Cannabis Taxonomy Research

[highonmt]

Mr A.

Thanks for stopping by, the origins appear to be terrestrial rather than extaterrestrial. Humulus lupulus is genetically very close to cannabis. This is an abstract from a Japanese study of cannabis cpDNA,

We analyzed the nucleotide sequences of the non-coding region of chloroplast DNA: the intergenic spacer between trnL (UAA) 3'exon and trnF (GAA). Two kinds of sequence, "type-1" and "type-2," were detected in 33 populations of Cannabis sativa. The length of the "type-1" fragment was 354 bp. In contrast, the "type-2" fragment from 3 populations was 353 bp long, with only one base deletion compared to "type-1." The fragment length from Humulus lupulus was 353 bp with a 1-bp deletion, and ten 1-bp substitutions compared to the sequences from C. sativa "type-1." Furthermore, we could clearly identify differences between C. sativa and H. lupulus using single-strand conformation polymorphism of PCR products (PCR-SSCP) analysis.

and a picture of the now invasive weed humulus japonicus,

Looks similar eh?

In studies I've read recently humulus japonicus is implicated as a common ancestor of cannabis as well so It seems likely that a humulus species or a number of humulus species were the ancestor(s) of cannabis sativa.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

So how do the Hillig and Gilmore studies fit together?

Gilmore=Hillig

Sativa=Sativa

Rasta=Indica

Indica=Afghanica

?

 

[highonmt]

Yes ? is right. I think hubris on this on one. rasta??

However I am of the mind that gillmore's study further supports my hypothesis of human selection of this putative "rasta" genotype which displays entheogenic properties and dispersion by the bands of early humans who populated Polynesia and the far east. This rasta geno/chemo type was possibly also carried by humans to africa. I appreciate you posting this study up stra. I'd love to see the primary source material. HM

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Did you read the Hillig study? They got a nice little map of where they think cannabis migrated. Some cool scatter plots of different genetic populations overlaid with their location.

 

[highonmt]

Did you read the Hillig study? They got a nice little map of where they think cannabis migrated. Some cool scatter plots of different genetic populations overlaid with their location.

Yes I did read it and it is rather convincing although the question of human genetic selection and polytypic assignment are still rather unconvincing. I still think that the genus is monotypic and has been steered toward subspeciation by human selection and midden heap "cultivation". The vector map that hillig presents is correct but the vectors are a misrepresentation of actual human dispersal. Thats why I posted the map above. I find it fascinating that the mexican and SA strains are also grouped with the asian and polynesian strains, Perhaps those seafaring polynesians brought with them a few seeds of cannabis for food or a big bag of seedy herb for ritualistic use. This is a great web sight detailing the origins and dispersion of the polynesians..http://www.polynesian-prehistory.com/...If you click the link pathways into polynesia you will see that the tiawan banks about 6000bp are a suspected jumping off point for the people who became polynesian. Not coincidentally imo the first evidence of cannabis use circa 10000pb was also from tiawan. It is also interesting that caucasian genetic markers are found in polynesians and the sythians were reported by Herodotus to have used cannabis ritualisically 6000bp. The line corrosponding to the m9 marker is very close to the scythian homeland. The mayan peoples of SA are gentically linked to the polynesians too indicating landfall by the famous sea faring peoples very likely. All circumstantial evidence but when taken as a whole quite convincing imo . In the spirit of Gilmore's cannabis rasta I'll suggest we call the "indica" subspecies Cannabis sativa abincunabulis literally from the cradle. Canabis sativa sativa and Cannabis sativa ruderalis to round out the three subspecies of the cannabis genus.
HM

 

[Cannabologist]

highonmt:

DJ and Cray are both right by the way they may just a bit off on the time scale.

- They couldn’t be more incorrect. An individual will not change species based on photoperiod or the light it is receiving, or really any other environmental factor; Speciation occurs at the population level.

- Changes in morphology, populations, and ultimately species occur over the course of generations, not within the lifetime of an individual.

