clarke Ghani.
The only part of that related to this thread - is that the Chem story checks out. '91 IS related to Chem D, Chem 4. Chem Sis, is not in the galaxy.
It is also important to note - if I turn in an OG Kush plant labled as blueberry, then there will be a blueberry entry at the OG303 cluster. There are ways to create error. The only entries in the galaxy you can trust are from individuals who are KNOWN for over a decade to hold these special / rare / elite cuttings.
dank.Frank
I'm not a professional geneticist, so it's certainly possible I'm misinterpreting. Here's what Phylos has to say about their methods:
"Lines between samples show family relationships using a metric called identity by descent (IBD) (plink v1.9; Purcell et al. 2007). Specifically, the proportion IBD between two samples is the sum of probability of sharing both alleles at a locus (e.g., AA, AA) and 1/2 of the probability of sharing a single allele at a locus (e.g., AA, Aa). We use a second metric called genetic similarity, to identify putative family members as well as to identify clones. Genetic similarity is simply the number of shared alleles divided by the total number of alleles compared between two samples. Clones are designated as those samples that have extremely high genetic similarity. We set the threshold to be slightly higher than the average technical error rate of genotyping. Based on analysis of known pedigrees, we have set thresholds for likely immediate family relationships. Familial relationships are useful for several reasons. Many varieties within the Galaxy have the same name, yet are genetically distinct. Familial relationships may help determine whether a variety has been mislabeled. They may also help validate pedigrees of varieties."
There are several posts discussing this topic between myself and ChunkyPigs.
I was not quite as aware of the nuances of the galaxy until he shared some insight.
If you look at the wording there - sums, probability, metric, set threshold(s) - and really consider what they are saying...
As it was explained to me:
They are taking a very small percentage of the plants DNA that contains a key set of data points, however, it is NOT a complete enough picture to REALLY give full ancestral data. This lack of data is accounted for by their genetic algorithm, which they have used to "set thresholds for likely immediate family relationships".
Meaning, while plants are now finding themselves in clusters, such as the OG cluster with 51 plants currently, all that tells us, is according to their algorithm, these plants are genetically similar. NOT the same plant per say and not even necessarily mislabeled.
Notice they won't go as far as to tell someone the plant is not what they say it is. "Many varieties within the Galaxy have the same name, yet are genetically distinct. Familial relationships MAY help determine if a variety has been mislabeled."
This is because they know the algorithm they are using has a "slightly higher than average technical error rate of genotyping", not because they have set a threshold, but because they are not taking enough data to begin with.
THIS is because scanning 1-2% is cheaper, and can be marketed as affordable for consumers. A much more comprehensive, yet accurate test, would not be available to many because of cost.
Doesn't mean they don't have the data, it just isn't being published open source.
From our perspective then, the only entries on the galaxy that hold any merit, are those entered by reputable people. Fortunately, Chem 91 and TK have both been entered by none other than Nspecta. JoshD OG is in the OG303 cluster as well, entered by JoshD himself.
That tells us, these are good base lines to work from. ANYONE who has smoked TK, Ghost, SFV, and others in the 303 cluster - KNOW they are not the same plant. They just aren't.
They are being shown as a "single plant" in the galaxy, simply because of the limitations of their algorithms and where they set their thresholds.
It is 1000% fact, with more data, there would be more segregation within the Phylos Galaxy clusters. The information is still very useful, but you can not treat it as if it is infallible, unfortunately.
The worst part is, it still doesn't tell us a true map, as in TK begot Ghost. Ghost begot SFV. SFV begot Fire.
(or whatever, just for example) Like we all want it too.
dank.Frank
I was not quite as aware of the nuances of the galaxy until he shared some insight.
If you look at the wording there - sums, probability, metric, set threshold(s) - and really consider what they are saying...
As it was explained to me:
They are taking a very small percentage of the plants DNA that contains a key set of data points, however, it is NOT a complete enough picture to REALLY give full ancestral data. This lack of data is accounted for by their genetic algorithm, which they have used to "set thresholds for likely immediate family relationships".
