Phylos Galaxy - Landrace discussion

[gorilla ganja]

ya, i'll be honest I was quick to judge all this as hawgwash and a genetics gathering ploy by a couple prominant seed makers in our community after watching some of the youtube stuff and the comments by Clarke that Chunkypigs is referring too. I'm old school and really don't care as much as some folks do about a complete family tree of weed. It's a novelty thing to me really.

I was just looking at the family tree you drew up for swordfish. You must have some interest in the family lines.

Would it not be cool to follow that back several generations further just by sending in a sample? Even just for shits and giggles
To see how they are related to other cultivars by DNA and not supposed history or rumor. To see where it fits into the history of cannabis.

And there will always be a place in cannabis for those that can look at a plant and see it's potential. But it would be neat to look at an analysis of a leaf sample to see if it contains a gene that represents a certain trait your looking for.

Peace GG

 

[GoatCheese]

[FONT=&quot] Now if I had gone to all the places represented in my collection and could say to you all.... this i collected here and it came from a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]wild[/FONT][FONT=&quot] cultivar or it came from local bag seed.... Then i would entertain sharing for the usefull info that could be gathered DNA wise.[/FONT]
.
.
[FONT=&quot]But really, I'm just a guy with a large collection of containers that other folks have scribbled dates and names on. While I know these folks travelled some of the weed and hash locales back in thier youth when such things were possible with good shoes a passport and a backpack and bedroll.... but those days are kinda gone for 99% of us. So some of the stuff I can grow with confidence it is what it says.[/FONT]

Yea, it's really cool you have such older seed lots. Hope you get some of them growing.
Take some pics when you get to grow them, especially the Ruderalis and Mid-East genetics would be cool to see.

And you can do whatever you want with them, that's your business, but if there is some interesting stuff you could give for the Phylos-project, like some of the Mid-East genetics or the rudi, even just few seeds would help the project. Remember, the seeds can also be non-germinating (dead) and they're still usable for the DNA-project.

Like, if the seeds are not germinating in soil or in paper towel, clean/dry them out and you can still send them to Sam for the Phylos project, i think.

There're few European/Rudi-samples already uploaded on Phylos, many are from Sam's collections, iirc.
----
------
It would be very useful if people could give some background info about the samples they send in, and Sam will PM you a form where the details will be filled in, if you guys are sending in any samples.

Sam seems to be interested in landrace/traditional genetics, not so much about modern hybrids, but it's better you guys ask him about it. I don't wanna speak on his behalf, and possibly give the wrong info.


In some true landraces, the pheno-types can be really all over the place, so every seed people can send in can share valuable information about the genetics.

I sent in 5 seeds of Seed boutique Nepali freebees. I never grew any of these.
..and 15 seeds of Baglung Nepalis. I grew four of these Baglung's myself and every plant was different to each other.

Here's few pics of the Baglungs i grew if you guys are interested:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?threadid=180463

 

[Chevy cHaze]

They have three phenos send in as 1979 skunk#1 by Robert Clark... but somehow they're all sitting there realtively isolated in the galaxy. I would have guessed they must be closely intertwined with a lot of strains out there ?
I guess real skunk must be ? Then again, the lab guys don't question what you label your sample as, so you'll always have to keep in mind that the samples are not verified... You could send in an OG Kush sample and label it as african landrace...
Hard for me to tell if what I know under a cultivar name will be what they genotyped---

CC

 

[GoatCheese]

They have three phenos send in as 1979 skunk#1 by Robert Clark... but somehow they're all sitting there realtively isolated in the galaxy. I would have guessed they must be closely intertwined with a lot of strains out there ?
I guess real skunk must be ? Then again, the lab guys don't question what you label your sample as, so you'll always have to keep in mind that the samples are not verified... You could send in an OG Kush sample and label it as african landrace...
Hard for me to tell if what I know under a cultivar name will be what they genotyped---

CC

Yea, but Sam started inbreeding the Skunk#1 in Europe during the 1980's,right, so Clarke's samples are pre-IBL Skunk.

So these could be samples from three very different pheno types, say one Afghani, one Colombian and one Mexican.So i'd assume not all three samples would show very close relation to SuperSilver Haze or Shiva Skunk or other more modern Skunk hybrids.

The 1979 Skunk pheno-2 shows relation to UK Cheese and Jack Herer

 

[Tynehead Tom]

I was just looking at the family tree you drew up for swordfish. You must have some interest in the family lines.

Would it not be cool to follow that back several generations further just by sending in a sample? Even just for shits and giggles
To see how they are related to other cultivars by DNA and not supposed history or rumor. To see where it fits into the history of cannabis.

And there will always be a place in cannabis for those that can look at a plant and see it's potential. But it would be neat to look at an analysis of a leaf sample to see if it contains a gene that represents a certain trait your looking for.

Peace GG

ya man, i see what yer saying.
I did the basic family tree of swordfish to show folks how I arrived at my F1. That said, it doesn't really interest me from a breeding perspective to trace each variety in the make up of swordfish.... back to thier ancestral roots. For what purpose would this be useful to me today with the seeds in my stash?