- Environmental differences will often result in ecotypes. This is how I describe the difference in THC/CBD ratios seen in naturalized populations of Cannabis between latitudes 30 degrees north (as reported by Schultz?), where CBD is selected for in populations above 30 degrees north latitude and THC is selected for in populations below 30 degrees north latitude.

- Ecotypes may differ greatly in morphology but can readily interbreed as they are the same species. The morphology of an ecotype is based largely on the environment it is within, and this morphology can change from generation to generation with the adaptation of a new seed population to new environment.
- Humans have taken this further and used selective breeding to alter populations or organisms as we see fit (like food crops for example). The population is still the same species from the natural parent populations but is greatly morphologically altered through breeding over time.

either speciation or subspeciation have likely occured due to dispersion of seeds by critters(us included) and physical geograhical changes resulting in dissperate isolated populations.

- There is no such thing as “subspeciation” as far as I know, the term is speciation. A species can speciate from a parent population to another species. This species that branches off from the parent is often referred to as a subspecies. I really despise the use of the term “subspecies” as it has led to confusion in taxonomy for many many years.
- One problem with this “subspecies” label, and this applies to older papers focusing on Cannabis taxonomy, is that “subspecies” NOW has to and will always refer to a population of organisms that IS definitively a separate species from a parent population. In the past, subspecies could, and was, used to denote not just what I describe above, but populations of organisms that are simply other varieties, not new species branched from a parent population, along with ecotypes and cultivars.
At least this is my understanding of the history of the term. So a taxonomist could have said in a paper Cannbis sativa subspecies indica, and really meant variety indica.

- Cannabis is wind pollinated. There are no known organisms besides humans that would have a tendency to disperse achenes by any mechanism to my knowledge. There could have been a mechanism by which Cannabis achenes were dispersed by an organism that is now extinct (say a bird that ate the seeds and some of them, undigested, were pooped out at a later time and sprouted in a distant location from the parent population). I do not know of any organisms that can eat viable Cannabis achenes and poop them out and the achenes are still viable; I do not know of any actual study done on such either to show one way or the other.

- If Cannabis has had a speciation event within the last few thousand, or even few hundred years, why can all populations freely interbreed? I would study hybrid vigor in Cannabis populations (and what IS heterosis and what is going on anyway?) to try to discover where species boundaries may lie.
- Human (breeders) have a strong tendency to travel globally, find naturalized or local cultivars of Cannabis, and bring those genetics back to their locales for breeding with their local (inbred) populations. Cannabis is naturally outbreeding by nature, but this will strongly prevent speciation, as new genes from all around the globe are constantly re-inserted into stabilized inbred high THC populations of Cannabis. There are few barriers for Cannabis populations globally to speciate from the parent population, Cannabis sativa (keeping in mind all the current variation we see is the result of polymorphic variations, not separate Cannabis species).
- de Meijer’s study of Cannabis populations seems to suggest that certain populations of Nepalese Cannabis are quite far removed from other populations…

just a simple note pointing out some of your apparent scientific missteps in the above mentioned posts.

- I take a long time before I post and for one reason is because I do much fact checking in many areas to make sure what I am saying is correct. I will proofread my posts many times before they are posted and copied to the site, nothing definitive is said on the fly. Most do not do this. And even then, I can be wrong.
- Spurr’s had to endure many trolls from what I have seen in reading his posts. Also in this regard, I don’t see that he has a lack of understanding here; he has extensive knowledge of plant physiology, and I would concur with his previous statements regarding exclamations of Cray and Short, if that is what they are claiming.

It is not a wonder you disable your rep.

- The use of rep is stupid. I know people here who before the site started cracking down more were trolled into permanent banning for merely posting scientific knowledge and information to people. Those who were trolling them were more focused on turning the discussion into a political poo flinging fest, rather than posting legitimate science to back up their claims as the poster was. Flat out lies were stated by these trolls, and lies from websites used as “proof” for illegitimate claims that contradicted scientific fact. Moderators were of no help because some bore these same beliefs of the trolls. Reputation creates a system akin to the pure form of democracy of majority rule, where 2 wolves and a sheep decide what’s for dinner. Friends and friends of friends can vote each other up and claim someone is the guru who knows all and is always correct, but this isn’t really worth much in the real world despite claims made online. I can name the handful of people here who I consider actual experts not only worthy of reading, but of scouring their every post and devouring the information within. But it is only a handful.

