Nuristanica broad leaf drug origin?

[Roms]

Demat,

I open this thread to share widely what i think i understood about the origin of the varius indica and its taxonomy declinations.

First of all knowing that the dwarfing and the broad leafing of the cannabis is the natural process of an acclimatization to extrem high altitude. The ultra violet intensity and the less atmospheric pressure dwarf all plants, it really begins and finish at around 2500/3000m elevation and very few plants can survive. In itself it's impossible for the cannabis sativa to arrive naturally there at high altitude, even by an eagle shit the seeds will die. The unique possibility for an acclimatization is the human help at the perfect micro climatic right sunny places and cardinal direction well situ, South Ouest as the best of course.

I think that it took place in the Hindu Kush and not in the Himalaya because firstly the mountain range is better to induce better exposure and secondly because the human history and agriculture is older and coming from the Ouest.

So in the Hindu Kush you have that very special land that combine the human very old history and the natural good micro climatic exposure. This place is the Nuristan ex-Kafiristan.

Nuristan little black zone, by the N.A.S.A :

Centres of origin and spread of agriculture :

Kind of good micro climatic mountain slope in Nuristan (up to 2500m)

:
Nuristan fields vibes :

 

[Roms]

Now need to understand that the Kafiristanica is a varius and not a subspecies, simply trace of the ancestor indica (BLDA) and not the ancestor of sativa (NLDA) as it is to date understood by the scientific community.

Vibes pass to the last "Cannabis Evolution and Ethnobotany" by Robert C. Clarke and Mark D. Merlin.

So in my humble opinion the taxonomy need to be reassess! The indica must be conversely categorize as subspecies and not varius!

With this notion we have :

- Sativa varius Kafiristanica subspecies Indica for the Indian side (Pakistan).
- Sativa varius Kafiristanica subspecies Afghanica for the Afghan side.

About the Afghanistan we have two groups of ssp. Afghanica :

- ssp. Afghanica "Sativa" for the North. (Mazar i shariff kind cultivars).
- ssp. Afghanica "Indica" for the South. (Pakistan kind of cultivars and relationship).

Peace

 

[Roms]

With extrem altitude the cannabis sativa become dwarf and extend its leaves, also more resin to protect the plant!

That's how Nature created the "indica" hum not hehe "Kafiristanica" thanks to humans ^^

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

I think that Cannabis is a genus with only one species (C. sativa) and having no subspecies. Taxonomically, I'm a 'lumper' rather than a 'splitter.' I can't find any evidence that there are any valid subspecies of this plant. The wide-leafed cultivars are simply domesticated cultivars in my opinion, and not worthy of sub-specific taxonomic status.

Gorgeous landscape pics, btw!

 

[Roms]

Ya that's the absolute, like humans, one love, but according the situation and the climatic condition our nature adapts and transforms

 

[djonkoman]

I'm also more for lumping, although in the end taxonomy is just a human construct anyway. plenty of cases around where individuals belonging to different species can still interbreed with eachother and give fertile offspring.
your theory is nice, but I wonder how much you can exclude competing theories?

mainly, I wonder how strong you could make the point that broad leaves+short stature is a natural adaptation to a specific environment?
for example, do you have evidence that the plants you can find on the ground in these high altitude regions in the hindu kush actually match your hypothesis?

for a while now I've thought about the stereotypical indica traits (broad leaves+bushy/short plant) as more likely an effect of human selection over natural adaptation. reason is I've seen some pics from afghanistan with quiet big plants, also from info from rsc it seems to me like not all plants from the indica-region adhere to the indica-stereotype.
there might be a better fit if you take into account altitude though, I don't know about that, I've never actually been there so I'm just going on some stuff I read/see online.
but the view I get that way is that it seems more likely to me that people made selections out of the bigger indica-region genepool, and then these selected plants/lines/varieties became the basis of what we see as 'indica'.
dwarfing being due to human selection pressure instead of a natural advantage also matches with some regions with high police/eradication pressure where you see pictures with dwarfed plants(i.e. those pictures of 70's jamaica vs. now jamaica).

