What's new
  • 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.

CANNABIS CLASSIFICATION METHODS

KiefSweat

Member
Veteran
This will lump drug and hemp varieties together!
-SamS

Sure but as a grower that’s one of the most important details for planning an outdoor or greenhouse crop. But it’s still all relative. A lot of grain crops are early or auto flowering northern varieties and if your goal is to harvest stem fibers then maybe a longer flowering sativa may be a better choice. To me if the plant produces cbd or thc it’s like the difference in a yellow or black lab. Not the most important detail or something that’s relatively easy to work one way or another.


I have a few other theories that may relate to it and the sexual nature of the plants but that’s another conversation.




It’s hard to call something an indica or sativa nowadays with the genetic drift from the same dozen starting points. Say we take some skunk in my experience skunk dominant plants flower somewhere around a 14.5h day. There’s a couple other traits that pass down when making extracts that one could infer what cuts are skunks. What are diesels etc.

In my experience with “sativas” there’s a difference between a Mexican and Columbian and Thai with grown patterns and effects. By observing the phenotype/shapes of the plant and flowering times it’s easier to classify the dominance in some genes today.
 

KiefSweat

Member
Veteran
At least to me. Someone needs a growing scale much like they have for grapes. It would give the grower the best straight forward picture of what variety would perform at their location.

There’s agronomic models for cannabis that pretty much hold true in my experience. On paper with using that as a guide it’s simple to differentiate the differences between autos/indica/sativa etc.
 

Sconeofark

Member
Sam is right.

picture.php


There is no such thing as a Sativa.

Sativa means cultivated in Latin. Indica is from one of the few samples to find it's way into the annals of science before prohibition, arrived from India.

There are no strains.

There is Narrow and Broad leaf hemp and the drug varieties that came from each. All of that has been crossed and hybridized so that now its pretty much all Hybrid Leaf Drug varieties.

Lets just call it Blendica.

The purity and pungency of the Terpene profile is way more important than the THC% when it comes to effect.

We are still acting as though THC% really matters.
 
T

TheForgotten

Sure but..........................................But it’s still all relative.

Have you ever heard the saying 'A half effort is 50% failure right from the start'?
Anytime you begin a retort with 'Sure but' it's a good time to rethink/reconsider....

Sorry if that seems harsh, but the truth is the only real thing in this world....
 

KiefSweat

Member
Veteran
No there are levels to this game. When you grow more then ten plants in a closet it becomes a different game.

“Hemp” much like “sativa” just means the method of cultivation. The law states it’s a type 3 plant but the only thing that changes is what my intended use of the crop is. Things that don’t matter in that situation are things like leaf morphology.

Fem drug seed and monoecious hemp seed are different sides of the same coin. You exploit different traits again for what your trying to grow.

You may have missed that point that I made that agronomic models for cannabis are constant. Hemp/drug. Indica/sativa etc are all poor attempts to classify those traits you would use if you grew cannabis at scale
 
Last edited:

therevverend

Well-known member
Veteran
here is no such thing as a Sativa.

Sativa means cultivated in Latin. Indica is from one of the few samples to find it's way into the annals of science before prohibition, arrived from India.

Scientific names don't mean a thing. They're just names. Dinosaur means 'terrible lizards'. Dinosaurs are not lizards and many of them were not terrible. The potato is Solanum tuberosum. Solanum means 'comfort' and tuberosum means bump or it can also mean truffle. So potatoes are comfortable bumps. Not all scientific names are Latin or Greek. Wild cannabis that has never been cultivated is Cannabis Sativa, same as cultivated cannabis.

In honor of Sam, considering all his years of blah blah blah, I suggest we go forward with his suggestion, henceforth recognize there are two different categories of cannabis. Drug Cannabis and Hemp Cannabis since he has recognized these categories as such. I would also suggest that we call one category, Hemp, and the other category, Drug Cannabis. Depending on whether it's used for textiles or for drugs. This will make words like Sativa and Indica all but meaningless for the few people that insist on not calling Sativas Sativas and Indicas Indicas.

Botanically, there will always be Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica, because they're botanical terms. I understand most of you aren't interested in this, but genetically speaking there is Cannabis Sativa. Which is Eurasian Hemp. And there is Cannabis Indica. Which is everything else. You don't have to use this scheme if you aren't a botanist but you can't deny the existence of this classification system because it's the science. That I know most of us dislike intensely.