- Before we go further for this discussion of Cannabis taxonomy, I believe it is extremely important to first lay down a groundwork for how to (how we) define species and what a species is, what constitutes a species and makes it different as opposed to another, what are the rules that govern the lines between species and how to deal with exceptions to the rules we come up with, where do we draw the lines between species and hybrids and why, what IS a hybrid and what constitutes a TRUE hybrid species as opposed to 2 populations of the same species hybridizing? And then what about ring species?

Also, changes in morphology and indeed speciation are often due to geographical isolation; it is a well known phenomenon in evolutionary biology.

- These changes are two VERY different things, but you lump them together quite hastily. Yes, changes in morphology in populations will often occur due to environmental (geographical) differences. This is how we get ecotypes, as previously mentioned.
One mechanism of many for speciation is geographic isolation.

- Has Cannabis had a speciation event at all (and one due to geographic isolation)? Extremely unlikely (in my opinion). We see heterosis effects in particular populations of Cannabis when crossbred (that I would assume then are far removed genetically from one another), but all populations of Cannabis are freely interbreeding, and there are no hybrids between Cannabis and any other relatives, such as Hops.

- I have seen populations of the same cultivar, from seed, with individuals who were both broad leaved and narrow leaved.
- Also short, medium, and tall heights, and growth patterns/stretching, pretty much any particular phenotype expressed can be readily measured along a cline, and when growing populations from seed, one can see this variation within the population, even within the seeds themselves. The larger the sampling size, the more one will see the variation among individuals in a population.

This includes adaptation to the photoperiod

- Varieties of Cannabis that flower under any photoperiod have been bred with pretty much every other well known strain, like northern lights and ak-47. Such naturalized populations can freely interbreed with every other variety, even ones from across the globe! Russia, India-Thailand, Australia, Africa, South America, Central America, North America, Europe, Middle East, everywhere you go all varieties and cultivars of Cannabis freely interbreed.
Even the isolated, strict and strong inbreeding programs found in the USA and Netherlands used to create new cultivars, these cultivars can freely interbreed with any other Cannabis from around the world. Any particular trait can easily be interbred into population that does not have the trait, and likewise selected out from the population.

- Differing human populations likewise have adapted to their differing environments, one explanation to the variation we have between “races”. But there are no different species of humans that exist from homo sapiens sapiens (though Europeans are hybrids with Neanderthals… Something to think about, that these cousin species could interbreed, yet no Cannabis population can interbreed with Hops, but all Cannabis populations can interbreed with one another). On what grounds is Cannabis sativa any different?

- It is most logical to start from a position of one species, and only one species, Cannabis sativa, and then go from there to look and see if there is more than one species from this parent population, is it not? As opposed to presupposing there are two species (based on what?), and then looking for one species, or perhaps even more than the two species you are presupposing. Such taxonomists will a priori assign species, sativa and indica, and then go about looking for evidence that there are indeed two or more species. I can’t think of anything more biased and unscientific, but it has passed off as sound logic for many years now in papers published on Cannabis taxonomy. Reading some of these papers makes me wonder how they were even published.
- These geniuses will, having stated by decree that there are two (or more) species, will go looking for any morphological difference between populations on which to base their new found taxonomy, such as differences in height, leaf shape, or THC and CBD content. I would be hard pressed to think one wouldn’t find differences in genetic and phenotypic expression among any population and/or between separate populations.

- In terms of Hillig’s assertions regarding genetics differences among populations being enough to deem a speciation event, I would be hard pressed to find any biologist who would claim that populations of humans who bear the genes for sickle cell disease are a different species because other populations does not bear the genes. This argument can be taken to any length, like differences in eye or hair or skin color, or any trait, but you get the picture.