Meaning, while plants are now finding themselves in clusters, such as the OG cluster with 51 plants currently, all that tells us, is according to their algorithm, these plants are genetically similar. NOT the same plant per say and not even necessarily mislabeled.
Notice they won't go as far as to tell someone the plant is not what they say it is. "Many varieties within the Galaxy have the same name, yet are genetically distinct. Familial relationships MAY help determine if a variety has been mislabeled."
This is because they know the algorithm they are using has a "slightly higher than average technical error rate of genotyping", not because they have set a threshold, but because they are not taking enough data to begin with.
THIS is because scanning 1-2% is cheaper, and can be marketed as affordable for consumers. A much more comprehensive, yet accurate test, would not be available to many because of cost.
Doesn't mean they don't have the data, it just isn't being published open source.
From our perspective then, the only entries on the galaxy that hold any merit, are those entered by reputable people. Fortunately, Chem 91 and TK have both been entered by none other than Nspecta. JoshD OG is in the OG303 cluster as well, entered by JoshD himself.
That tells us, these are good base lines to work from. ANYONE who has smoked TK, Ghost, SFV, and others in the 303 cluster - KNOW they are not the same plant. They just aren't.
They are being shown as a "single plant" in the galaxy, simply because of the limitations of their algorithms and where they set their thresholds.
It is 1000% fact, with more data, there would be more segregation within the Phylos Galaxy clusters. The information is still very useful, but you can not treat it as if it is infallible, unfortunately.
The worst part is, it still doesn't tell us a true map, as in TK begot Ghost. Ghost begot SFV. SFV begot Fire.
(or whatever, just for example) Like we all want it too.dank.Frank
Gram Paw smurf
Member
indeed, info that's limited and open to a wiiiiiiiiide array of interpretations.
Intersting sure, but nothing concrete at all that I can see that couldn't easily be skewed in many ways.
Who knows though maybe time'll lead to figuring out ways of using the info in a usefull manner but that simple chart as is isn't of much use for anything substantial.
cheers,...............................................gps
Intersting sure, but nothing concrete at all that I can see that couldn't easily be skewed in many ways.
Who knows though maybe time'll lead to figuring out ways of using the info in a usefull manner but that simple chart as is isn't of much use for anything substantial.
cheers,...............................................gps
There are several posts discussing this topic between myself and ChunkyPigs.
I was not quite as aware of the nuances of the galaxy until he shared some insight.
If you look at the wording there - sums, probability, metric, set threshold(s) - and really consider what they are saying...
As it was explained to me:
They are taking a very small percentage of the plants DNA that contains a key set of data points, however, it is NOT a complete enough picture to REALLY give full ancestral data. This lack of data is accounted for by their genetic algorithm, which they have used to "set thresholds for likely immediate family relationships".
Meaning, while plants are now finding themselves in clusters, such as the OG cluster with 51 plants currently, all that tells us, is according to their algorithm, these plants are genetically similar. NOT the same plant per say and not even necessarily mislabeled.
Notice they won't go as far as to tell someone the plant is not what they say it is. "Many varieties within the Galaxy have the same name, yet are genetically distinct. Familial relationships MAY help determine if a variety has been mislabeled."
This is because they know the algorithm they are using has a "slightly higher than average technical error rate of genotyping", not because they have set a threshold, but because they are not taking enough data to begin with.
THIS is because scanning 1-2% is cheaper, and can be marketed as affordable for consumers. A much more comprehensive, yet accurate test, would not be available to many because of cost.
Doesn't mean they don't have the data, it just isn't being published open source.
From our perspective then, the only entries on the galaxy that hold any merit, are those entered by reputable people. Fortunately, Chem 91 and TK have both been entered by none other than Nspecta. JoshD OG is in the OG303 cluster as well, entered by JoshD himself.
