sbeanonnamellow
Well-known member
Pretty open ended question, interested in any/all points of view.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Is it still sativa if there is any indica in it?
- Thread starter sbeanonnamellow
- Start date
sbeanonnamellow
Well-known member
Appreciate your replies and sharing your thoughts. I was listening to an interview with a gentleman speaking about maintaining older lines, this fella apparently kept many lines from the golden age of cannabis in his lifetime. Supposedly kept pure lines of the lot.
He made a remark about sativas aren't sativas anymore when they have any indica in them.
To a point, I see his view, but also like to think that it all depends on the selections because genetically speaking, there should be a range of types encompassing the entirety of the combined genetics.
What is realistic though. I thought to myself. How does a realistic approach overlap with what is genetically possible? Just rambling. Appreciate y'all. Much love
He made a remark about sativas aren't sativas anymore when they have any indica in them.
To a point, I see his view, but also like to think that it all depends on the selections because genetically speaking, there should be a range of types encompassing the entirety of the combined genetics.
What is realistic though. I thought to myself. How does a realistic approach overlap with what is genetically possible? Just rambling. Appreciate y'all. Much love
my feeling is once indica is introduced , its a hybrid as stated above- even if its 99pct sativa, the seed u grow can lean to the indica side- and i guess the same is true if the seeds are 99pct indica ...
ArtOfSelection
Active member
i usually go with 'mostly' .........nevs haze,,,,kali mist.... mostly sativa's ,,,,,,,, OG kush... blueberry..... mostly indica's ...a pure thai or haze id call sativa/pure sativa ......
Hombre del mont
Dr of Stupidity
I thought haze contained Northern Lights, albeit only a small %, but surely that makes it a sat dom hybrid, no?
There's no such thing as sativas and indicas botanically. They're slang terms and having nothing to do with what a plant 'is' genetically. To a grower plants with thinner leaves and a leaner build are called sativas and stocky plants with large wide leaves are called indicas. A line of wide leaves can produce a thin leaf plant and it will be called a 'sativa'. While a tropical line can become wide leaved through artificial selection and switch to being called an 'indica'.
To bud tenders and casual smokers sativa and indica mean something different. Sativa is flower that doesn't make you sleepy and has a stimulating effect. While indicas will 'put you down', give you the munchies, and make you motivated to sit in front of the tv. Once again this has nothing to do with the genetic origins of the plant. I've smoked flower from thin leaved plants that knocked me out and I've smoked flowers from wide leaf plants that kept me going for hours.
To bud tenders and casual smokers sativa and indica mean something different. Sativa is flower that doesn't make you sleepy and has a stimulating effect. While indicas will 'put you down', give you the munchies, and make you motivated to sit in front of the tv. Once again this has nothing to do with the genetic origins of the plant. I've smoked flower from thin leaved plants that knocked me out and I've smoked flowers from wide leaf plants that kept me going for hours.
Sativa is latin for cultivated variety (or cultivar). The word isn't related to cannabis, until we select it, making it a sativa.
Indica means from India.
You can go to India and find some land race genetics, and call them indica. Then when you grow it, it's a sativa and an indica.
The underground roots of this pastime mean many naming conventions have been lost and borrowed. I'm really impressed how much knowledge is online now, compared to what we had 25 years ago. When the internet wasn't worth looking at, and books really were 101 stuff in most cases.
Many have argued there are 4 groups, and over their identification.
Current understanding is that cannabis started in China and would of been cultivated there. Our first sativa. It's quite possible that it made it's to India and Russia from there. From India, making it's way to the western world. Getting it's latin name. While in Russia it hardened up, giving us Ruderalis, which I'm guessing means from Russia. I struggle to see a 4th family of significant difference to separate it from the main three.
We all want to see grouping beyond just 'cannabis' but realistically it's not there. Whatever you are crossing was once the same thing anyway. With no dividing line, how can we say 99:1 exists.
