OLDEST LANDRACES?

[Water-]

Again: where are the evidences than Neandertales or Devisonias knowed to grow anything?

N so much easy: where are the evidences that we Sapiens growed anything before the Neolitic?

If anybody has any evidence, then we here in Icmag will have the great honor to see the greatest antropologic (n botanic) revolutionary discovery since Darwing.

PD: btw, in my country died the last Neandertal knowed, n we have the most large registre about them...but we have any evidente that they knowed how to grow anything. N here the weather is so much better to farming than Altai.

The neolithic revolution was caused by environmental and population pressure.
farming is hard work compared to hunting

It does not take much intelligence to understand what happens when you plant a wild seed.

And they had larger brains than modern Humans.

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101018/full/news.2010.549.html

Beginning in the early 2000s, Longo and her colleagues started analysing unwashed stone tools from a 28,000-year-old human settlement in central Italy called Bilancino. Patterns of wear on the sandstone tools suggest that they were used for grinding, like a mortar and pestle. The stones were also coated with several kinds of microscopic starch grains. Longo and her colleagues identified the grains based on their shape as belonging to the root of a species of cattail and the grains of a grass called Brachypodium.


https://www.history.com/news/oldest-bread-grains-jordan

"The charred remains of a 14,500-year-old pita-like flatbread, made from grinding together cereals and tubers, were discovered in a stone fireplace in the Black Desert in Jordan, according to a study published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Though archeologists and historians have long tied the first baking of bread to the advent of agriculture in the Neolithic era, the new find predates that by more than 5,000 years."



keep an open mind.

 

[Ibechillin]

This is what i have gathered, Sam_Skunkman should be able to clarify any errors.

Sativa = Hemp

Indica = Drug

Where did cannabis originate?

Source:
https://www.alchimiaweb.com/blogen/history-cultivation-cannabis/#more-4652

"Mankind and cannabis have maintained a close relationship throughout the History. Although scientific and archaeological evidence allows us to estimate the date and place where it originated, it is difficult to establish its exact place – and time – of origin.

Different researchers have proposed three possible places of origin of the cannabis plant:

China: Along the Yellow and the Yangtze Rivers (Li 1974b). The first remains of the use of hemp have been found in China in the form of a fiber, as well as the oldest paper sample of the history, which also contains cannabis fibers. Some of the earliest records of the use of hemp also come from this country. It has been found that ancient Chinese treatises of medicine already distinguished between ‘ma fen’ (psychoactive seed) and ‘ma tze’ (non-psychoactive seed).

Central Asia: From the Caucasus to the Altai Mountains (De Candolle 1882). The neighboring region to the Takla Makan desert has been proposed as the birthplace of this plant, since from there it could have easily spread into three directions: East towards China, South to India and West towards Europe. Vavilov (1931) suggests that cannabis might have its origin in the northern part of Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush mountains.

South Asia: Along the foothills of the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush mountains (Sharma, 1979). The great diversity of varieties and uses of cannabis in this area makes of this a more than likely area of origin of this plant. According to Linnaeus, Cannabis Sativa would come from India.

Be that as it may, we observe that, in spite of the difficulty of locating the exact origin of cannabis, it seems clear that it comes from Asia and that from this area it then spread to the rest of the world mainly thanks to the various trade routes and successive invasions. Evidence seems to indicate that it was in China and India where cannabis was first grown by humans.

When did cannabis originate?
There are several paleo botanical evidence of hemp found in dated archaeological contexts: cannabis seeds, pollen grains, fibers, prints, etc. It isn’t hard to find evidence of the different uses given to hemp in China during the period between 6,000-8,000 BC. Researchers suggest that cannabis was one of the first plant species to be grown in a controlled manner by humans, an activity that was initiated around 10,000-12. 000BC.

We also have indicators of the use of cannabis oil and seeds as food in the year 6000 BC, also of its use as fiber to make textile products already in the year 4000AC.