That tells us, these are good base lines to work from. ANYONE who has smoked TK, Ghost, SFV, and others in the 303 cluster - KNOW they are not the same plant. They just aren't.
They are being shown as a "single plant" in the galaxy, simply because of the limitations of their algorithms and where they set their thresholds.
It is 1000% fact, with more data, there would be more segregation within the Phylos Galaxy clusters. The information is still very useful, but you can not treat it as if it is infallible, unfortunately.
The worst part is, it still doesn't tell us a true map, as in TK begot Ghost. Ghost begot SFV. SFV begot Fire.
dank.Frank
Wouldn't this mean that they're all at least S1s of a common plant? If they were anything else, the half of the genetics donated by the other cultivar would show and they would no longer appear to be in the same 'family'.
Again, just thinking out loud, I'm no geneticist.
Well, my point being, it wouldn't matter if you were a geneticist or not, there simply isn't enough information being presented to really make critical discernment on some things.
It doesn't tell you what they are, except that they are genetically similar enough, based on the parameters defined by Phloys, to "cluster".
Think of it as a telescope. On earth, a very bright star may look like a single entity. Through a telescope, you may discover you are looking at hundreds of stars very close to each other.
The same would happen with the Phylos Galaxy. With more data, these clusters would segregate further.
They could be S1s. They could be an outcross to a similar family, then selected toward a very dominant phenotype.
EXAMPLE: Chem '91 and DogWalker. Look how close they are on the map. If you were to breed those two plants, you are going to have a much more limited variation than if you had bred Chem '91 to even Chem D, way up on the right hand side, entered by Nspecta as well.
DogWalker, I've asked around is not considered to be extremely special. Good, but nothing exceptional. However, utilizing the galaxy, we know it's really is a very chem '91 dominant phenotype.
I don't have the exact answer either. I'm just a layman, but I do enjoy it.
The exact same sort of issue has been bugging me about the "Master Kush" cluster and how it relates to the Matt Berger story. IE, Bubba = NL, Bubba Kush, supposedly Bubba getting hermied on by OG. NL x OG = Bubba Kush, then in theory. The galaxy doesn't really support that based on how it maps, OR, there just isn't a correct Bubba Kush entry yet.
I find it interesting, of all the plants entered in by Nspecta, Bubba Kush is not one of them.
dank.Frank
It doesn't tell you what they are, except that they are genetically similar enough, based on the parameters defined by Phloys, to "cluster".
Think of it as a telescope. On earth, a very bright star may look like a single entity. Through a telescope, you may discover you are looking at hundreds of stars very close to each other.
The same would happen with the Phylos Galaxy. With more data, these clusters would segregate further.
They could be S1s. They could be an outcross to a similar family, then selected toward a very dominant phenotype.
EXAMPLE: Chem '91 and DogWalker. Look how close they are on the map. If you were to breed those two plants, you are going to have a much more limited variation than if you had bred Chem '91 to even Chem D, way up on the right hand side, entered by Nspecta as well.
DogWalker, I've asked around is not considered to be extremely special. Good, but nothing exceptional. However, utilizing the galaxy, we know it's really is a very chem '91 dominant phenotype.
I don't have the exact answer either. I'm just a layman, but I do enjoy it.
The exact same sort of issue has been bugging me about the "Master Kush" cluster and how it relates to the Matt Berger story. IE, Bubba = NL, Bubba Kush, supposedly Bubba getting hermied on by OG. NL x OG = Bubba Kush, then in theory. The galaxy doesn't really support that based on how it maps, OR, there just isn't a correct Bubba Kush entry yet.
I find it interesting, of all the plants entered in by Nspecta, Bubba Kush is not one of them.
dank.Frank
Gram Paw smurf
Member
Yeah hard to know how usefull the info can even be at this point unless you're in the field to some extent n really know your shit as well as where the fringe of our capabilities is in the field at this time.