There might be a good reason to get rid of Cannabis Indica. I'm not sure it's so different from Cannabis Sativa, it might be a subspecies. Which would make it Cannabis Sativa Indica. I don't think the split was all that long ago, probably 15,000 years or so.

[QUOTEThis will lump drug and hemp varieties together!
-SamS
[/QUOTE]

You notice that people who write in CAPS and dark fonts are always yelling? I never bother to sign my name at the bottom of what I write, since everyone can see my name on the left side anyway. I'm not a psychologist but...

THE REV!!:):):) (machine gun sounds and explosions)
 

zif

Well-known member
Veteran
^ botanically, I think the lumbers will eventually win. Splitting Cannabis makes about as much sense as splitting humans.

How about we call it Cannabis multiplex? That name *would* be meaningful....
 

Sconeofark

Member
My big problem with the way we do this is strain naming.

We breed two plants get a gazillion seeds of two main phenotypes that break down further into more variety than was found between the two plants used in the cross.

Then we call the entire unstable train wreck of a batch a 'strain' of cannabis.

Or worse, a single stand out plant is taken and considered the "something" cut of said strain.

I can tell you exactly where strain names came from. People like me, used to buy bulk and resell it as smaller packages. The people who grew it did not name it, it was green pot or brown pot eventually all green pot.

I would take it home break it up and give it a name to entice more money out of customers.

Thus a strain is created by someone who had not yet grown a plant.

At first it was all named after some far off exotic land where people imagined good pot came from. Eventually it started getting descriptive names like skunk or catpiss then it got what we now know as strain names.

Not once did a real botanist get involved in this process.

Now that it's legal in many states and spreading, real science will start to embrace the plant again and we will get some real answers weather we like em or not.
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
Actually all high THC varieties of Cannabis are Indica, be they NLD or WLD, all Sativa is Hemp be it NLH or WLH.


Hi -


I think it's important how we write the words, for clarity - otherwise the confusion just keeps multiplying:

it needs to be clear whether we're using formal classification (e.g. var. sativa) or informal (Sativa). Same word, but totally different things referred to.


Formal

Cannabis sativa L. = the species, whether drug-type or fibre-type

Cannabis sativa subsp. indica = drug-type Cannabis, "marijuana", whether NLD or BLD, Sativa or Indica

Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa = fibre-type Cannabis, "hemp"


Informal

Sativa (upper case letters, no italics) = a type of drug-type cultigen (aka NLD)

Indica (upper case letters, no italics) = a type of drug-type cultigen (aka BLD)



Because most drug-type Cannabis in the West is a slop of hybrids these terms Sativa and Indica are almost meaningless for most of what people are growing

But there is a context in which Sativa and Indica can be used accurately, and that's to refer to some original landraces in their pure form



Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. indica = Informal: true Sativa landraces, aka NLD, originally from South Asia


Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. afghanica = Informal: true Indica landraces, aka BLD, originally from Central Asia


See the new taxonomy proposed by Small and McPartland:
https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/46700/element/5/31/


p.s.

In other words, for the initial quote:

Formal: Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa = "hemp"

Informal: Sativa = Cannabis sativa subsp. indica var. indica
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
So is this solely your Reclassification theory or are there actual acredited scientists behind this idea?

there are two main types of classification:

formal classification = Latinized names, follows taxonomic theory or theories, best left to trained taxonomists

informal classification = can follow various agreed codes but doesn't have to


NLD, Sativa, Indica etc are all informal ways of classifying cultigens


the problem is when people start applying formal (Latinized) classification without understanding taxonomic theory

that's what caused the confusion we have today with Cannabis nomenclature

it really started (in the West) when Schultes claimed to think Asian drug-type domesticates consitute a species (Cannabis indica)
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
There is no such thing as a Sativa.

Sativa means cultivated in Latin. Indica is from one of the few samples to find it's way into the annals of science before prohibition, arrived from India.

case in point

crucial that we write things clearly for clarity

Cannabis sativa L. = the species, very definitely a thing last I checked

Sativa = informal term, more or less meaningless for most Western drug-type plants, but still meaningful when applied to some authentic landraces from South Asia and other regions of the tropics
 

Douglas.Curtis

Autistic Diplomat in Training
Why Sativa? Seriously. If we're going to formalize classification, can we remove the silly crud right off the bat? Do any of you have any idea how many different non-cannabis plants have the name "sativa" in them?

