I somewhat consider this a continuation of the thread I started concerning the mythical afghan sativa which got off topic a bit towards the end. Hopefully collectively we can clear up some of this confusion.
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=25927
So probably quite a few of you read these university studies on mitochondrial dna of cannabis varieties that came out last september. They said that all of the high thc equatorial sativa varieties shared a common ancestery separate from sativa and considered these different from cannabis sativa and indica and decided to name this new subspecies cannabis rasta . The fact that they strayed away from the standard greek or latin used for taxonomy shows this study is probably more hype than anything else. Here's a modern list of the possible subspeicies of cannabis. Many of these are accepted by some people and not by others. I don't think anyone accepts all of these as possible subspecies but many accept at least two.
cannabis ssp indica: of hindu kush origin and bred for hashish production.
Cannabis ssp afghanica: also bred for hashish production some consider this separate from cannabis indica. Contains central asian landrace that are considered by others as cannabis indica.
Cannabis ssp sativa: contains all hemp varieties and considered by most to also contain equatorial drug varieties of asia africa and the americas
Cannabis ssp rasta: drug strains that used to be considered part of cannabis sativa sharing a common ancestry different from cannabis ssp. sativa Probably still is cannabis sativa
Cannabis ssp ruderalis: northern autoflowering varieties of low thc and fiber content. Considered by some as part of cannabis indica or afghanica.
I'd really like to get some of your opinions on this study. Though I do not doubt that many of the high thc sativa drug strains share a common ancestry that does not mean they are not sativas. Personally I feel the best way to separate the subspecies is on the basis of what traits they take on when they escape cultivation in various climates and how they acclimate over several generations. This is a common tool used by botanists for this purpose. Differences of this type can only be created by populations being separated for a very long period close to the length required to cause the populations to become separate species. Subspecies definitions based on flowering period, chemotype, fiber content, or leaf width get into pretty grey areas and can vary based on the growth conditions of a given specimen.
The main reason I feel this criteria is accurate is the difficulty seed companies are facing producing an equatorial industrial hemp variety.
Having an equatorial industrial hemp variety could solve many of the problems facing tropical farmers. Many of these farmers grow rice to feed their families and have no reason to produce more than their families require because the only people they have access to sell their crops to are other farmers who farm to feed their families. Also rice requires much irrigation and can only be done in already crowded lowland farming areas. A tropical hemp variety will allow these farmers to use any extra crop they can produce to be used to make hemp which is a marketable industrial raw material. Also unlike rice hemp requires less irrigation and can be grown in highland areas. Since all of the available commercial hemp varieties are for higher latitude attempts to cultivate them in equatorial climates causes the plants to flower almost immediately. In hemp production this is a no no because flowering causes the stems to lignify (anyone that has tried to bend the stem of a flowering plant has probably noticed that it is much more brittle than it is during the vegetative stage of growth ). Thus the seed companies searched out remnant equatorial hemp left from the days when it was used for ship repair to be used as breeding stock in the creation of a tropical hemp. What they found was very interesting. The only remnant tropical hemp they could find all had a fiber content lower than 20% (much less than remnant hemp of high latitude) and thc content around 3% (much higher than remnant hemp varieties of high latitude) this to me shows that plants of the sativa subspecies if given enough time can produce both drug and hemp varieties without selective breeding done by humans. Perhaps the common ancestry shared by all of the specimens labeled as cannabis ssp. rasta is a group of sativas that had remained in tropical climates for an immensely long time along with the benefit of selective breeding for drug content by humans. Indicas/ruderalis are a little more complicated. Dj shorts attempts to produce very early flowering varieties from afghan genetics consistently produced autoflowering low thc ruderalis like phenos. Though they aren't low thc many of the very early flowering afghanica hybrids are hard to keep mothers of for long periods because they eventually autoflower even under 24/0 hour light cycles. As far as the separation of indica and afghanica this subject is best left to someone else and I hope someone else posts some info concerning.
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=25927
So probably quite a few of you read these university studies on mitochondrial dna of cannabis varieties that came out last september. They said that all of the high thc equatorial sativa varieties shared a common ancestery separate from sativa and considered these different from cannabis sativa and indica and decided to name this new subspecies cannabis rasta . The fact that they strayed away from the standard greek or latin used for taxonomy shows this study is probably more hype than anything else. Here's a modern list of the possible subspeicies of cannabis. Many of these are accepted by some people and not by others. I don't think anyone accepts all of these as possible subspecies but many accept at least two.
cannabis ssp indica: of hindu kush origin and bred for hashish production.
Cannabis ssp afghanica: also bred for hashish production some consider this separate from cannabis indica. Contains central asian landrace that are considered by others as cannabis indica.
Cannabis ssp sativa: contains all hemp varieties and considered by most to also contain equatorial drug varieties of asia africa and the americas
Cannabis ssp rasta: drug strains that used to be considered part of cannabis sativa sharing a common ancestry different from cannabis ssp. sativa Probably still is cannabis sativa
Cannabis ssp ruderalis: northern autoflowering varieties of low thc and fiber content. Considered by some as part of cannabis indica or afghanica.
I'd really like to get some of your opinions on this study. Though I do not doubt that many of the high thc sativa drug strains share a common ancestry that does not mean they are not sativas. Personally I feel the best way to separate the subspecies is on the basis of what traits they take on when they escape cultivation in various climates and how they acclimate over several generations. This is a common tool used by botanists for this purpose. Differences of this type can only be created by populations being separated for a very long period close to the length required to cause the populations to become separate species. Subspecies definitions based on flowering period, chemotype, fiber content, or leaf width get into pretty grey areas and can vary based on the growth conditions of a given specimen.
The main reason I feel this criteria is accurate is the difficulty seed companies are facing producing an equatorial industrial hemp variety.
Having an equatorial industrial hemp variety could solve many of the problems facing tropical farmers. Many of these farmers grow rice to feed their families and have no reason to produce more than their families require because the only people they have access to sell their crops to are other farmers who farm to feed their families. Also rice requires much irrigation and can only be done in already crowded lowland farming areas. A tropical hemp variety will allow these farmers to use any extra crop they can produce to be used to make hemp which is a marketable industrial raw material. Also unlike rice hemp requires less irrigation and can be grown in highland areas. Since all of the available commercial hemp varieties are for higher latitude attempts to cultivate them in equatorial climates causes the plants to flower almost immediately. In hemp production this is a no no because flowering causes the stems to lignify (anyone that has tried to bend the stem of a flowering plant has probably noticed that it is much more brittle than it is during the vegetative stage of growth ). Thus the seed companies searched out remnant equatorial hemp left from the days when it was used for ship repair to be used as breeding stock in the creation of a tropical hemp. What they found was very interesting. The only remnant tropical hemp they could find all had a fiber content lower than 20% (much less than remnant hemp of high latitude) and thc content around 3% (much higher than remnant hemp varieties of high latitude) this to me shows that plants of the sativa subspecies if given enough time can produce both drug and hemp varieties without selective breeding done by humans. Perhaps the common ancestry shared by all of the specimens labeled as cannabis ssp. rasta is a group of sativas that had remained in tropical climates for an immensely long time along with the benefit of selective breeding for drug content by humans. Indicas/ruderalis are a little more complicated. Dj shorts attempts to produce very early flowering varieties from afghan genetics consistently produced autoflowering low thc ruderalis like phenos. Though they aren't low thc many of the very early flowering afghanica hybrids are hard to keep mothers of for long periods because they eventually autoflower even under 24/0 hour light cycles. As far as the separation of indica and afghanica this subject is best left to someone else and I hope someone else posts some info concerning.
.....