broad leaves being due to human selection would also fit with other crops where larger leaves is also often an adaptation(/selection) to agriculture

also specific to this point

With extrem altitude the cannabis sativa become dwarf and extend its leaves, also more resin to protect the plant!

the role of altitude/UV on resin or thc is a common point made, but I think it's often made with a bit too much certaintity. logically, it might play a role, but imo the evidence is not that good. and I've heard some credible evidence against it (i.e. thc/resin not being influenced by UV-level), so personally I'm not really a big believer in the altitude-resin link, although I'll also admit it's a bit of a matter of opinion and it really needs some more research to know for sure.

 

[Roms]

I wonder how strong you could make the point that broad leaves+short stature is a natural adaptation to a specific environment?
for example, do you have evidence that the plants you can find on the ground in these high altitude regions in the hindu kush actually match your hypothesis?

Thanks for your questions! All is about the shape and properties of the trichomes! Indica kind of plants has big trichz, oily resin ; Sativa trichz are smaller, sticky resin. It means a lot about genetic transformation due to environmental adaptation i think.

About the dwarfism at extrem altitude it's a scientific evidence itself i think, man select and transform plants with time but in a same environment it's not as radical as the difference between short indica and sativa trees. ^^ Need a bigger stress like altitude, UV and temperature.

 

[djonkoman]

hmm, I don't think I exactly get what you mean... how would you describe the difference between sticky and oily?
if we're talking fresh, undried, plants, I've only ever experienced sticky. but I've never grown anything close to a pure indica.
the difference in trichome coverage and size could indeed mean something, but I think that could also be explained by how humans use the plant. more/bigger trichs=more hash yield, so it would make sense hashplant-types have more noticable trichs than ganja-types(which would still get selected on high/potency, so indirectly that would promote more trichs too, but not as directly based on visible trichs like with a plant grown for hash).

about the dwarfism, how do you mean it's scientific evidence itself?
what I meant was if you actually see such a clear distinction in indica/sativa types in the regions of origin. I've never been there, so I wouldn't really know, but based on some pics of giant afghani plants I've seen online my doubt is whether a clear dwarf indica-type as a seperate thing really exists, outside of the west.
kind of like if you'd import dogs from europe and america to china to start up a dogbreeding scene there, and you only export chihuahua's from america, and only labs from europe.
a chinese person might then think that american dogs are defined by being small, while european dogs are only normal-sized. but while chihuahuas are around in america, you'd be able to find just as much big dogs if you travel to america as to europe. even if chihuahias did not exist in europe at all, it would not mean you have nothing else then chihuahuas in america.
so I wonder, how well does the image of indica's in the west actually match what you'd find in an afghan farmer's field?

also, as a counterpoint to selection by humans not being that radical, I always like the pics showing the difference between teosinte and maize, which I think is a bigger difference than indica/sativa:

 

[Roms]

hmm, I don't think I exactly get what you mean... how would you describe the difference between sticky and oily?
if we're talking fresh, undried, plants, I've only ever experienced sticky. but I've never grown anything close to a pure indica.
the difference in trichome coverage and size could indeed mean something, but I think that could also be explained by how humans use the plant. more/bigger trichs=more hash yield, so it would make sense hashplant-types have more noticable trichs than ganja-types(which would still get selected on high/potency, so indirectly that would promote more trichs too, but not as directly based on visible trichs like with a plant grown for hash).

Ah ok bro ya need to grow a pure indica to better understand what i mean about dwarfing and trichz, now i understand better your doubts about my little theory hehe.

Afghani hasch store fun :

This is the kind of oily big trichz ^^

 

[Roms]

And even giant Mazari produce this kind of hasch because its genetics is "indica" x sativa, breeded since centuries and centuries by North Afghan farmers.