- The fundamental flaw of Hillig’s work is that he is working with only a handful of genes, and assumes that a population lacking a particular gene that another has is indicative of separate species and a speciation event. I suppose Hillig believes black, asian, and white people are different species. He should do a study like he did on Cannabis and see if he can get his interpretation of the data published

and the latitude at which the plant dwells.

- Again Cannabis populations at any latitude can freely breed with one another. So while we can clearly see ecotypic variation caused by variations in environment, I would be hard pressed to say these variations amount to separate species.

itis of little use to this discussion, I'm interested in current genetic research and more particularly studies conducted on chloroplast dna. From genetic research the answer will arise, not the ramblings of classical taxonomists

- As far as I am aware, there are no such genetics studies, Hillig is the only one at all delving into Cannabis taxonomy from a genetic perspective. Given the ramblings of Hillig, I am quite skeptical of your prediction concerning genetic research, but I do also believe such research and Cannabis coming to a crossroads will be a great thing, so long as it is done from an unbiased approach.

and have nothing to prove

- But then why would you tell us you have all these degrees and certifications? I would love the help of an organic chemist in elucidating questions regarding THC chemistry and biochemistry, decarboxylation, Cannabinoids and lipid solvents like butter, etc., the chemistry behind what is actually happening between the molecules, etc.

Now this could be a bit off topic but I have been pondering the question of sp. vs spp. in the context of human migration and pre-agricultural use of cannabis in migrating human populations.

No it is not off topic.

I hypothesize that this high protien seed was encountered by bands of early humans and along with the seed the entheogenic properties. The earliest evidence of hemp use was dertimined to be circa 10,000 in tiawan. (Abel, Ernest. Marijuana, The First 12,000 Years (Plenum Press, New York 1980). if you look at a genetic marker map of human migration

Follow M9 from what is now a known center of cannabis diversity notice the terminus of the of the lower branch into Polynesia.

While the Middle east is a hub for Cannabis today it is not the center of it’s origins millions of years ago before humans, which are thought to be central Asia.

Notice M22. So did early humans carry cannabis seeds to these areas.

- I would likely doubt it. If humans were doing such, perhaps carrying seeds/buds/plants for food or other use, humans from M175 to M122 could have carried seeds around, but it is more likely Cannabis plants were already endemic to these areas.
- I can venture that Humans from “F” were some of the first to encounter Cannabis, and perhaps later migrations from Z, and M175 and probably M20 encountered Cannabis. Depending on how far Cannabis itself had spread for whatever reason, migrations like M, M130, M174, and M75 could have encountered Cannabis.

The result of recent cp dna from a 2700yo cannabis sample in china indicate that all the chinese strains tested indicated a common ancestor in the central aisian center of diversity were humans the dispersal vector for cannabis in polynesian, and china?
Ok so its just a guess but if true it really explains the above noted genetic evidence as well as the presence of hawiian and polynesian landrace genetics

- Hawaiian and Polynesian landraces are naturalized populations from within the last 50, hundred, few hundred, or even a few thousand years, such ancient human migrations do not account for these landraces, the reason for their existence is much more accountable, as they are simply escaped hemp and drug cultivars brought over from whatever aforementioned time period by other travelers, likely Asian and European explorers, traders, and conquerors. It is certain Cannabis has come to the Americas in only the last few hundred years with European settlers.

- Humans are undoubtedly a dispersal vector for Cannabis, for at least around a few thousand years, and perhaps over 10,000 years. Cannabis seeds from China traveled the silk road to Europe and grown there. Cannabis from Europe was brought to San Salvador and the American colonies. Cannabis from India was brought to Jamaica. It really is endless the connections and webs one can make. Despite this, Cannabis retains its polymorphic nature and can freely interbreed with all these differing naturalized populations and cultivars. This makes for different species? I would not think so J

- What we need to do are distinguish what traits are important and which traits are not in determining species from one another. So while we can use something like hair or eye color, and distinguish, even on a genetic basis, based on those traits, we would not be looking at differing species.

- How and when do we decide whether a particular polymorphism is important or not?

