Creating subtype names for Bud Structure...

[smurfin'herb]

Ive thought of this from time to time and i would like to hear everyone elses opinion...

Between pictures and experience, i have had the pleasure of seeing many many different strains. My favorite thing to observe besides smell is BUD STRUCTURE/CALYX FORMATION AND GROUPING. Calyx formation/grouping (whatever u wanna call it) has always fascinated me. When it comes to general conversation or strain descriptions i think we could possibly benefit from designing a system that breaks down bud structure into subtypes under the main types indica, sativa, and possibly hybrid female cannabis. This would make easy reference for us all.
Not all indica flowers have the same shape and style as each other, and neither do sativas.
Heres a simple, but rough example: "Kush" calyx structure/formation could be a subtype of Indica. "Afghani" could be another one, and so on. We would have to make or pull names for other subtypes..
Haze structure/formation could be a subtype of sativa, but i havent really worked with many hazes yet, so i dont know how much they differ. Or we could just use the name of the geographical region where those traits are most prevalent or commonly known to come from. For example, you could say colombian could be a another subtype under sativa structure and its named that because most plants with that structure/formation came from colombia. You even go the extent of providing the eras (example 1970's colombia) before the name of the region because as we all know new cannabis varieties have been and are being introduced into these locations which changes things up a bit.
There could also be subtypes of subtypes or"secondary subtypes".
Example..

Indica bud strucutre
Subtype- Afghani calyx formation
(2)Subtype- availiable to use if needed,(depends on how much plants vary in that variety)

These are all very rough examples and im not neccessarily proposing that they be used if this method is agreed upon, but it wouldnt bother me at all if they were. Im not saying that this is something that needs to be done, but i think it would nice to create some type system like this. Whats everyones opinion...?

 

[Green Supreme]

How about long,

Long, thin leafed with long flower time
Thin ,leafed with short flower time
Short ,fat leafed with short flower time
Short, fat leafed with long flower time
Hybrid leafed short flower time....

Just another angle. Peace GS

 

[SeaMaiden]

GS, that's a start, but I can pick up some of what the smurfin' person is putting down here--we need better, more accurate descriptors of the flowers (and plants), just as is seen elsewhere in the horticultural world. But it needs to go far beyond "Afghani" vs "Sativa" vs "Ruderalis" etc, in my opinion.

For instance, let's work with Camellias, one of my favorite groups of flowers/flowering plants (as well as rhododendrons, and dogwood, and irises, and tulips, and, and.. and... I'll have to go through my list, it's just too extensive).

We have single, semi-double, anemone (just like the animal), peony, and formal double. Regardless of whether the plant is flowering or not, if you read that in the descriptor, you're immediately going to know the flower structure of that plant. Same sort of descriptors exist within many, many plants we humans have been futzing with for eons.

And so, the first question I would ask is this: Does such a set of descriptors already exist elsewhere? Is there a foundation upon which to build? In other words, could it simply be a matter of getting a group of people to learn and agree on terminology (semantics, sorry dizzle!)?

If so, then the hard part is done. If not, it's going to be an interesting ride while terms are hammered out. A couple of examples I can think of immediately (with regard to interesting terminology cannabis cultivators may use) are the terms "strain," "stain," and "clones," which appear to have been borrowed from the orchid world. I think we all generally agree on the meanings if not the terms themselves, yes?

How would one describe more accurately peach-shaped calyxes that stack in one manner (bud fattening in the Indica-dom manner?) vs those that stack vertically upon each other (aka foxtail/foxtailing, I think we have a start right there... yeah?)?

I think the simple direct descriptor approach would be far, far simpler and easier than trying to continually assign locators as the descriptors when we have such highly hybridized lines.

Doth she ramble, or doth she muse...? (She doth love the ellipsis.)

 

[smurfin'herb]

This would in deed be quite an undertaking if there was nothing to build off of. Im thinking we put together a catalog of hundreds of different types of bud structures. Then we sort them out into different categories and sub catgegories etc.. OR we could just go through the pics and assign markers (names) to the most common reacurring shapes and groupings of calyx's. Then just combine the different marker names to describe a plant... May be easier that way.. just a thought..