We can see the extremes of what we want indica and sativa to be, but not the crossover point. It's not a scale from black to white with grey in the middle. At each end is half a rainbow. Who's individual colours will mix with uncertainty. Put one of each extreme together, and you are unlikely to find the middle each time. 50:50 is a plant count. Not genetic traits.
In closing it's quite futile to say what you have, so can't talk about 99:1 ratios. We might be better judging each cultivar on it's own merits, and just using a 1 to 10 scale. As that is how we named their ancestors when we found them. Or some unknown bag seed. Not from it's parents, but from it's traits.
Indica means from India.
You can go to India and find some land race genetics, and call them indica. Then when you grow it, it's a sativa and an indica.
The underground roots of this pastime mean many naming conventions have been lost and borrowed. I'm really impressed how much knowledge is online now, compared to what we had 25 years ago. When the internet wasn't worth looking at, and books really were 101 stuff in most cases.
Many have argued there are 4 groups, and over their identification.
Current understanding is that cannabis started in China and would of been cultivated there. Our first sativa. It's quite possible that it made it's to India and Russia from there. From India, making it's way to the western world. Getting it's latin name. While in Russia it hardened up, giving us Ruderalis, which I'm guessing means from Russia. I struggle to see a 4th family of significant difference to separate it from the main three.
We all want to see grouping beyond just 'cannabis' but realistically it's not there. Whatever you are crossing was once the same thing anyway. With no dividing line, how can we say 99:1 exists.
We can see the extremes of what we want indica and sativa to be, but not the crossover point. It's not a scale from black to white with grey in the middle. At each end is half a rainbow. Who's individual colours will mix with uncertainty. Put one of each extreme together, and you are unlikely to find the middle each time. 50:50 is a plant count. Not genetic traits.
In closing it's quite futile to say what you have, so can't talk about 99:1 ratios. We might be better judging each cultivar on it's own merits, and just using a 1 to 10 scale. As that is how we named their ancestors when we found them. Or some unknown bag seed. Not from it's parents, but from it's traits.
CannaT
starin' at the world through my rearview
It is all Cannabis ....''In our opinion the studies reviewed in this paper lead inviteably to the conclusion that cannabis consist of single highly variable species...
I think so too....people breed high thc and low thc cannabis.....by my resrch hemp plants before UN convention have also phenotipes with 8-10% thc...so in realitiy in nature its all mixed up...and people breed them for high thc and low thc.....
simply as in everything, selection is made out of human need.
When you grow Hemp and Hazes and old school ''sativas''...
they have similar odors and appearance than modern hybrids. therefore I concluded that these old varieties are actually selected varieties for high thc from the same gene pool as hemp..
In one way it was breed to be below 0.5% for industry crop, other were breed for high thc for scientific purpose and possible medical benefits or some experiments like mk ultra...
I think so too....people breed high thc and low thc cannabis.....by my resrch hemp plants before UN convention have also phenotipes with 8-10% thc...so in realitiy in nature its all mixed up...and people breed them for high thc and low thc.....
simply as in everything, selection is made out of human need.
When you grow Hemp and Hazes and old school ''sativas''...
they have similar odors and appearance than modern hybrids. therefore I concluded that these old varieties are actually selected varieties for high thc from the same gene pool as hemp..
In one way it was breed to be below 0.5% for industry crop, other were breed for high thc for scientific purpose and possible medical benefits or some experiments like mk ultra...
If it works as a stimulant and does not cause a crash, then to me it is sativa. I grew out some Afghan from WOS I think? It took forever to finish and never really did. It had narrow leaves too as well as not having dense buds. It was the most sedating and non high effect I ever had or equal to any. Like valium.
I have some Malawi Gold going now and it is not tall and does not have thin leaves. All in the head and trippy too. I smoked the top of a male to test it. That said, I do look for thin leaves and long flowering when buying seeds It usually goes better that way but not always.
I have some Malawi Gold going now and it is not tall and does not have thin leaves. All in the head and trippy too. I smoked the top of a male to test it. That said, I do look for thin leaves and long flowering when buying seeds It usually goes better that way but not always.