It seems that Chinese emperor Fu Hsi (2,900AC) had already made mention of the Ma (chinese word for cannabis) as medicine, but it isn’t until 2.737BC when we find the first written register on the medicinal use of cannabis within the pharmacopoeia of Shen Nung, one of the fathers of the Chinese traditional medicine.

The evolution of cannabis cultivation
As we have seen, our beloved plant has been grown ever since humans started farming. Its first uses were primarily as food, although ancient people also took advantage of both its fibres – for the production of cloth – and its medicinal properties to alleviate their ailments.

Through the centuries and from Asia, cannabis spread to the middle East (the Scythians brought it to this area around the year 2. 000BC spreading it into Russia, while Zoroaster already classified it as the most important between 10,000 medicinal plants in the year 700BC) and from there into Africa (around the year 700) and Europe. In 1150 the Muslims built the first paper mill in Europe; most of the paper manufactured over the next 850 years was made of cannabis.

During the XVI century the Spaniards took cannabis to Chile (1545) and Peru (1554), while in the following century the Britons spread it to Canada and began farming it in Virginia. It soon became an essential cornerstone of the economy in the American colonies during centuries.

In 1753, Carl Linnaeus classified hemp as Cannabis Sativa L. whereas in 1783 Jean-Baptiste Lamarck added a second species, Cannabis Indica. A third species, less common than the previous ones, was classified by Russian botanist D.E. Janischevisky as Cannabis Ruderalis in 1924.

Approximately in the decade of the Great Depression (1930), the war against marijuana was started in the United States, with absurd examples such as the famous film Reefer Madness (1936) or the first detention for the sale of cannabis in the history of the country (Samuel R. Caldwell, on October 2, 1937). In 1942, cannabis was excluded from the American pharmacopoeia and the medical use of marijuana was no longer recognized throughout the territory of the United States. From here, the number of countries in which this plant was outlawed skyrocketed, in proportion to the requests of many companies related to health and medicine to stop these policies.

This hard bargaining continued for years; in 1964, Doctor Raphael Mechoulam – professor of Medicinal Chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem – became the first one to identify THC as the main psychoactive component of cannabis. He was also the first one to synthesize it. A few years later, on June 17th 1971, President Richard Nixon declared the socalled War on drugs, which he extended across the whole planet.

Until our days, in which we are living an true green revolution at a global level, one of the only countries which came out in defense of the cannabis of marijuana was the Netherlands, which decriminalized cannabis in 1976 creating a network of Coffee-Shops that still supplies customers today, although being increasingly controlled and restricted by the government."



Quote Below Posted 4/12/2018

all drug varieties are Indica, be they WLD, or NLD, while the effects are very different depending on terpene profile and %'s.
Some people prefer the Narcotic, physical effects of Afghan WLD varieties while others prefer the soaring up, clear, psychedelic high of NLD tropical varieties
-Sams

Quote Below Posted 7/5/2018

This week I saw a new presentation by Dr John McPartland at the ICRS and he lists many samples found around the world that were even older then 1,000,000 years old.
None were found in the Americas that were older then 1492

-SamS

Quote Below Posted 7/10/ 2018

If you get a chance to watch the Power Point slide presentation do it, I saw it at the ICRS in Leiden last week.

"The native range of Cannabis sativa and its center of origin in Asia, primarily based on fossil pollen data" by Dr John McPartland

 

[Montuno]

The neolithic revolution was caused by environmental and population pressure.
farming is hard work compared to hunting

It does not take much intelligence to understand what happens when you plant a wild seed.

And they had larger brains than modern Humans.