 

[Roms]

Here's an exemple of difference indi/sati trichz, work by @Maninxtlvl and @3kom.research

 

[Roms]

Here's a kind of "pure dwarf indica", Tom Hill's X18, explored by myself almost 10 years ago

 

[Roms]

Note the special large pistils, large trunk, large leaves and muscles ^^ True dwarf

And of course also large seeds...

 

[Roms]

Nikolai Ivanovitch Vavilov found and named the thing kafiristanica because he had quickly understood and distinguished some differences but without really realize that this feral witness and trace is evidence of an antique domestication in the Nuristan i think, birthplace of BLD imho.


Vibes RIP brotha, Spasiba!

"Predkami dannaïa moudrost' narodnaïa!"

 

[RingtailCanyon]

Interesting thread. Like most of us I’ve pondered the origins and evolution of cannabis. I don’t have any deep insight into it. Taxonomy is just words and someone’s opinion based on incomplete data. I’m amazed by the ancient history humans have had with cannabis and the molding of it to fit certain locations and purposes.
Roms do you think the essential difference between hash plants and ganja plants are the size of the resin head?

 

[RingtailCanyon]

Also northwest China being the newest place to be declared as the origin of cannabis. I would think the feral cannabis from that region would contain genetics that have been lost along the journey.

 

[Cvh]

 

[Roms]

Interesting thread. Like most of us I’ve pondered the origins and evolution of cannabis. I don’t have any deep insight into it. Taxonomy is just words and someone’s opinion based on incomplete data. I’m amazed by the ancient history humans have had with cannabis and the molding of it to fit certain locations and purposes.
Roms do you think the essential difference between hash plants and ganja plants are the size of the resin head?

Hi RingtailCanyon, by essential i would say the stature and shape at first and considering the opposite "pure", mostly of the landraces modern hash plants are also sativa and not really "pure indica". The original true indica ancestor Kafiristanica kind of plants is rare nowadays i think so difficult to see big differences. Except by details like trichomes and qualities of the resin i would say, from indica oily to sativa sticky.

Also northwest China being the newest place to be declared as the origin of cannabis. I would think the feral cannabis from that region would contain genetics that have been lost along the journey.

Ya sativa ancestors probably from there But that's for our modern historico theoric model of notions, the cannabis history can be older than -12000 i think, the Austronesian culture is also related with China btw. Perso i feel that the domesticated cannabis is older that we think and have probably some origins from the South and tropics too. (?) Ethnobotany pure ^^

Also about Chinese i think that they brought to Turkestan and Yunnan some MIS and not the inverse... And i think that Afghan breeders used a long time before some pure sativa from South India for their cross with the Kafiristanica.

That's the origin of MIS cultivars imho, kafiristanica fem x pure sativa male and not the inverse ^^ males induce stature first... For exemple i think that Lebanese small stature origin comes from the opposite NLD x BLD.

 

[RingtailCanyon]

Hi RingtailCanyon, by essential i would say the stature at first and considering the opposite "pure", mostly of the landraces modern hash plants are also sativa and not really "pure indica". The original true indica ancestor Kafiristanica kind of plants is rare nowadays i think so difficult to see big differences. Except by details like trichomes and qualities of the resin i would say, from indica oily to sativa sticky.




Ya sativa ancestors probably from there But that's for our modern historico theoric model of notions, the cannabis history can be older than -12000 year i think, the Austronesian culture is also related with China btw. Perso i feel that the domesticated cannabis is older that we think and have probably some origins from the South and tropics too. (?) Ethnobotany pure ^^

It’s been awhile since I read over the book HASHISH! I think Clark says something about broadleaf coming from Kafiristan. I might be wrong, it’s not the easiest book to read.

 

[Roms]

Mmh according to R. C. Clarke's last opus quoted in post #2 he considers the Kakiristanica as the NLD ancestor so ? it seems that my little theory influenced your past memory lecture of his Hashish book ^^ That's the reason of this thread in fact, i mean to consider Kafiristanica as BLDA and not NLDA.

Vibes Ringta' if you can refind and quote/shot the passage from "Hashish" it would be cool thanks!