A Technique To Identify "Real Deal" Clones

[shishkaboy]

The terp differences I have seen in gg4 at just different chop times are pretty noticeable. I do understand that the thc/cbd profile added will deffo give a little more info, but phenotype and chemotypes change, genotypes dont (for the most part).

All anyone would really have to do is send in a known sample under a false name.

If they tested the 2.0 but it was labeled "BLUE dream". I bet there would be a blue dream that is related to the other cookies cuts and a decendant of an og in the galaxy.

They have 8 clusters of blue dream, but only one of those clusters is descended from djs bb and ssh. Some of the other blue dreams match up with stuff like dutch treat. Even one of there gg4's is a dutch treat.

I am pretty sure we all knew how bottlenecked the gene pool had become, these genetic tests prove what we have known for ages.

I wanna get my stuff done especially the bagseeds that I have hypothesized lineage on, see how close I was.

Technology is forcing us to understand these things better. Still a long way to go tho.

 

[Mustafunk]

Testing is cool and all that, but who will verify which clone or even seeds are legit or not in the first time? I mean, you can use terpene profiling to verify any clone for sure, but first of all you'll need an authentic profile from a legit clone to use it as a reference and comparison tool. That's the main thing.

Otherwise without that, info from Phylos, testing labs, DNA or anything like that means just nothing... it's just a waste of time and resources without the proper advice or guidelines. I see all this fancy DNA testing from hundreds of unverified clones and strains and my eyes are hurting from watching such a mess sometimes.

It's easy to put a name on a clone or a few seeds and send them for analysis but this lab technicians and scientists really need to do their homework and use proven sources or get proper consulting, after all they are scientists, not Cannabis or strain experts. Otherwise it's just like writing something on Google and reading the results... 90% will be simply bullshit and unfiltered info.

Anybody could be sending some unverified samples to Phylos and compromise all the results, isn't it? I've seen loads of dubious strains at the galaxy.

 

[shishkaboy]

No not at all. Look at the blue dream example I just explained.

You could send in samples with the wrong name or even with no name. They still can tell you what it matches up with and who it's children are.

Anyone could put anything down on the paperwork, but the gene in the plant are what are being measured and tracked.

We all know that the name of a cultivar has nothing to do with its genetics.

There are plenty origin stories for various cultivars, the test results shoud match up with some of them

 

[Betterhaff]

Will the real Blue Dream please stand up. Mapping the genotype is really the only way of truly knowing what’s what, but then you have to have the control as to verify (for name specific). I would think if Sam has donated samples of his known breedings of certain cultivars to Phylos, then those would be a good control for that cultivar.

You also have to remember that the mapping doesn’t lie. If someone submits a misnamed sample, the markers will place it with those where those relationships are a closer match.

This also applies to lineage and ancestry.

I just tried to log on to the galaxy to have a current look and it must be down, just got dark space, lol.

 

[frostqueen]

This still leaves out the 'human' element, which is pretty important with some strains like ECSD for example. If you really do her nice, she has the most amazing terps, if you take the same cut and just grow it okay, there are barely any terps, don't get the mouth coating effect when you smoke it either.

Testing these 2 plants would result is drastically different results, granted the ratio of each terpene to each other should still be comparable.

Even though it was the same exact mother plant.

So: genotype vs. phenotype. Totally agree. It's honestly pretty amazing how much variation there can be. I had two different versions of C99 that were very different in structure - one was viney and more prone to autoflowering while the other was more stiff and upright - and they ended up being genetically identical according to Phylos.

 

[shishkaboy]

So: genotype vs. phenotype. Totally agree. It's honestly pretty amazing how much variation there can be. I had two different versions of C99 that were very different in structure - one was viney and more prone to autoflowering while the other was more stiff and upright - and they ended up being genetically identical according to Phylos.

You've already had test done?

Im so jealous right now. What do the results look like? How long does it take?

 

[frostqueen]

You've already had test done?

Im so jealous right now. What do the results look like? How long does it take?

Hey, shisk. Yeah, I was part of an initial round of free testing to build up their database. I have a fairly large 'library' of clones/strains and collect unique cultivars as well as breed, so they ran 32 tests for me. Right place, right time, right friends, etcetera.

It took two years! But only because they ran the initial samples through partner labs and then re-ran them in their own labs to verify/calibrate their equipment or whatever. (This is a massive project for them.) In that time I dumped about half of the genotypes due to unworthiness; I run a lot of trials looking for noteworthy genetics so that's normal for me.

The remaining ones showed some interesting information; maybe 6 of them corresponded to multiple other people's submissions under the same name, so they have what I'd consider 'real-deal status'. The rest are all great genotypes (and are likely related to the name given) but are misnamed and of unknown origin at this point. As time goes by and more data is gathered more details should come out on their real genetic makeup. This is why I say that even if you are absolutely certain that your version is 'the real deal'... the re-name game has done serious damage to our ability to have a common named individual which we all agree is 'authentic'.

The reports are interesting. Each name links back to the galaxy, where you can poke around more and see connections. The galaxy itself currently suffers from severe overcrowding; it can be really difficult to zoom in and try to see the familial connections because everything is so close together. My hope is that they fix it so that if you click on the name of any particular plant, anything unrelated to it will disappear and you will only see the relatives.

One thing I'm not personally impressed with is using tags like 'skunk' and 'berry' and 'OG Kush' as identifiers. That honestly has zero value to me. Just my opinion, but I want to know where they originated, or something a bit more specific than those overly generic terms. Berry and skunk are traits, not population origin information. I would love to see them use older cornerstone strain name types based upon region, like Thai, Brazilian, Colombian, Pakistani, Afghani, etcetera. The term 'OG Kush' is pretty much overused and misused to the point of being worthless at this point.

I'd also like to see them put more effort into providing detailed genealogy of famous strains like DJ's Blueberry, AK47, White Widow, Skunk #1, Northern Lights, William's Wonder, and more like that... these classics are the roots of many hybrids that we are seeing today and this would really help in bridging the gap between today's superstars and their distant landrace origins.

This is as high a quality pic as I can post here:

 

[englishrick]

Fascinating,,,