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101018/full/news.2010.549.html

Beginning in the early 2000s, Longo and her colleagues started analysing unwashed stone tools from a 28,000-year-old human settlement in central Italy called Bilancino. Patterns of wear on the sandstone tools suggest that they were used for grinding, like a mortar and pestle. The stones were also coated with several kinds of microscopic starch grains. Longo and her colleagues identified the grains based on their shape as belonging to the root of a species of cattail and the grains of a grass called Brachypodium.


https://www.history.com/news/oldest-bread-grains-jordan

"The charred remains of a 14,500-year-old pita-like flatbread, made from grinding together cereals and tubers, were discovered in a stone fireplace in the Black Desert in Jordan, according to a study published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Though archeologists and historians have long tied the first baking of bread to the advent of agriculture in the Neolithic era, the new find predates that by more than 5,000 years."

keep an open mind.

Hi!

Thanx a lot for the info.

Well, I think youre confusing to eat n to manipulated vegetables, with to grow vegetables. The first is so thousand times easier than the second. You can find evidences of the first with another evidences that are dated so much earlier than your data. But not of the second, being it so much easy of find.
Humans have recolected grains from the beginin. But farmig or grows grain is another very diferent n dificult thing.

Another popular error is that like Neandertales have a bigger brain that Sapiens, it means more intelligence. Cos the important fact to intelligence is the "coeficiente de encezalizacion" that related the weigth (not the size) of brain with the total body weith: Neandertales had a little more bigger brain that Sapiens, but when you related it with their total body weith then their "coeficiente de encezalizacion" is lower than Sapiens. Example: an elephant brain weigth aprox 5 kg n the Sapiens brain only aprox 1 kg... Are elephants so much inteligents that humans?: No, cos when you related the brain weith with the body weith Humana "win".
Besides of it, Neandertal brain hadent the complex surface of brain that " we" have: it gives us an extra surface of brain. The Sapiens are too the masters in the relation "brain weith/woman útero size (canal the parto)".

I have an very opened mind n really enjoy talkin with you about this theme, be sure. In fact I belived in the abylity of the Neandertales n Human of crossed between them, when no body was sure about it. But till now it havent being demo.

Btw, I dont need to say how stinky is my English, so If I missunderstand any of your arguments (cos now you are showing serious arguments), please tell me.

As I sayed before, a great pleasure now to talk with you about this theme.

Salud!!

PD: as easy to related the fact to plant a seed with a new plant, is the lightnig & thunder, sex&new borned, to live&to death... N we need a lot of thousand of years to understand it.

PD 2: you can see how each of your new posts are givin us a time date more n more close (near) from the Neolítico, btw...

 

[Water-]

Hi!

Thanx a lot for the info.

Well, I think youre confusing to eat n to manipulated vegetables, with to grow vegetables. The first is so thousand times easier than the second. You can find evidences of the first with another evidences that are dated so much earlier than your data. But not of the second, being it so much easy of find.
Humans have recolected grains from the beginin. But farmig or grows grain is another very diferent n dificult thing.

Another popular error is that like Neandertales have a bigger brain that Sapiens, it means more intelligence. Cos the important fact to intelligence is the "coeficiente de encezalizacion" that related the weith (not the size) of brain with the total body weith: Neandertales had a little more bigger brain that Sapiens, but when you related it with their total body weith then their "coeficiente de encezalizacion" is lower than Sapiens. Example: an elephant brain weith aprox 5 kg n the Sapiens brain only aprox 1 kg... Are elephants so much inteligents that humans?: No, cos when you related the brain weith with the body weith Humana "win".
Besides of it, Neandertal brain hadent the complex surface of brain that " we" have: it gives us an extra surface of brain. The Sapiens are too the masters in the relation "brain weith/woman útero size (canal the parto)".

I have an very opened mind n really enjoy talkin with you about this theme, be sure. In fact I belived in the abylity of the Neandertales n Human of crossed between them, when no body was sure about it. But till now it havent being demo.

Btw, I dont need to say how stinky is my English, so If I missunderstand any of your arguments (cos now you are showing serious arguments), please tell me.

As I sayed before, a great pleasure now to talk with you about this theme.

Salud!!

PD: as easy to related the fact to plant a seed with a new plant, is the lightnig & thunder, sex&new borned, to live&to death... N we need a lot of thousand of years to understand it.