 

[Green Supreme]

Yes interesting, because even the same strains can have a different looking structure when grown in differing environments. Peace GS

 

[*mistress*]

...interesting topic...

from another p.o.v...

if creating a new set of descriptors, it may be best to start from blank canvas...

for example... scrap "i", "s", etc, etc... and simply describe the chracteristics themselves... "i" & "s", or "aphganee" or "suhteevah", while common in use, maybe do not include the numerous variations and polyhybrids that maybe are in existence in current tymes.... for example.... does an "s" that orginated from a tropical region remain the same genetically if cultivated in a moderate or desert climate for 20 years?.... if.... only the purely quatifiable characteristics are described, it maybe eliminates potentially arbitrary descriptors being applied based on historical refernces.... though there might be a historical footnote to include such refernces, or region or gardener of origin(s), other gardener notes...

here are excerpts from a limited # of online resources (...all below, in bold, refernces are the work of their authors... ):

FABABEAN Descriptor Site(s): W6
------

Contains data on Broadbean (Vicia faba) accessions. For
additional information, contact Clare Coyne Western
Regional Plant Introduction Station in Pullman, WA
- phone -. email: -

Descriptor: BASNODEBRA obtype: NUMERIC CGC: N

BRANCHING FROM BASAL NODES. MEAN NUMBER OF BRANCHES
/PLANT, TAKEN FROM 5 REPRESENTATIVE PLANTS IN LATE
FLOWERING STAGE


Descriptor: DAYSFLOWER obtype: NUMERIC CGC: N

NUMBER OF DAYS FROM SOWING TO FIRST OBSERVED FLOWER.


Descriptor: FLOWGRDCOL obtype: CHAR CGC: N

GROUND COLOR OF STANDARD PETAL (FLAG).

Code Definition
---- ----------
DB DARK BROWN
LB LIGHT BROWN
MX MIXED
OT OTHER
PI PINK
PU PURPLE
RD RED
WH WHITE
YL YELLOW


Descriptor: GROWHABIT obtype: CHAR CGC: N

GROWTH HABIT OF PLANTS WHEN IN FLOWER.

Code Definition
---- ----------
D DETERMINATE (STEMS WITH TERMINAL INFLORESCENCE)
I INDETERMINATE
M MIXED
S SEMI-DETERMINATE (STEMS WITHOUT TERMINAL INFLORESCENCE)


Descriptor: HIGHNODEBR obtype: CHAR CGC: N

BRANCHING FROM HIGHER NODES. TAKEN AT LATE FLOWERING STAGE.

Code Definition
---- ----------
+ BRANCHING
- NON-BRANCHING
M MIXED


Descriptor: HILUMCOLOR obtype: CHAR CGC: N

COLOR OF HILUM OF MATURE SEED.

Code Definition
---- ----------
BL BLACK
MX MIXED
NC COLORLESS
OT OTHER


Descriptor: IMAGE obtype: CHAR CGC: YES

A picture or image


Descriptor: LEAFLETNUM obtype: NUMERIC CGC: N

MEAN NUMBER OF LEAFLETS PER LEAF OF 5 LEAVES OBSERVED ON
FULLY EXPANDED LEAVES AT THE MEDIAN FLOWERING NODE.


Descriptor: LEAFLETSHP obtype: CHAR CGC: N

LEAFLET SHAPE OBSERVED ON MIDDLE LEAFLET OF FULLY EXPANDED
LEAF AT THE INTERMEDIATE FLOWERING NODE OF THE PLANT.

Code Definition
---- ----------
I INTERMEDIATE (SUB-ELLIPTIC)
M MIXED
N NARROW (ELONGATE)
R ROUNDED (SUB-ORBICULAR)


Descriptor: LEAFLETSIZ obtype: CHAR CGC: N

LEAFLET SIZE OBSERVED ON FULLY EXPANDED LEAVES AT THE
INTERMEDIATE FLOWERING NODE.

Code Definition
---- ----------
3 SMALL
5 MEDIUM
7 LARGE
M MIXED


Descriptor: OVULESPOD obtype: NUMERIC CGC: N

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF OVULES PER POD.


Descriptor: PODANGLE obtype: CHAR CGC: N

POD ANGLE / ATTITUDE AT MATURITY ON THE SECOND OR THIRD
POD BEARING NODE.

