Did man create cannabis?

[Dropped Cat]

Sativa is a term that simply means cultivated. It is NOT a type of cannabis by any stretch of the word. All cannabis grown by man is sativa.
Indica is name that denotes a region that Cannabis Sativa was collected from.

Came across this post the other day and was interested in your reply:

For your information all Sativa is hemp, either WLH or NLH.
All drug varieties are Indica, either WLD, or NLD,
What you refer to (Sativa) is actually Indica, NLD.
Read Cannabis Evolution and Ethnobotany by Robert C Clarke. Or the earlier works by Karl Hillig.-SamS

I don't usually get into these debates, but am curious of the evolution of
not only our beloved plant, but also its accurate description.

 

[MJPassion]

Came across this post the other day and was interested in your reply:




I don't usually get into these debates, but am curious of the evolution of
not only our beloved plant, but also its accurate description.

Idk where you got that post from Sam S but unfortunately that post he made is wrong.

Sativa, Sativus, and Sativum are Latin botanical adjectives meaning cultivated, used to designate certain seed-grown domestic crops.

Sativa (ending in -a) is the feminine form of the adjective, but masculine (-us) and neuter (-um) endings are also used to agree with the gender of the nouns they modify. For example, the masculine Crocus sativus and neuter Pisum sativum.

Sam S. nor R.C.C. can change the definition of a term to suit their needs. (They can but then they instantly insert misinformation & misinformation create trust issues.) If the book he's referring to states what his post does then it makes me wonder how much other bull shit has been spread by these so called pioneers?

And it makes me think I may have wasted precious resources obtaining that book!

 

[DocTim420]

If we assume the original population of "potential plants" has steadily declined since "day 1" and what we have today are "variants" of the "original plants" that survived 1000s of years of mankind, plant-kind, animial-kind, dinosaur-kind, and ______kind...then it all makes sense.

Even the vegetables grown a few hundred years ago are not grown today. We have "newer and improved" varieties today.

But the original population of "potential plants"...where did they come from?

My post from a different thread...

So with that in mind--

How the First Plant Came to Be

A genetic analysis reveals the ancient, complex--and symbiotic--roots of photosynthesis in plants

Earth is the planet of the plants—and it all can be traced back to one green cell. The world's lush profusion of photosynthesizers—from towering redwoods to ubiquitous diatoms—owe their existence to a tiny alga eons ago that swallowed a cyanobacteria and turned it into an internal solar power plant.

By studying the genetics of a glaucophyte—one of a group of just 13 unique microscopic freshwater blue-green algae, sometimes called "living fossils"—an international consortium of scientists led by molecular bioscientist Dana Price of Rutgers University, has elucidated the evolutionary history of plants. The glaucophyte Cyanophora paradoxa still retains a less domesticated version of this original cyanobacteria than most other plants.

According to the analysis of C. paradoxa's genome of roughly 70 million base pairs, this capture must have occurred only once because most modern plants share the genes that make the merger of photosynthesizer and larger host cell possible. That union required cooperation not just from the original host and the formerly free-ranging photosynthesizer but also, apparently, from a bacterial parasite. Chlamydia-like cells, such as Legionella (which includes the species that causes Legionnaire's disease), provided the genes that enable the ferrying of food from domesticated cyanobacteria, now known as plastids, or chloroplasts, to the host cell.

"These three entities forged the nascent organelle, and the process was aided by multiple horizontal gene transfers as well from other bacteria," explains biologist Debashish Bhattacharya of Rutgers University, whose lab led the work published in Science on February 17. "Gene recruitment [was] likely ongoing" before the new way of life prospered and the hardened cell walls of most plants came into being.

In fact, such a confluence of events is so rare that evolutionary biologists have found only one other example: the photosynthetic amoeba Paulinella domesticated cyanobacteria roughly 60 million years ago. "The amoeba plastid is still a 'work in progress' in evolutionary terms," Bhattacharya notes. "We are now analyzing the genome sequence from Paulinella to gain some answers" as to how these events occur.