- In many animals, sexual dimorphism becomes an important way to distinguish, as well as selection of mates.

- This relates often to the morphological species concept.

- Biological species concept can organisms freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring (under natural conditions… Which you could in certain circumstances consider 2 interbreeding populations that can produce fertile offspring in the wild 2 species because of natural barriers to reproduction.

- The formation of species relies upon the cutting off gene flow (migration) between populations, and Cannabis presently has no such barriers.

- What makes polymorphism not important (generally speaking)? The populations do not care about the differences in forms, they will still freely interbreed with one another.

- Reproductive isolation is a good barrier to speciation, but things can go wrong and produce infertile hybrids, such as ligers, mules/hinnys, and zebroids.

The results showed three distinct "races" of cannabis. In central Asia the THC-rich indica predominated, while in western Europe sativa was more common. In India, south-east Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica the rasta variant predominated. It looks similar to the sativa subspecies, but generally contains higher levels of THC.

- That study that proclaims a “rasta” variety is probably very wrong.

- Rather once again we have an experiment that confirms the codominate inheritance patterns of Cannabinoids, within homogenous and heterogenous genotypes/phenotypes.
- The wrongly described “sativa” type are the CBD pure chemotype fiber cultivars, “indica” type are THC pure chemotype drug cultivars, and the “rasta” type is merely the intermediate heterozygous form containing both THC and CBD. It makes perfect sense that in Africa, Mexico, and Jamaica you see these heterozygous chemotypes, as pure THC chemovars from India/Asia (as well as heterozygous forms) were brought over and interbred with European CBD predominate hemp.
- Mind you Cannabis to Mexico, Jamaica, and all of south America is actually quite a recent occurrence, arriving a little over 500 years now. Cannabis has been well entrenched in Africa for at least a few thousand years, as we know cultures as far back as the ancient Egyptians used Cannabis.

- A subspecies is NOT a variety, race, or cultivar. It is an entirely separate species. That’s a BIG deal, and a big difference. There is no “indica” subspecies”, or in fact any subspecies of Cannabis sativa, “sativa” is the only recognized species of Cannabis. There are many proposed species in addition to sativa, and I will be happy to go over any reasoning why those proposed species are just differing varieties of Cannabis sativa.

I still think that the genus is monotypic and has been steered toward subspeciation by human selection and midden heap "cultivation".

- if the genus is monotypic, then there is only one species and no others, a subspecies by definition implies a polytypic genus.

- how is human selection steering Cannabis toward speciation?
- In fact it is the opposite, human selection and the ability of humans to take Cannabis from all around the globe, and interbreed with varities and cultivars from all these differing areas, is enabling gene flow, not cutting off gene flow, which is what is required for speciation.

- This process of breeders and cultivators of acquiring new accessions and interbreeding them with other varieties re-enforces the idea of a monotypic genus, based on the fact that the accessions can freely interbreed, no matter how distant they may have been geographically at one time or even genetically distant from one another. And again humans are causing new flows of genes between populations of Cannabis, not cutting off those gene flows, which will be the foremost barrier to speciation.

The vector map that hillig presents is correct but the vectors are a misrepresentation of actual human dispersal.

- How are they a misrepresentation? Humans at some point encountered Cannabis in Central Asia and then spread it both eastward and west from whence it was discovered.

- Hillig’s map is wrong because of how he presents 2 groups of Cannabis spreading based on CURRENT accessions. It is quite spurious to infer how Cannabis may have spread in the past based on populations of today and their current location.

- Also, Hillig has no idea how Cannabinoids are inherited (despite citing papers that plainly tell him how it is inherited) and that using such traits is a poor way to try and distinguish between species. He ignores acclimatizing of Cannabis to various climates and how that affects Cannabinoid production as well as the effect of natural and artificial selection of polymorphic forms within generations over time. Essentially, Hillig makes a whole slew of assumptions that are on their face incorrect.