Code Definition
---- ----------
ER ERECT
HZ HORIZONTAL
MX MIXED
PD PENDENT/HANGING


Descriptor: PODCOLOR obtype: CHAR CGC: N

POD COLOR AT MATURITY

Code Definition
---- ----------
D DARK/BROWN OR BLACK
L LIGHT / YELLOW
M MIXED


Descriptor: PODDIST obtype: CHAR CGC: N

POD DISTRIBUTION ON THE STEM.

Code Definition
---- ----------
B MAINLY BASAL
M MIXED
T MAINLY TERMINAL
U UNIFORM


Descriptor: PODMAT obtype: NUMERIC CGC: N

DAYS FROM SOWING UNTIL 90% OF THE PODS HAVE DRIED.


Descriptor: PODSHAPE obtype: CHAR CGC: N

POD SHAPE AT ABOUT 50% POD SET.

Code Definition
---- ----------
FC FLATTENED CONSTRICTED
FN FLATTENED NON-CONSTRICTED
MX MIXED
SC SUB-CYLINDRICAL


Descriptor: PODSHATTER obtype: CHAR CGC: N

POD SHATTERING AT MATURITY.

Code Definition
---- ----------
+ SHATTERING
- NON-SHATTERING


Descriptor: PODSNODE obtype: NUMERIC CGC: N

AVERAGE NUMBER OF PODS ON THE SECOND POD BEARING NODE OF 5
PLANTS.


Descriptor: PODSURFACE obtype: CHAR CGC: N

POD SURFACE REFLECTANCE.

Code Definition
---- ----------
GL GLOSSY
MT MATTE
MX MIXED


Descriptor: SEEDGRDCOL obtype: CHAR CGC: N

GROUND COLOR OF TESTA. TO BE OBSERVED ON SEED LESS THAN
ONE MONTH OLD.

Code Definition
---- ----------
BL BLACK
BR BROWN
DB DARK BROWN
DG DARK GREEN
GY GREY
LG LIGHT GREEN
MX MIXED
OT OTHER
PU PURPLE / VIOLET
RD RED
WH WHITE
YL YELLOW


Descriptor: SEEDSHAPE obtype: CHAR CGC: N

GENERAL SHAPE OF SEED.

Code Definition
---- ----------
AN ANGULAR
FL FLATTENED
MX MIXED
RD ROUND


Descriptor: SEEDSIZE obtype: NUMERIC CGC: N

AVERAGE WEIGHT OF 2 SAMPLES OF 100 RANDOMLY SELECTED SEEDS.


Descriptor: SEEDSPOD obtype: NUMERIC CGC: N

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SEEDS PER POD OF 5 DRY PODS.


Descriptor: SEEDWGT obtype: NUMERIC CGC: YES

Weight of 100 seeds in grams.

Value Freq. Value Freq. Value Freq.
----------------- ----- ----------------- ----- ----------------- -----
1.22 - 22.26 13 64.34 - 85.38 130 127.46 - 148.50 18
22.26 - 43.30 91 85.38 - 106.42 76 148.50 - 169.54 2
43.30 - 64.34 125 106.42 - 127.46 51 169.54 - 190.58 4


Descriptor: STEMCOLOR obtype: CHAR CGC: N

STEM COLOR AT MATURITY

Code Definition
---- ----------
D DARK
L LIGHT


Descriptor: STEMPIG obtype: CHAR CGC: N

DEGREE OF STEM PIGMENTATION AT FLOWERING TIME.

Code Definition
---- ----------
1 ABSENT
3 WEAK
5 INTERMEDIATE
7 STRONG
9 VERY STRONG
M MIXED


Descriptor: STREAKINT obtype: CHAR CGC: N

INTENSITY OF STREAKS ON STANDARD PETAL (FLAG).

Code Definition
---- ----------
1 NO STREAKS
3 SLIGHT
5 MODERATE
7 INTENSE
9 VERY INTENSE
M MIXED


Descriptor: WINGPETCOL obtype: CHAR CGC: N

WING PETAL COLOR TAKEN ON NEWLY OPENED FLOWERS.

Code Definition
---- ----------
MX MIXED
SP SPOTTED
UC UNIFORMLY COLORED
UW UNIFORMLY WHITE


... and....