All of you ARE aware it means "cultivated" and has nothing specific to do with cannabis... right?

Edit: The only non "Sativa" cannabis is technically landrace cannabis, which excludes 90% of the cannabis genetics. So we're just slapping names on things these days because the community and people at large are ignorant? That's typical, yet I'd like to see more from this community. Set a standard, take a stand, in 20 years it'll be the standard format in textbooks.
 

Cvh

Well-known member
Supermod
Free ☕ 🦫
Hi -


I think it's important how we write the words, for clarity - otherwise the confusion just keeps multiplying:

it needs to be clear whether we're using formal classification (e.g. var. sativa) or informal (Sativa). Same word, but totally different things referred to.


Formal

Cannabis sativa L. = the species, whether drug-type or fibre-type

Cannabis sativa subsp. indica = drug-type Cannabis, "marijuana", whether NLD or BLD, Sativa or Indica

Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa = fibre-type Cannabis, "hemp"


Informal

Sativa (upper case letters, no italics) = a type of drug-type cultigen (aka NLD)

Indica (upper case letters, no italics) = a type of drug-type cultigen (aka BLD)



Because most drug-type Cannabis in the West is a slop of hybrids these terms Sativa and Indica are almost meaningless for most of what people are growing

But there is a context in which Sativa and Indica can be used accurately, and that's to refer to some original landraces in their pure form



Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. indica = Informal: true Sativa landraces, aka NLD, originally from South Asia


Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. afghanica = Informal: true Indica landraces, aka BLD, originally from Central Asia


See the new taxonomy proposed by Small and McPartland:
https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/46700/element/5/31/


p.s.

In other words, for the initial quote:

Formal: Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa = "hemp"

Informal: Sativa = Cannabis sativa subsp. indica var. indica

You have written this:
Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. indica = Informal: true Sativa landraces, aka NLD, originally from South Asia

Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. afghanica = Informal: true Indica landraces, aka BLD, originally from Central Asia

Can't we just then change (Cannabis sativa ssp. indica) var. Indica to var. Sativa and (Cannabis sativa ssp. indica) var. afghanica to var. Indica? Isn't everybody happy then?

Scientifically there is the Sativa and Indica species to separate Hemp and Drug species.
And under the Indica species are then the 2 subspecies: ssp. Indica var. Sativa and ssp. Indica var. Indica to further separate NLD and BLD cultivars.

What you think?
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
Can't we just then change (Cannabis sativa ssp. indica) var. Indica to var. Sativa and (Cannabis sativa ssp. indica) var. afghanica to var. Indica? Isn't everybody happy then?

see what I wrote above about how formal classification uses italics

you have to write stuff correctly so other people know what you mean

you're asking about formal classification, so you should have written e.g. Cannabs sativa ssp. indica var. sativa

but to answer your question:

no, your suggestion doesn't work because in taxonomy there are rules about precedent

formal names are used according to the first time a taxon is proposed, along with a correctly published type specimen

the reason for that is the science will turn into chaos if people don't follow that basic rule
 

therevverend

Well-known member
Veteran
Yeah ngakpa what you're suggesting is basically where cannabis classification is right now, for botanists. The best part about it is that it's not based on leaf width, none of the 'wide leaf, WL, or NL' stuff. I know a lot of people distinguish different subspecies by leaf width but cannabis is so plastic leaf width can change in a few generations. Lots of narrow leaf plants from Central Asia in the Afghanica range and plants from other parts of the world with wide leaves. There's also 'Wide leaf hemp' that has quite thin leaves.

Another knock against the 'hemp' and 'drug' scheme, separating the eastern hemp varieties, what do you do with the seed and oil types. I'm assuming they're lumped in with hemp but they're their own thing. Then there's the Himalayan hemp strains and various high CBD Indica strains from around the world.