PD 2: you can see how each of your new posts are givin us a time date more n more close (near) from the Neolítico, btw...

I dont think that cultivation of seeds takes much brain power, but domestication of most crops we use took thousands of years of Human manipulation before they arrived at what we now use.

Neanderthals and Denisovians didn't survive in the north of Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years without being extremely creative. Possibly more creative than African Humans in some ways.

Humans use every available plant and animal to survive.

It seems strange to near impossible for me to think that nobody noticed how useful Cannabis was when it was growing right besides them for a million years.

What I was implying is that the road to Cannabis domestication may have been a lot longer than we think

Not that they were growing Ganja.
Though it is possible that they started us on the path towards it by selecting seeds that produced plants that were useful in some way and then planting them.

Manipulation of our environment is one of the defining aspects of being Human, it did not start 12,000 years ago.

-----------------------------------------------------


peace

 

[laredo]

nice tread can learn a lot,thanks.

 

[larry badiner]

Again: where are the evidences than Neandertales or Devisonias knowed to grow anything?

N so much easy: where are the evidences that we Sapiens growed anything before the Neolitic?

If anybody has any evidence, then we here in Icmag will have the great honor to see the greatest antropologic (n botanic) revolutionary discovery since Darwing.

PD: btw, in my country died the last Neandertal knowed, n we have the most large registre about them...but we have any evidente that they knowed how to grow anything. N here the weather is so much better to farming than Altai.

i was taught that plants that are eaten by animals are propigated through the species' feces, that could be the evolutionary recaution behind fertilization

 

[Cvh]

There is a new mission in the making to collect landrace seeds in Asia.
You can follow it here.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=355609

 

[Water-]

"N so much easy: where are the evidences that we Sapiens growed anything before the Neolitic?

If anybody has any evidence, then we here in Icmag will have the great honor to see the greatest antropologic (n botanic) revolutionary discovery since Darwing."

-Montuno

---

"Until now, researchers believed farming was "invented" some 12,000 years ago in the Cradle of Civilization -- Iraq, the Levant, parts of Turkey and Iran -- an area that was home to some of the earliest known human civilizations. A new discovery by an international collaboration of researchers from Tel Aviv University, Harvard University, Bar-Ilan University, and the University of Haifa offers the first evidence that trial plant cultivation began far earlier -- some 23,000 years ago."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm

 

[Lost in a SOG]

Hi.
Im afraid that if youre talkin about Homo Sapiens youre completly wrong. We are a so much younger spiece.
Humans only are playing with cannabis since the Neolitic Revolution, not early than (aprox) 12.000 years ago.
Salud.

Rubbish made up by faux scientists.. The truth will come out one day. Also genetically we are as close to dolphins as we are chimpanzees, if not closer..

Why are humans the only ape to be able to birth into water stood up, control our breathing to allow for swimming and be able to swim in various ways and styles. Also why are we naked and why is 75% of human major cities on the coast and not in forest? The list goes on and on and on but they want us to think we are chimps.. It suits the elites. Humans fucking love water too much and frankly suck at climbing trees. Though our ancestor blatantly did come from forest at one point but adapted to marshland.. Dolphins were a species of deer that did the same thing.

We are an aquatic ape and our history cannot be told through radio carbon dating I'm afraid, that is based on false assumptions of isotopes and their accumulation. Its simply dumb.

 

[EastFortRock]

Remember, when it comes to scientists, it is not illegal to falsify data. (Except prescription drug safety data) It is not illegal to lie. At least in the USA, scientists that make stuff up and insist that their theories are fact , are not prosecuted.

 

[Water-]

Remember, when it comes to scientists, it is not illegal to falsify data. (Except prescription drug safety data) It is not illegal to lie. At least in the USA, scientists that make stuff up and insist that their theories are fact , are not prosecuted.

why would they be prosecuted any more than you for not telling the truth?

Science works through peer review not government or church regulation.

To get your work published in a respected scientific journal it is first reviewed for errors.

"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review."