The work provides the strongest support yet for the hypothesis of late biologist Lynn Margulis, who first proposed in the 1960s to widespread criticism the theory that all modern plant cells derived from such a symbiotic union, notes biologist Frederick Spiegel of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who was not involved in the work. That thinking suggests that all plants are actually chimeras—hybrid creatures cobbled together from the genetic bits of this ancestral union, including the enabling parasitic bacteria.

The remaining question is why this complex union took place roughly 1.6 billion years ago. One suggestion is that local conditions may have made it more beneficial for predators of cyanobacteria to stop eating and start absorbing, due to a scarcity of prey and an abundance of sunlight. "When the food runs out but sunlight is abundant, then photosynthesis works better" to support an organism, Bhattacharya notes. And from that forced union a supergroup of extremely successful organisms—the plants—sprang.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-first-plant-evolved/

So what caused the "confluence of events"?

And to what level is mankind part of the "confluence of events" in the most recent past...and in the near future? Probably more than we want to believe. Proof? I point to Cannabis.

 

[Columbo]

Idk where you got that post from Sam S but unfortunately that post he made is wrong.



Sam S. nor R.C.C. can change the definition of a term to suit their needs. (They can but then they instantly insert misinformation & misinformation create trust issues.) If the book he's referring to states what his post does then it makes me wonder how much other bull shit has been spread by these so called pioneers?

And it makes me think I may have wasted precious resources obtaining that book!

Cannabis (/ˈkænəbɪs/) is a genus of flowering plant in the family Cannabaceae. The number of species within the genus is disputed. Three species may be recognized, Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis; C. ruderalis may be included within C. sativa; or all three may be treated as subspecies of a single species, C. sativa.[2][3][4][1] The genus is indigenous to central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.[5]

I don't think things are as clear as you make them out to be. Using the single species theory shouldn't all Cannabis cultivated by man or otherwise(feral/wild), cultivated for fibre, seed oil, or drug uses be called C.sativa? Much like Clarke, SamS and Hillig propose?

Seems a little pretentious (and more importantly off topic) to be debating such matters as scientific nomenclature on a Cannabis forum designed for the lay person imo

Peace

 

[MJPassion]

I don't think things are as clear as you make them out to be. Using the single species theory shouldn't all Cannabis cultivated by man or otherwise(feral/wild), cultivated for fibre, seed oil, or drug uses be called C.sativa? Much like Clarke, SamS and Hillig propose?

Seems a little pretentious (and more importantly off topic) to be debating such matters as scientific nomenclature on a Cannabis forum designed for the lay person imo

Peace

There's no debate!
Sativa wether related to cannabis or not has the same meaning.

It really is that simple!

Sativa is a latin term.
The term existed before cannabis was categorized for scientific purposes.
The term simply means cultivated.

Do you eat oats? I love 'em.
Avina sativa for breakfast anyone?

Attempting to halt the spread of misinformation is pretentious eh?

These forums are for spreading knowledge.
They're NOT only for the lay person. If that were the case the info here would be as bad as High Times Magazine.

 

[DocTim420]

And..."azadirachta indica" is not cannabis.

 

[Columbo]

There's no debate!
Sativa wether related to cannabis or not has the same meaning.

It really is that simple!

Sativa is a latin term.
The term existed before cannabis was categorized for scientific purposes.
The term simply means cultivated.

Do you eat oats? I love 'em.
Avina sativa for breakfast anyone?

Attempting to halt the spread of misinformation is pretentious eh?

These forums are for spreading knowledge.
They're NOT only for the lay person. If that were the case the info here would be as bad as High Times Magazine.

I don't get it, it's just a name, a label, what does it matter if it doesn't reasonate with it's original latin meaning? What we call sativa here on the boards is different to what scientists refer to as C.Sativa Sub. Sativa (aka hemp) which in turn is different to the original latin meaning. No big deal imo.

What would you propose we call un-cultivated Cannabis?

 

[DocTim420]

...What would you propose we call un-cultivated Cannabis?

Weed.

On edit--

According to Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)...the keepers of taxonomic information on plants in North America, the following is what they recognize for what we call "cannabis".