One thing that's clear is Indica and Sativa aren't going away among the general public. It's funny because 'sativa' now means 'sativa dominate', strains that don't make you sleepy. These include some Afghanis that are plants with wide leaves. I see the Rec shops calling them sativas. If you want a real sativa, a tropical thin leaf plant with the specific sativa high you're out of luck you'll get a hybrid or even an Afghan. The proliferation of hybrids is always going to require new terms or at least new meanings for the old terms.
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
The best part about it is that it's not based on leaf width, none of the 'wide leaf, WL, or NL' stuff.

hi, thanks for the reply

but to be fair, that's not what I've said at all

leaflet shape (L/W ratio) and breadth definitely is a differentiating factor between the two main ssp. indica cultigens (Indica versus Sativa)

the new formal classification for ssp. indica (Apr 2020) from Small & McPartland does use leaflet characteristics as part of taxonomic keys for formally classifying these types of plants

Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. indica =
Informal: true Sativa landraces, aka NLD, originally from South Asia


Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. afghanica =
Informal: true Indica landraces, aka BLD, originally from Central Asia



Then there's the Himalayan hemp strains

most Himalayan landraces are multipurpose domesticates for seed, fibre, and high-THC inflorescenses

I reckon they merit formal classification as a variety separate from var. indica and the wild-type var. himalayensis


One thing that's clear is Indica and Sativa aren't going away among the general public. It's funny because 'sativa' now means 'sativa dominate', strains that don't make you sleepy. These include some Afghanis that are plants with wide leaves. I see the Rec shops calling them sativas. If you want a real sativa, a tropical thin leaf plant with the specific sativa high you're out of luck you'll get a hybrid or even an Afghan. The proliferation of hybrids is always going to require new terms or at least new meanings for the old terms.

as above, Sativa and Indica are meaningless when applied to modern hybrids, which are an introgressed slop

but they can still be used accurately to describe authentic landraces

var. indica = Sativa

var. afghanica = Indica

I recommend checking out the new Small & McPartland study

A classification of endangered high-THC cannabis (Cannabis sativa subsp. indica) domesticates and their wild relatives
https://landrace.blog/2020/04/14/mcpartland-small-publish-new-cannabis-taxonomy/

fwiw, many landraces in Afghanistan and Pakistan are hybrids between var. afghanica and var. indica landraces, e.g. the Mazari landrace, in the sense of what Afghans themselves call the Mazari landrace
 

Cvh

Well-known member
Supermod
Free ☕ 🦫
hi, thanks for the reply

but to be fair, that's not what I've said at all

leaflet shape (L/W ratio) and breadth definitely is a differentiating factor between the two main ssp. indica cultigens (Indica versus Sativa)

the new formal classification (Apr 2020) from Small & McPartland does use leaflet characteristics as part of taxonomic keys for formally classifying these types of plants

Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. indica =
Informal: true Sativa landraces, aka NLD, originally from South Asia


Formal: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. afghanica =
Informal: true Indica landraces, aka BLD, originally from Central Asia

as above, Sativa and Indica are meaningless when applied to modern hybrids, which are an introgressed slop

but they can still be used accurately to describe authentic landraces

var. indica = Sativa

var. afghanica = Indica

I'm sorry but my English isn't very good.

But to be clear, what we call now as a (pure) Sativa drug strain we have to call now:
Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. indica

And what we call now a (pure) Indica drug strain we have to call now:
Cannabis sativa ssp. indica var. afghanica

We can't use var. sativa because of some repetition rule?
But ssp. indica var. indica is acceptable?

Also we have to write this always in italic or else chaos in the scientific world if we don't follow these basic rules? :biggrin:

Do I understand you correctly now? Because I know I lack in the English language being a non-native speaker.

(I'll read the link you posted to the study also. It's going to take me a few days to get through it.)
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran


it's not about "have to"

but if you want people to understand you, then it needs to be clear what you mean


var. sativa in the context of Cannabis is "hemp"

Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa


there was talk of "Ruderalis" above too, but another time maybe - that whole nightmare is explained in the new McPartland and Small study


if you want a thorough explanation of the taxonomy of Cannabis I've had a go at it here
https://landrace.blog/2020/04/13/on-indicas-afghanicas/


it might be useful as an intro to the new taxonomy for ssp. indica proposed by McPartland and Small April 3rd 2020, which is more or less book-length
https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/46700/element/5/31/
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top