 

[Montuno]

"N so much easy: where are the evidences that we Sapiens growed anything before the Neolitic?

If anybody has any evidence, then we here in Icmag will have the great honor to see the greatest antropologic (n botanic) revolutionary discovery since Darwing."

-Montuno

---

"Until now, researchers believed farming was "invented" some 12,000 years ago in the Cradle of Civilization -- Iraq, the Levant, parts of Turkey and Iran -- an area that was home to some of the earliest known human civilizations. A new discovery by an international collaboration of researchers from Tel Aviv University, Harvard University, Bar-Ilan University, and the University of Haifa offers the first evidence that trial plant cultivation began far earlier -- some 23,000 years ago."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm

How much interesting!!! Thanx a lot for your link!

PD: of course, it continúes being Neolitic times, but very, very interesting: In fact, I readed same antropologics articules time ago, saying that the Neolitic Revolution could be happened around 17.000 BC, based In same dogs cementeries founded in Irak/Turkey.... Each new discovery aprox us a little more to the truth.
Thanx again for your link!

 

[Water-]

Yes, i get what you are saying.

my thinking on plant cultivation is that Humans have practiced it for ever but it was when the Earth entered the Holocene ,12000 years ago, that the environment became stable enough and good enough to settle down and really work on domestication.

That's the only way I can explain agriculture arising in the Highlands of new Guinea independently of domestication in the middle east.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

"Evidence of drainage ditches at Kuk Swamp on the borders of the Western and Southern Highlands of Papua New Guinea shows evidence of the cultivation of taro and a variety of other crops, dating back to 11,000 BP. Two potentially significant economic species, taro (Colocasia esculenta) and yam (Dioscorea sp.), have been identified dating at least to 10,200 calibrated years before present (cal BP). Further evidence of bananas and sugarcane dates to 6,950 to 6,440 BP. This was at the altitudinal limits of these crops, and it has been suggested that cultivation in more favourable ranges in the lowlands may have been even earlier. CSIRO has found evidence that taro was introduced into the Solomon Islands for human use, from 28,000 years ago, making taro cultivation the earliest crop in the world"

---
I think the impetus to plant and manipulate the environment was always with us, but it just took the right stable and warm enough climate conditions for it to really take hold as the main Human survival strategy.

--peace

 

[sativaking]

I come back to this post from time to time and i try and absorb the info here. I thnk that there must be at some point another word for sativa and indica since sativa technically means cultivated and indica is a region. There are obvious differences in the effects of the two plants. and sativa dominant usually comes with an energetic high and indica dominants usually come with a more relaxed stone.

At some point as well there must have been a clear divide in the cultivated landrace species (meaning humans cultivating and breeding it.) Asia being more towards indica and sativa more towards Africa. Im glad i posted this question because I dont think humans really know why there was a clear difference in the plants yet.

Something to ponder and research. Maybe the regions/geographic locations and cultivation practices themselves brought out the Cannabis plants genetics / characteristics differently. In terms of the oldest landrace as well as the oldest species of Cannabis though im still not quite sure. Which came first im wondering Indica / Sativa / Ruderalis. And second and third.

 

[Mengsk]

It isn't really from human intervention. Near the north pole, a plant will need to finish quickly to continue next year. For such a short season you will see, and would reasonably expect, either shorter or slower growing plants with a shorter/earlier/faster flowering cycle. To absorb as much light as possible leaves might be wide. Near the equator there is plenty of heat and sunlight, the plants can grow fast and tall and while the leaves aren't wide the plant fills a large space and biomass. The seasons are closer to one another temperature wise so the growth pattern can be 9 months or perennial instead of 3 or 6 months. This is excluding human intervention and other factors i.e. not to say that Colombian will be like Congolese or Thai or that only/all sativas are grown there or that Alaskan will be like NL etc. Side note about the leaves - similar principle to canopy light penetration, a bushy let's call it indica plant will block nearly 100% of the light under a few sets of leaves or 1-2' canopy. A thin leaved tall lanky plant will have closer to full sun on every branch. This isn't totally new but that's the classic dream queen, blue dream hybrid marvel plants that grow like one and produce like the other.

