Here's The Real Difference Between Sativa & Indica Pot Strains

[Chimera]

Graphic by John McPartland


Cannabis sativa var 'sativa' formerly ruderalis refers to plants that are bred for fiber, minimal branching and are the foundation of modern hemp varietals. Although used as common parlance as such, 'sativa' is incorrectly used to describe drug varietals.

Cannabis sativa var 'indica' refers to plants of Indian origins, NLD or Narrow Leaf Drug, these ecotypes were the foundation for most western drug varieties from the 60's-70's cultivated in equatorial regions.

Cannabis sativa var 'afghanica' refers to the BLD/WLD broad leaf drug or wide leaf drug types of Afghani and Pakistani orgins. Iranians and Lebanese are probably subsets derived from these selections. These plants are typically of high Myrcene content which I have a good hunch is related to them being selected for resin content over generations by hash farmers. Myrcene is one of the major components that leads to a couchlock effect, just like heavily hop'd Cali-style IPAs and DIPAs.

 

[thesloppy]

Very interesting graphic & info, Chimera, which makes a lot of common sense when you see it laid out. Unfortunately, there's like 50 years of entrenched history working against correcting the nomenclature.

 

[Chimera]

People beleive 'Mano a Mano' means to fight man to man. It doesn't, it means hand to hand.

People believe 'Survival of the Fittest' refers to those with strength and stamina. Darwin's measure of "Fittness" was high fecundity, or ability to leave offspring. Darwinian fitness has nothing to do with strength, size or stamina. The hick in the trailer park with half a dozen plus children is much more "fit" in Darwinian sense than most altheletes.

I'm not saying we're going to change the common use of these terms; as you say it's engrained. I'm just showing what the terminology actually means, and referencing that the terms we all use in this community are incorrect, botanically speaking.

That first figure Storm posted has a myriad of flaws, and is simply based off the common vernacular and misunderstandings of these labels. Their "Indica " plants show THC/CBD ratios of about 2:1, which is a relatively less common chemotype and the ratio is not borne out by the plants available on the market. Most type 2 intermediate chemotype plants have a ratio of 1:2, THC:CBD. It's a nice picture, but it's not accurate.

 

[sprinkl]

Ha what's in a name... We've all been fed different informations for so long. Some scientist suddenly saying this or that won't change what we've been using for 40 years. That's the problem with science, it's never absolute, more truths to believe than there are religions.
I think to most, sativa indicates cannabis originating from the tropics, and indica originated in temperate zones. Because of environmental selection wide or narrow leaf is favored, short vs long flowering plants are favored, dense vs lanky bud/plant structure is favored. Whether the plants were once bred for fiber or not doesn't matter imo. There are modern strains that have industrial hemp genes in them for various reasons, like erdbeer.

How the "stimulating" or "sedating" highs are favored because of the environment is harder to say. First off, there are numerous sativa's that are supposedly narcotic, intoxicating, stoning. Or at least there are many pheno's to be found that give a high other than "up".
According to RC. Clarke plants in the tropics favor high THC:CBD ratio, the more north you go the lower the THC:CBD ratio. Allthough in landrace varieties there are many different ratio's to be found in phenotypes again. But the average of a population seems to support this idea.
Terpenes could be affected by soil structure and nutrients. It could be affected by the wildlife living in symbiosis. Plants attracting or repelling this or that species could be favored towards survival.
It could be because of human intervention. People in the tropics like up and spiritual highs. Hard working hash farmers need stoning shit after a hard days work, to forget their slaving misery. This may be racist and make no sense tho.
I believe the length of the flowering has a great influence on the quality of high. You can make me believe there are 8 weeks "up" sativa's to be found in C99 but you will not make me believe they have the same magic as a 14-16 week flowering sativa. I'm a butcher so I like to compare plants with animals, old cows taste way more intense and dense in flavor compared to a young bull which tastes flat.
They've simply had more time to take in aromatic herbs and grasses, and slowly produce quality muscles.
Same could be said for long flowering plants, more time to create complex terpene combinations...