Like are we even capable in general in genetics to differentiate individuals of relation enough to know who is in fact the parent and who is the offspring?
If not anecdotal claims of chronological release to more ppl publicly or even the actual 1st growing out of a cut isn't going to cut it definitively n there will be that gap in the knowledge until we're capable of making distinctions.
Think we all just have to wait on any of it truly amounting to anything as genetics themselves progress and we figure out ways of interpreting available data as limited as it may always be.
Some information may just always be lost to the past.
I do love me some chem family terp profiles for sure.
That's prob not going to change much no matter how much I know or don't.
lol
cheers,........................gps
Like are we even capable in general in genetics to differentiate individuals of relation enough to know who is in fact the parent and who is the offspring?
If not anecdotal claims of chronological release to more ppl publicly or even the actual 1st growing out of a cut isn't going to cut it definitively n there will be that gap in the knowledge until we're capable of making distinctions.
Think we all just have to wait on any of it truly amounting to anything as genetics themselves progress and we figure out ways of interpreting available data as limited as it may always be.
Some information may just always be lost to the past.
I do love me some chem family terp profiles for sure.
That's prob not going to change much no matter how much I know or don't.
lolcheers,........................gps
Using a single allele only shows you that all those plants have the 1 allele in them. They all will have other allele's which is why they are different plants. They need to do more then 1 to get a true picture of how closely related they are.
It doesn't tell you what they are, except that they are genetically similar enough, based on the parameters defined by Phloys, to "cluster".
This made me crack up, I got a lot of shit for say in a similar comment a while back... Lol... But ya see it just tells us what we know already, what is good it does prove some claims truths stories that were doubted but it really didn't help out in deciphering the mess...
This made me crack up, I got a lot of shit for say in a similar comment a while back... Lol... But ya see it just tells us what we know already, what is good it does prove some claims truths stories that were doubted but it really didn't help out in deciphering the mess...
just grabbed some chemdog 91 from a dispensary here in CO and it was listed as a thai landrace, I have also had sour diesel and nyc diesel from the same shop, and smelled loompa's headband one time they had it, also have an underdog original diesel s1 going from bud from a different spot
it doesn't seem pure thai, perhaps NL/hashplant in there of some sort, a thai skunk maybe
the sour diesel has the most noticeable chemdog flavor out of those 3 diesels I have had, very close to the chem 91, and they list the sour diesel as chemdog 91Xmass super skunk/NLXDNL, the nyc diesel has more one dimensional flavor and the lightest sativa high and is listed as soma's, is sour but has the least chemdog flavor
the underdog original diesel has noticeable chemdog but it is much more deep and rich compared to all the others, very skunky and is the real hitter out of the three imo, sour diesel is more like a rejuvenated chemdog 91, the chemdog 91 is good but overall I feel is enhanced with the sour diesel, the underdog seems the least sativa leaning
there was noticeable og in loompa's when I smelled it
it doesn't seem pure thai, perhaps NL/hashplant in there of some sort, a thai skunk maybe
the sour diesel has the most noticeable chemdog flavor out of those 3 diesels I have had, very close to the chem 91, and they list the sour diesel as chemdog 91Xmass super skunk/NLXDNL, the nyc diesel has more one dimensional flavor and the lightest sativa high and is listed as soma's, is sour but has the least chemdog flavor
the underdog original diesel has noticeable chemdog but it is much more deep and rich compared to all the others, very skunky and is the real hitter out of the three imo, sour diesel is more like a rejuvenated chemdog 91, the chemdog 91 is good but overall I feel is enhanced with the sour diesel, the underdog seems the least sativa leaning
there was noticeable og in loompa's when I smelled it
Medfinder
Chemon 91
i got the real 95...
95?
My 91 is super pissed right now but they had to go in to 12/12 as everything was way over vegged. I'll cruise this thread for some insight but doesn anybody in the know have any recommendations on how to keep her happy? I've been giving her some gypsum and epsom salt along with molasses for the cal/mag.