 

[therevverend]

That's the only way I can explain agriculture arising in the Highlands of new Guinea independently of domestication in the middle east.

Farming has appeared multiple times all over the planet. People in Western Hemisphere were farming for thousands of years before the Europeans showed up.

I've been reading up on the farming of the Amazon rainforest, there was a show about it last night. Since the 80s archeologists have been finding large symmetrical structures in the middle of supposedly virgin rainforest. Some of them are 5 or 6000 years old. It was a mystery for the last couple decades. Then they started digging and found evidence of villages with hundreds and thousands of people. It turns out much of the wild Amazon was once populated.

Rainforest soil is notoriously bad they couldn't figure out how they could farm in that terrible dirt without cutting down trees. It turns out they made beds out of charcoal and compost made this jacked up black soil that's some of the most fertile stuff on earth.

When the conquistadors showed up they found cities with thousands of people. Modern scholars thought they were exaggerating and making it up. It turns out the Amazon was planned by humans, fruit trees, trails, even riverbeds aren't there by chance. It was all built up by an ancient civilization. The modern Indians living in the rainforest are the few survivors of colonialism that wiped out most of their ancestors from disease and slavery.

I have a biologist friend who's been interested in the natives in the inland of the Pacfic NW. Eastern Washington, British Columbia, Idaho, right up to the Cascades. He says the same thing was going on there. What looked like virgin forest to the white man was actually a planned 'garden' with all the natural resources for humans to survive. All the trails, food plants, rivers full of salmon, forests full of elk and deer, they had spent thousands of years changing the wilderness into their pantry.

I'm sure New Guinea is the same way. They've developed their agricultural and hunting methods to suit their lifestyles for the last 12000 years. And it probably goes back a lot further then 12000 years ago. Evidence of farming from 23000 years ago has been found in the Middle East.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm

As archeologists do more research they're finding the lines between hunter/gatherer/farmer blur. I'd imagine going back to Neanderthals and even Homo Erectus as soon as humans understood fire they've been altering the landscape and influencing the evolution of plants and animals.

 

[therevverend]

We are an aquatic ape and our history cannot be told through radio carbon dating I'm afraid, that is based on false assumptions of isotopes and their accumulation. Its simply dumb.

I have no interest in going off topic with this but the aquatic ape hypothesis is ridiculous. Really really terrible. It's been refuted a number of times. Of course humans have been on beaches swimming, fishing, and eating shellfish but there's not any evidence in biology, paleontology, or archeology that humans descended from Mermen.

There is much more to dating seed, bone, and artifact samples then just carbon and isotope dating. We have pollen samples, ice cores, tree rings, to calibrate dating techniques we have the last million years of the earth nailed down pretty well. This is not an assumption it is based on evidence and testing.

Finally to cannabis, humans would have come across cannabis between 50,000 and 15000 years ago. Neanderthals or Denisovians maybe earlier? They would have gathered the seeds for consumption they're loaded with protein. And gotten sticky resin gooped all over their fingers. Which they might have consumed along with the seeds.

They would have carried the seeds with them and dispersed them. Cannabis plants would grow near their campsites and in their garbage pits. Some of these places would be isolated by valleys and mountain ranges from the areas where cannabis originally grew.

Their genetics would change as they adapted to the new areas. Creating new cannabis strains adapted to different conditions.

 

[therevverend]

I recommend getting Robert C. Clarke's books Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany and Hashish! Hell, throw in Marijuana Botany too it'll make you a better grower and breeder. Clarke is the man knows more about cannabis then anyone. I've got my copy of Ev and Eth here this is where I'm getting my information from. Maybe when I have time I'll add a bit more here and there.

