attempt to explain new cannabis subspecies article...

[guineapig]

here is a reprint of my post....

ok people......i've worked with DNA for years and although i'm no expert i can help out here....here we go....

the article is confusing on a number of points. this is probably because journalists rarely take the time to truly understand science. they are just good at regurgitating facts.

the scientist in the article investigated 200 individual cannabis plants from around the world and analyzed their "mitochondrial DNA" or mtDNA for short. this is the same type of DNA that geneticists study when they seek to identify which races (or varieties) of people diverged from one another during human migrations around the world. mitochondrial DNA is useful for these studies because it is inherited only from the mother. so all your mitochondrial DNA is from your mother, and her mtDNA is from her mother, and so on. so this scientist apparently found three distinct mtDNA profiles- Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis Sativa "Indica," and Cannabis Sativa "Rasta". these 3 varieties are based only on mitochondrial DNA profiles and have nothing to do with the outward appearance of a plant (its "morphology). when scientists first began to classify plants, they could only do so on the basis of outward appearance and had no idea about DNA or markers of heredity. so, these scientists (aka "taxonomists") such as Linnaeus organized the cannabis family into 3 different classes: Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis. sativas are the thin-leaved tropical plants, indicas are the wide-leaved ones found in temperate regions, and ruderalises are the ones found in colder regions that tend to autoflower and are high-fiber strains. that classification holds when we are analyzing outward appearance. however, when we look at mitochondrial DNA, apparently there are 3 mtDNA profiles that have absolutely nothing to do with how a plant looks on the outside. in fact, if one were to analyze every species in terms of its mtDNA we would come up with a radically different picture of which species are related and which are different.....

on a final note, when looking into the DNA of guinea pigs, scientists have determined that they are completely NOT related to "rats" and in fact the rodent family should be divided up into 3 separate groups based on their mitochondrial DNAs.....so don't call us rats or we'll nip ya! -gp science

 

[Guest]

really great read man.. this really does help explain alot of this... always great to have someone in the know explain this to all of the people who arent.

thanks.

 

[guineapig]

so this is the sentence that doesn't make sense to me:

"Rasta' is not dissimilar to the sativa sub-species but New Scientist reports that it contains more THC, certainly more than the indica sub-species that is used for rope-making"

that is just silly....we all know how potent "indica" plants can be and the reporter is just trying to pull a fast one....the reporter has no idea how educated the cannabis cultivation community is.....sometimes i think the only addiction that cannabis users face is the addiction to educating themselves about the plant!

a cannabis plant can be selected for high-fiber strains and through selective breeding a "hemp" plant can be produced which produces little or no THC....but, if you were to go out there and get hundreds of hemp plants together and test their mitochondrial DNAs i still think you would find an equal representation of these mtDNA profiles.....its just that the high THC genes have all been suppressed through selecting for the fiber....humans have cross-bred the original 3 types of cannabis so much that their mtDNAs have been distributed to all types of plants in all parts of the globe....but, apparently, there was a time when all the cannabis species on earth were divided into 3 distinct groups of plants each represented by a different mitochondrial DNA profile....the article says that they were probably cultivated in the same general timeframe in genetic isolation from each other.....but who knows where on earth this occurred....i am inclined to say India, Africa and Russia but who knows.....there are no historical records, only legends.....but mitochondrial DNA is preserved forever and ever......as our molecular-biology assays and techniques get better we will start to get a better theory as to the origins of Cannabis.....hope this makes sense.....i don't have all the answers here.....maybe some real scientist or researcher will come help us out.......-gp science

 

[guineapig]

oh yeah....and you know the scientists aren't doing this "research" for the benefit of all the stoners of the world.....they are doing it so that Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs) can link different cannabis cultivation operations together and heap on the charges of conspiracy.....and to track the global distribution of Cannabis...but mainly to heap on the charges and bust more people.....so grow your own and tell noone! -gp science

 

[OG bub]

interesting....

 

[BenitoCereno]

I propose a Cannabis research/Science forum with GuineaPig as moderator!!!

 

[guineapig]

that would be heaven for GP!!! thank you that is flattering....

 

[Guest]

I love my guinea pig.but i thought they were in the rabbit family.cavies is more specific.I call mine wee-wee because of the song she sings to me.if anyone's ever had a pig,they'll alway's have one.mice bite,hamsters bite.rats are cool. pigs rule

 

[Four Fingers]

Scientist conclude that the “Rasta” mitochondrial DNA profiles were developed using a system of giant splifs, tie dye shirts, and dread locks. One researcher was quoted saying “ya mon” when asked about the potential of this new finding.

Forfingoz

 

[guest123]

good read guinea pig , so seems we dont get the real story till we look inside ?? wonder why they called it rasta ?? a good plug for the jamaicans i think ...

 

[Guest]

thanks g p for the translation.