I find it fascinating that the mexican and SA strains are also grouped with the asian and polynesian strains,

- I think you mean to say “that Mexican, South American, and Polynesian strains are grouped with Asian varieties”, because that is what is correct, and the reasoning why these central and south American strains, and pacific cultivars, are grouped with Asian varieties, is because that is their very origin! European traders took Asian-Indian hemp (drug type) and brought it over to the Americas where it spread from there (like to Hawaii/Polynesia).

Perhaps those seafaring polynesians brought with them a few seeds of cannabis for food or a big bag of seedy herb for ritualistic use.

That is incorrect, rather European seafarers brought Asian-Indian Cannabis with them on their voyages and traded with locals in Polynesia for other goods and spices. Polynesian and Hawaiian strains have never been isolated from any other Cannabis population for any length of time, rather they are a part of the general Cannabis population.

Not coincidentally imo the first evidence of cannabis use circa 10000pb was also from tiawan.

- But where is the evidence for ancient Cannabis use and cultivation among Polynesians? There isn’t any, because it never happened. Polynesian Cannabis is a recent event, as far as I know.

It is also interesting that caucasian genetic markers are found in Polynesians

Not really considering we are all related. All that means is somewhere 2 people had sex. You don’t know how long ago that was, and its very likely that such genetic markers are indicative of European colonizers and traders who first came upon Polynesia, not of ancient travels by Caucasians to Polynesia. Also, which is most likely, caucasians from Siberia mated with Asians, which was known to occur during these migrations.

and the sythians were reported by Herodotus to have used cannabis ritualisically 6000bp. The line corrosponding to the m9 marker is very close to the scythian homeland.

- More evidence against the idea that polytypic genus: we know for a fact the Scythians smoked Cannabis and got high off of it. But they lived in northern Central Asia, and thus should not have had access to the THC rich varieties that are supposedly found more southward in India and southern China.
But wait, they did get high, very high, indicating that they DID have access to THC rich varieties. Whether these were pure chemotype or heterozygous chemotype does not matter; it shows that Cannabis of high THC content existed far more northward and westward than previously suspected.

- This further means that Hillig’s “sativa/indica” map is pure nonsense, nothing but his made up speculation based on a faulty premise that Cannabis polymorphs are diverging species, when this is anything but the case. Hillig is ignorant of basic simple Cannabis history. I’m not surprised.

The line corrosponding to the m9 marker is very close to the scythian homeland.

- And only about 35 thousand years before the Scythians even ever existed

The mayan peoples of SA are gentically linked to the polynesians too indicating landfall by the famous sea faring peoples very likely.

- The Polynesians likely made it to South America and established trade with the Mayans there around 1000 AD; thus, it is another recent event, not an ancient one. The Polynesians never had access to Cannabis for some time, certainly not for thousands of years, and Cannabis has only been on the American continents for 500 years.

All circumstantial evidence but when taken as a whole quite convincing imo .

- I wouldn’t even go so far as to say evidence. Speculation yes. Convincing? Not when taken in the context of history, sorry.

In the spirit of Gilmores cannabis rasta I'll suggest we call the "indica" subspecies cannabis

Abincunabulis literally from the cradle.”

- So is there a subspecies of Cannabis or not? You appear to contradict yourself repeatedly, believing the genus to be monotypic, but then claiming there to be subspecies (and thus making the genus monotypic). Which is it?

- This represents for me a key factor in terms of human wants when it comes to Cannabis; people who work with Cannabis seem to have an intrinsic desire to “discover” a “new species”, one they can name. This extends primarily to taxonomists who are trying to make a name for themselves.

- I know a few current and ancient words for Cannabis from differing languages, there are a few lists online that give many such words both from past and present.

- I can tell you there are much better words to call Cannabis by

 

[GreenintheThumb]

What is that noise? Oh, just Hillig openly weeping in the corner.

You make many good points CB

 

[Mr. Alkaline]

...What we need to do are distinguish what traits are important and which traits are not in determining species from one another...