Taxonomic Hierarchy

Kingdom: Plantae – plantes, Planta, Vegetal, plants
Subkingdom: Viridiplantae
Infrakingdom: Streptophyta – land plants
Superdivision: Embryophyta
Division: Tracheophyta – vascular plants, tracheophytes
Subdivision: Spermatophytina – spermatophytes, seed plants, phanérogames
Class: Magnoliopsida
Superorder: Rosanae
Order: Rosales
Family: Cannabaceae – hemp
Genus: Cannabis L. – hemp
Species: Cannabis sativa L. – hemp, grass, hashish, Mary Jane, pot, marijuana

Direct Children:
Subspecies: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica (Lam.) E. Small & Cronquist – hemp, grass, hashish, Mary Jane, pot, marijuana
Subspecies: Cannabis sativa ssp. sativa L. – hemp, grass, hashish, Mary Jane, pot, marijuana

Variety: Cannabis sativa var. sativa L. – marijuana
Variety: Cannabis sativa var. spontanea Vavilov – marijuana

Source: https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=523741#null
What more do we need?

 

[Betterhaff]

Within species there can be many cultivars. Many may be the result of man or natural forces but basically are the same species. Some of these may be classed as sub-species, some varieties.

A good example are the cruciferous vegetables…all the same species but selected by man for different food stuffs.

 

[Dropped Cat]

Here's a good article on the cannabis taxonomy debate:

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabi...y-debate-where-do-indica-and-sativa-classific

I grow my plants and refer to them as wide leaf or narrow leaf.

If I grow for rope I'll call it hemp.

Sativa and indica are terms widely understood and used with all parties
agreeing to the boundaries agreed upon.

Like many terms that we agree on, for example sunrise/sunset,
it's understood by all and no one debates it, the fact that the earth's
rotation upon its axis in orbit around the sun
is what's actually going on.

Man cultivated cannabis for two different reasons, and to that there is no debate.

Good thread!

 

[weedaholic721]

From the article I cited previously in this thread.

 

[DocTim420]

Any idea which organization published that list? It looks like something we should embrace.

 

[MJPassion]

I don't get it, it's just a name, a label, what does it matter if it doesn't reasonate with it's original latin meaning? What we call sativa here on the boards is different to what scientists refer to as C.Sativa Sub. Sativa (aka hemp) which in turn is different to the original latin meaning. No big deal imo.

What would you propose we call un-cultivated Cannabis?

IT'S NOT A FUCKING PROPOSAL!
WHY CAN'T YOU USE A FUCKING DICTIONARY?

There is no argument until some ass hole like you makes one!

I'm here to learn & spread TRUTHS about my fave plant...
Not make up a bunch of bullshit misinformation!

 

[aridbud]

Man did not create cannabis.
But we certainly nurtured it.

I am almost certain there were cannabis merchants in Abraham's day.. They would have traded it for wine, grain, cattle and silver.
Of course, there was no internet 4000 years ago, so you had to do the old-fashioned networking to find your local dealer...

Indeed, as Bud said- Biblical or pre-historic plant, first used as industrial, then later, medical reasons!

Possible authors of the Taxonomy info" E. Small or R. Clark? Guessing.

 

[Guy Brush]

Copy and paste the full title into the search bar at sci-hub.cc, it will then download the pdf

Thats cool, thanks

 

[Columbo]

IT'S NOT A FUCKING PROPOSAL!
WHY CAN'T YOU USE A FUCKING DICTIONARY?

There is no argument until some ass hole like you makes one!

I'm here to learn & spread TRUTHS about my fave plant...
Not make up a bunch of bullshit misinformation!

Hey man! Wtf?

Your beef should be with ITIS and not with me. I don't care what we call MJ either way.

I just like to smoke and grow sweet mary jane

Peace

 

[DocTim420]

ITIS is the authority for North America...hence my inquiry as to what organization published that other list...the one based on leaf width.

 

[Storm Shadow]

My Iranians have both Wide and skinny leaves... just saying

 

[weedaholic721]

The list is from the article I posted previously in this thread. It's the work of Rob Clarke author of "Hashish" and "Marijuana Botany"

 

[Drewsif]

Man created resin glands. Well they arent glands, they are sinks. Used to be equally distributed through calyx fiber.

Why isn't weed sticky anymore? Thick skinned long stalked heads with greasy resin = manmade attributes