Working Group on Solanaceae
Minimum Descriptor List for
Physalis spp.
DRAFT – July 2007
Plant descriptors
1. Plant habit
This trait should be recorded at complete developmental stage of the plant.
1
Prostrate
2
Intermediate
3
Erect
2.
Characteristic of the stem
0
Naked
1
Hirsute
Flower descriptor
Average of 10 flowers.
3.
Diameter of the flower
1
< 2cm
2
2-3 cm
3
> 3 cm
Fruit descriptors
Average of 10 ripe fruits.
4.
Diameter of the calyx [in cm]
5. Diameter of the fruit [in cm]
Average of 10 ripe fruits.
6. Fruit weight [in g]
Average of 10 ripe fruits.
7. Fruit shape
Recorded at physiological maturity.
1
Round
2
Elliptic
3
Flat
4
Ribbed
8. Colour of the fruit
Recorded at physiological maturity.
1
Greenish
2
Yellow
3
Orange
4
Purple (when exposed to the light)
1
Minimum Descriptor List for Physalis spp.– Draft
Additional descriptors
9. Observations
Any original trait not taken into account by the above descriptors should be pointed out here.
10. Photograph
It is recommended to take a photograph of some fruits within their calyx.


... note the emphasis on standardizing color and measurement references.... metric or inches, etc...

... the p.o.v. that scraping the titles "i" or "s" is that such may distort the descriptions... if a planty originates in tropical jungle, but has been cultivated and adapted in the alps for 50 years, is it still tropical?

if the characteristics alone are described, and drawn or photographed, and measured... the results themselves from these descriptions can potentially be used to group the different trait results into more accurate groups... instead of native regions, that may or may not be accurate as to that cultivar.... assigning "i" or "s" also may predispose the scientist from simply describing the specimen, instead of potentially grouping a "thin-leafed" specimen into an arbitrary "s" group, when it may be that the specimen could be a "thin-leafed" "i"...

...a simple model....

I. agree on standardized color chart.... generally the colors that would be used most would be
a. green....
b. brown...
c. yellow...
d. purple....
e. white....

... however... it may be beneficial to simple agree on a full color chart, that all scientists participating in compiling the data-sets agree on.... so that a given gardener could reference, i.e.g, the royal horticultural society's "hoticultural colour chart".... of course, many ordinary paper or printing comp's have color swaths that, maybe, can be for free... when all gardeners have same simple colour chart, some may be like simple decks of playing cards.... gardeners can refernce actual shade, rather than just "dark green", or "light green"...


...measurement.... probably metric, with capability to go to microns, if fruit reproductive glands are also to be acccurately measured....

maybe, the simplest method could be:

I. number the submitted specimen into groups database/repository....
II. common or given name....
III. detach & measure 10 to 100 sample individuals glands, or flowers, or whatever portion of the specimen is to be measured.... mesure each of the sample group, calculate the median height and width of the sample group....
IV. compare the color of the glands &/or group of specimens to an agreed-upon color chart used by all participating scientists...
V. photograph or drawing of the specimen, or both....

for example,
I. specimen catalogue#: "A.000001";
II. common name: "Special Heirloom Tree";
III. flower/gland measurements: "100 glands detached with tweezers from apex of terminal flower"; "median height: 1cm"; "median width: .5cm";
IV. color(s): "viridian green".
V. historical notes: considered "s" by original gardener; gardener that isolated specimen: "user123 on icmag, some/point/in tyme"; "specimen increases reproductive glands when 25ppm Mg added during last 2 weeks of lowering"....

hope this helps.... have fun & enjoy your garden!

 

[plastochron]

i think that trying to create an agreed upon vocabulary and quantitative traits to categorize different types of bud structure is a great idea. after figuring out the trait parameters you could start doing chemotaxonomic and genomic studies to see if there is any clear phylogenetic pattern. i imagine that there also has to be a significant effect of growth conditions on the bud structure. i have seen identical genetics end up looking so different that i believe environmental conditions and fertilizer regime (to name just a couple of factors) must have an impact.

 

[smurfin'herb]

That is very obvious and should be taken into account. I think light intensity plays the biggest part in formation. Some buds on the same plant can look diff. I usually notice 2 or 3 different versions that one strain can have.

 

[plastochron]

light intensity is definitely important... i feel that media and nutrition are a close second and third.