Cannabologist,

I can't write a post that long ....but, I agree that an evolved approach to Cannabis Taxes, would root and revolve around Trait Classes.

btw, I am after the 'magnetic' cannabis of mesoAmerica this year

I just posted a quote from a lady who channels mother earth(ascendpress.org)

....and I downloaded 1500 pgs of free pdf of stuff as far as a chanelling from the lady who brought america the red clay peace pipe!!!

I even read that Earth said we have a Sun which broadcasts 5th dimensional energies to third dimensional flora.....so.....'what' is cannabis whenst grown under a hot filament?hehe

Okay, ....well.....im leaving now cause the indica has dumbed down my consciousness with it's effects which are non-resonant with my dna....so im dumbing down...........adhjhdedfutydfbvdb......zzzzzzzz

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Are you saying birds don't spread Cannabis seeds?
I have found plants growing in the shit of chickens I fed Cannabis seeds, most birds crack open the seeds when they eat them, if they don't then some will sprout when shit out. Animals do the same, like rats and mice and a lot more. Have you ever fed birds Cannabis seeds? I have for many many years....
-SamS

- Cannabis is wind pollinated. There are no known organisms besides humans that would have a tendency to disperse achenes by any mechanism to my knowledge. There could have been a mechanism by which Cannabis achenes were dispersed by an organism that is now extinct (say a bird that ate the seeds and some of them, undigested, were pooped out at a later time and sprouted in a distant location from the parent population). I do not know of any organisms that can eat viable Cannabis achenes and poop them out and the achenes are still viable; I do not know of any actual study done on such either to show one way or the other.

 

[Ganja D]

I haven't read this whole thread and much of the info is over my head without catching up, but what an interesting topic.
Had a conversation with a PhD chemist the other day about a machine that can break down the chromosomes and dna of cannabis and map it's characteristic traits by dna. He explained you could decipher what parts of the dna are matched to certain character traits. You could grow out a thousand seeds of a strain find the 1% that have the dna and chromosomes that make for resin,favor,smell,large yield,etc everything you would want in a plant. Then find similar dna matched male and breed. He explained analyzing the tissue samples of the offspring and continued selective breeding could create the most stable seeds possible and eliminate variation,creating all gems or keepers.
I'm a bit stoned,sorry bout my punctuation. Interesting stuff though. He said the machine is 200k plus the cost of hiring the lab work/man hours of the scientists conducting the research.
As cool of an idea as it is,I hope technology does not take over the breeding industry. We should take pride in doing the work ourselves.

 

[Mountain]

As cool of an idea as it is,I hope technology does not take over the breeding industry. We should take pride in doing the work ourselves.

Well I'm a science guy and do think that when more research is done on canna it will prove/disprove a lot of urban legends and general mistruths that are continually perpetuated. I believe the Cali med scene has opened the door to more legitimate testing and research such as labs now being available to test THC/CBD/CBN content.

I like to look at something like HPLC or GC Mass Spec testing for chemical constituents and genetic testing as all positive. I believe that genetic testing will be a very valuable tool for breeding. There will always be those not using those techniques and be strictly hands on. They've done a mighty fine job working with canna genetics creating what they want targeting specific traits and 'fixing' them.

To me science is just another tool the grower can use like soil and sap testing.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Personally I find the genetic tests much more interesting than quantifying the cannabinoids. Recently 4 samples of the same bud were sent to four different labs in CO. Major discrepancies between the results we're talking 17-33% THC. That's pathetic. Only one place I know that's using HPLC.

 

[Mountain]

Recently 4 samples of the same bud were sent to four different labs in CO. Major discrepancies between the results we're talking 17-33% THC. That's pathetic. Only one place I know that's using HPLC.

Yeah well if all of the labs were using validated methods there should not be much variance and maybe some are using tests strips? That's not what this thread is about though.

I do think that genetic testing cross referenced to quantitative analysis of cannaboid content of the plants would be an interesting project to be involved in.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Actually there's two places using HPLC and even they didn't match. Others were gas chromatography and one that used thin-layer chromatography.

I agree with you Mountain. I just want you to know how this is actually playing out in the real world. Which is more as a marketing tool than anything having to do with science.