Avid

 

[Guest]

great read

 

[OG bub]

Scientist conclude that the “Rasta” mitochondrial DNA profiles were developed using a system of giant splifs, tie dye shirts, and dread locks. One researcher was quoted saying “ya mon” when asked about the potential of this new finding.

Forfingoz

lol
werd.

 

[Brownpants]

I think these scientists are looking for some more research money. There sure is alot of "hype" over nothing really.

They proved that at one time a bunch of cannibis plants were isolated from the rest for a long enough time that their mitochondrial DNA started to differ from the other population. Then their isolation ended and they converged back into the general population. But, how much genetic difference does it take to be classified as a new species? Or subspecies?

The Scientists' Public Relations guy (or girl) is probably the one who came up with "Rasta".

My point is: Unless you somehow found some viable seeds preserved from the time "Rasta" was still isolated from the other cannibis population, we will never have a pure "Rasta" plant.

 

[elRoachoGrande]

no.. there is no convergence of mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA)..

what they have shown is simply a different way of classifying cannabis, by heredity on the maternal side, without regard to outward characteristics such as growth characteristics (light cycle responses)..

the same thing is done with people if you are interested, it can be useful at times, and at other times can be almost insignificant.

mtDNA isnt significant to a grower like the rest of DNA is.. i could take a hemp plant, a mother, and cross in some tasty pot, make a pot-hemp hybrid with the hemp's mtDNA, a few more crosses with pot pollen and you've got good smoke that came ... as far as MATERNAL heredity is concerned ... from the same source as the hemp..

I don't know if I'm being clear, but i think i've got it right.

 

[Tripco]

And here's a part of interview with Robert C. Clarke (by NORML New Zealand, 1.1.2005.)

NORML: You've done a bit of research on the origins of cannabis. Is the difference between indica and sativa as simple as thin and fat leaves?

RCC: There is some new genetic based work by Karl Hillig at Indiana University, trying to work out the taxonomy of Cannabis. The main thing, is that all that Cannabis Sativa really should represent, is the narrow leaf hemp varieties from Western Europe which spread to a few other places like Chile and possibly New Mexico, and everything else should be called Cannabis Indica. I’m now using this new system - until some taxonomist changes it again!

NORML: What changed the system?

RCC: Looking at the direct gene products of cannabis. The gene technology as well as looking at cannabinoid data, THC, terpene data and other plants.

NORML: So are we smoking any Sativa at all these days?

RCC: Actually we don’t smoke sativas, it is all indicas. All the rest of the world’s hemp, drug, medical, seed and other varieties should most likely be called the indica variety. There are four different subgroups of indica that are now recognised. Cannabis Indica Biotype Afghanica is what we call Indica now. Cannabis Indica Biotype Chinensis is broad-leafed hemp from China, Japan & Korea. Cannabis Indica Spontania is from North India, Nepali, Burma. These were called the drug sativas but are now better called Cannabis Indica Indica. Cannabis Indica Caferus Anacus may represent the wild “feral” types that the other domesticated subgroups came from.

To make it easier we should just go back to what they look like. Let’s forget about where they come from. We should call what we think of as hemp from Europe, as Narrow leafed hemp. The other hemp is Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Northern Vietnam. These are broad-leafed hemp. They are not as low in THC or as high in CBD (cannabidiol) as the European ones but they are not drugs. And then you have the two drug cannabis gene pools which would be narrow leafed drug high THC varieties - Indian , Nepali, Thai, Indonesian, African, Mexican and Columbian, with narrow leafs and high THC . Afghan varieties which are now called Indica, erroneously, should be called Broad leafed drug varieties . Now of course we have hybrids of narrow and brood leafed but no hybrids of Sativa, the narrow leafed hemp. So actually the only true Indica-Sativa hybrids are hemp, and what people smoke are all Indicas.

NORML: So what are the possibilities of mixing old hemp varieties and drug varieties?

RCC: Mixing hemp and drug varieties so far has been a disaster! It happened accidentally in Switzerland, where people ended up with hemp that is too high in THC to be legally hemp and lousy recreational/medicinal product.

People have in the past have made hybrids between European sativa narrow-leafed hemp varieties and Chinese broad leafed hemp varieties and of the indica gene pool. Some of the best hybrid vigour in hemp crops has been reported from doing this, such as American Kentucky hemp in the early 20th century.

I'm a bit confused with all that.
And what if some strain has a spontaneous mutation, that makes it that different from any other strain (genetically), so we can consider it as a new species?

 

[mriko]

Don't know what to thing about this Cannabis rasta thing... really. Sounds weird...
Here a link to another research with totally different findings.

Irie !

 

[Guest]

Mriko,

Is there any online sources you know of the Hillig report in full? ive been off line for a while and have not seen any around the forums.

Bests, hhf

 

[mriko]

I've posted the whole thing in the linked thread. Only are missing tables and graphics.

Irie !