Cannabis probably originated before 110,000 years ago. As the ice receded it's believed cannabis split into two separate populations. The hemp ancestor which became C. Sativa (I mean the REAL cannabis sativa-hemp varieties not tropical drug varieties) radiated across Europe. The drug ancestor spread south and east to India and SE Asia to become Cannabis Indica,(once again that's textbook Indica, from the Indian Subcontinent-not Afghani wide leaf hashplants) the ancestor of the drug varieties.

Division of the primordial cannabis genepool likely happened more than 20,000 years ago when the ice sheet spread in different directions and disrupted natural selection, probably assisted by humans. As cannabis spread to higher and lower latitudes this further split traits bi-directionally (in two ways). Different stem types, high THC or high CBD, a lot of the splits in cannabis are bi-directional.

Our historical accounts from the Rig Veda in India and from the ancient Chinese came thousands of years after these changes already happened. Human use of cannabis is prehistoric.

So the big split in cannabis isn't Drug Indica/Drug Sativa it's Drug versus Hemp. Clarke has documented that at northern latitudes landraces tend to be hempy while towards the equator they tend towards drugy. In my opinion this is is a big part of why it's so hard to find good drug strains that finish in August and September.

 

[MJPassion]

...

 

[GoatCheese]

I come back to this post from time to time and i try and absorb the info here. I thnk that there must be at some point another word for sativa and indica since sativa technically means cultivated and indica is a region. There are obvious differences in the effects of the two plants. and sativa dominant usually comes with an energetic high and indica dominants usually come with a more relaxed stone.

At some point as well there must have been a clear divide in the cultivated landrace species (meaning humans cultivating and breeding it.) Asia being more towards indica and sativa more towards Africa. Im glad i posted this question because I dont think humans really know why there was a clear difference in the plants yet.

Something to ponder and research. Maybe the regions/geographic locations and cultivation practices themselves brought out the Cannabis plants genetics / characteristics differently. In terms of the oldest landrace as well as the oldest species of Cannabis though im still not quite sure. Which came first im wondering Indica / Sativa / Ruderalis. And second and third.

[FONT=&quot]Asia being more towards indica and sativa more towards Africa.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]According to Phylos Galaxy DNA project most African sativas are related to South East Asian and Keralan, and i assume these mostly came via East Indian trade companies( Brits, Dutch), who also brought the genetics to South America, cause S American genetics are also closely related to SE Asian sativas, like Thai(s) etc..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There also seems to be some Indian/Paki genetics in Africa, atleast in South Africa (durban), you can see this on Phylos also, and in photos of planrs ofcourse.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, i'm not an expert, but I'm mot too sure African and South American Sativas are true "landraces", but SE Asian/Himalayan genetics brought to those areas few/some hundred years ago via Trade Company ships.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is "Afghani Indica" Broad Leaf traits there because of human selection or rather adaptation (evolution).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] According to Victor Schauberger, late Austrian forester and scientist, when the trunks of pine trees are exposed to the Sun, cause they usually grow in thicker forests and only the tops are getting most of the sun, these pine trees start growing branches to give shade from the Sun; to protect the fluid inside the trunk from heat exposure (direct sun).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Keeping this in mind, branchy/bushy short Broad Leaf plants do just that, don't they; shorter internodes and larger leaves to give more shade for the trunk and also the foot print of the plant (soil surface area/evaporation). Large leaves and short stature will also create an "air blanket" to give shelter for cold nights; trap moisture in the morning and what else... Larger flowers will help in all this as well, to give cover for the fluids in the stems.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Broad Leaf plants are shorter also cause the soil is quite dry. Under watered indoor plants wont grow much/well either and won't develop a big root system cause the medium is too dry, even if they're in large containers.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Taller skinnier Sativas grow in somewhat cooler and more humid places, so they don't need so much shade for their main stalk to protect the fluids inside from heat exposure of the Sun. Sure, there's also other environmental factors in play, what ever etc.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Humans helped cannabis to spread to new areas, also animals, but evolution and adaptation created the Indica vs Sativa difference imo.
[/FONT]