Sorry I pulled this so far off track.

 

[highonmt]

Are you saying birds don't spread Cannabis seeds?
I have found plants growing in the shit of chickens I fed Cannabis seeds, most birds crack open the seeds when they eat them, if they don't then some will sprout when shit out. Animals do the same, like rats and mice and a lot more. Have you ever fed birds Cannabis seeds? I have for many many years....
-SamS

I am certain that birds, and other critters were responsible for some part of cannabis dispersal hard to determine how far and where? The evidence is significant that humans were a very important vector as well. I'd love to find a paper that details the dispersal of cannabis but I can't find any.

It is from genetic reseach that many answers will be found. GC and GC MS are very useful techniques but only give us a look at the plants chemotype and glimps of what enzyme systems are active. The genes encoding these system are selected for by breeding and evolutionary processes. The same info. an much more are encoded in the plants genes, cpDNA studies need to be employeed to track the dispersal and putative speciation of cannabis.

cannabologist..
That's quite a post, thanks for posting it up. I'll disagree with some, agree with some, but I simply don't have time to address all those points. Keep up the good work this is enjoyable. I am a scientist and as such am glad to be wrong sometimes a negative result can tell us all a lot about problems. If you could just scale back the size of your posts It will be easier to have a disscussion. Oh and subspeciation is indeed a word you should just google before calling bs.
Cheers,
HM

 

[Mountain]

Sorry I pulled this so far off track.

Ya didn't really. The genetic conversation theme of this thread does link with the cannabinoid content part a bit IMO. I just think that you'd need genetic analysis in conjunction with something like HPLC for a scientific type breeding program. Still though genetics are definitive while something like a plant's output, cannabinoids in this case meaning more specifically total and maybe ratios, can be influenced by the environment (growing conditions).

I've been dealing with a situation over the last few months where GC was not confirming results obtained from HPLC. I'm not familiar with TLC. What I've been dealing with has nothing to do with canna. Sam could probably provide some insight.

 

[elmanito]

Personally I find the genetic tests much more interesting than quantifying the cannabinoids. Recently 4 samples of the same bud were sent to four different labs in CO. Major discrepancies between the results we're talking 17-33% THC. That's pathetic. Only one place I know that's using HPLC.

Different methods gives different results,As long as they're not using a method which is harmonized & validated by AOAC ,different test results will continue.

Namaste

 

[GreenintheThumb]

TLC is the most crude method of the three listed IMO.

And even the two tests using the same methods: HPLC didn't match up. I've personally had a lab tech tell me that their standards were recalled by Sigma because they weren't 100% pure. The lab continued to use these standards for calibration.

 

[highonmt]

Ya didn't really. The genetic conversation theme of this thread does link with the cannabinoid content part a bit IMO. I just think that you'd need genetic analysis in conjunction with something like HPLC for a scientific type breeding program. Still though genetics are definitive while something like a plant's output, cannabinoids in this case meaning more specifically total and maybe ratios, can be influenced by the environment (growing conditions).

I've been dealing with a situation over the last few months where GC was not confirming results obtained from HPLC. I'm not familiar with TLC. What I've been dealing with has nothing to do with canna. Sam could probably provide some insight.

Gas chromatograpy columns are heated, if your compound or mixture is heat sensitive the results can sometimes be very confusing. HPLC and TLC are extremely mild techniques and even the acidic nature of silica gel can be controlled by conditions and manipulation of the chromatographic media Not knowing what the nature of your experiment is I can't offer too much advise but if you pm me perhaps I can be of assistance. The point you make about the plants environment controlling the degree of gene expression is another reason why genetic testing is superior to analytical chemistry approaches.
HM

 

[elmanito]

TLC is the most crude method of the three listed IMO.

And even the two tests using the same methods: HPLC didn't match up. I've personally had a lab tech tell me that their standards were recalled by Sigma because they weren't 100% pure. The lab continued to use these standards for calibration.

Lab standards of Sigma have never been pure and it is even under control of the DEA.You can better make your own control standards.For identification TLC is a good method.

Namaste