Now from a scientific/biological standpoint, studying DNA, genome research, ect ect in plants or animals is the same as exploring space. Always seeking what we can't see and don't know or can't verify... human curiosity. So ya, I get it, folks want a complete map of the cannabis plant to see where it's origins came from. It's cool and a novelty to me but I'm not saying it is not valuable to others. To each his own. I prefer the adventure of a good mystery
Now if i was in the marijuana industry and was looking to analyze plant matter for specific traits to combine and test again and then hope to patent because it's all done in the lab..... damn.... gathering genetic material.... dead or not.... will be able to allow such folks to identify and locate live specimens. It's not paranoia, it is the reality of the emerging cannabis marketplace. Those with the ability to do so are feverishly working to lock down thier piece of the pie.... this is fact.

The flip side of all this is that I would only trust the data in such an information source if the tests and data were gleaned by folks outside of the marijuana industry. Phylos is certainly not that in my opinion.
not trying to offend or troll anyone, just respectfully stating my opinion

 

[shishkaboy]

Anyone have a link to the video?

pm me please.

 

[Tynehead Tom]

i got it in an email from a buddy who follows this stuff on the regular.
Will see if i can find the email and link

 

[Easy-A]

I would just like to point out that Phylos is offering to sequence your landraces and old materials for free. This is not a cheap process, they have staff to pay, a lab to maintain and numerous other costs. As has been mentioned, if you are worried about your materials being stolen, just send in dried tissue or non-viable seeds. I would encourage people to read about the Open Cannabis Project, of which Phylos is a big contributor. http://opencannabisproject.org/

As for the utility of the galaxy, it is in its infancy and as such has limited use. I am sure that it will become more robust and detailed in the future and at some point will have a lot of value for breeders and other cannabis researchers.

I don't know the people at Phylos personally, but I think they deserve some credit for promoting open access to information and advancing cannabis research.

 

[Guest]

I am confused with the results of Panama from Dave Watson.
There are 3 panamas,one labelled as standard and two others.While one sample seems almost pure landrace,the other has very mixed genes and it doesn't even show that the standard is immediate relative with the other(fem?) even from same seedbank.

 

[GoatCheese]

I am confused with the results of Panama from Dave Watson.
There are 3 panamas,one labelled as standard and two others.While one sample seems almost pure landrace,the other has very mixed genes and it doesn't even show that the standard is immediate relative with the other(fem?) even from same seedbank.

I think it has to do with the other samples uploaded to Phylos and to the particular pheno type of Panama you look at = some phenos of Panama are more closely related to "modern hybrids or clones" uploaded on Phylos than to "landrace" varieties, because similar DNA samples from landraces haven't been uploaded on Phylos yet.
-
-
A thing that people should understand is that "landrace" varieties aren't many times genetically stable and so there can be many different geno-/phenotypes within a seed lot from, say, Panama or Pakistan or Nepal or whatever.
Sure, some lines can be very inbred and closely related but some lines are phenotypically all over the place. = If you grow a seed line from Pakistan you can find some plants to be narrow-leaf types but some could have more broad-leaf genetics in them.
..and it could be that these particular phenotypes wouldn't be genetically very closely related, thou the seeds came from the same area.


Also..
The term "landrace" can be misleading if it's not used the proper way, because many times it was humans who have brought the seeds to new areas of the world = Colombian Sativas show relation to Thai genetics because the seeds were originally brought to South America by humans. So many Colombian sativas are actually Thai genetics growing in Colombia and now some people call these plants "Colombian landrace genetics", thou in reality they are originally Thai genetics.

 

[Columbo]

The term "landrace" can be misleading if it's not used the proper way, because many times it was humans who have brought the seeds to new areas of the world = Colombian Sativas show relation to Thai genetics because the seeds were originally brought to South America by humans. So many Colombian sativas are actually Thai genetics growing in Colombia and now some people call these plants "Colombian landrace genetics", thou in reality they are originally Thai genetics.

I'm actually seeing the data as suggesting Columbians being more related to the Africans than Thai. Would make more sense too. African seeds came with the African slaves.

There is just one "Thai stick" sample though that is closely related to Colombian Gold. But I'm guessing it's a mislabeled sample. Or maybe Colombian Gold grown in Thailand. It just doesn't fit with the rest ...

 

[Columbo]

I am confused with the results of Panama from Dave Watson.
There are 3 panamas,one labelled as standard and two others.While one sample seems almost pure landrace,the other has very mixed genes and it doesn't even show that the standard is immediate relative with the other(fem?) even from same seedbank.

Can you post a link to all three reports and I'll have a look at it for you?

Thanks

 

[GoatCheese]

I'm actually seeing the data as suggesting Columbians being more related to the Africans than Thai. Would make more sense too. African seeds came with the African slaves.

There is just one "Thai stick" sample though that is closely related to Colombian Gold. But I'm guessing it's a mislabeled sample. Or maybe Colombian Gold grown in Thailand. It just doesn't fit with the rest ...

If you look up Mangobiche on Phylos, links below, it doesn't show any close relation to "African strains". You can also see that Colombian Gold and Thai are "Immediate family", but no African strains are even mentioned.

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/mgj1y1g7
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/vod6648r

Also Jamaican Lamb's bread from Sam is closely related to Thai and Colombian Gold, no African strains even mentioned

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/7g32evow



The way i understand it, cannabis was brought to Africa by humans; via trade companies like British East Indian Company, meaning "African" genetics originally came from South East Asia or regions in or near India (Pakistan, Nepal )



EDIT:
Here's also a Panama from Sam ...no close relation to African strains
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/node/results/1oepdll8

And i was surfing the Phylos abit by clicking many Colombian samples, Gold and Red etc and most of them didn't mention African strains at all, but many times a Thai was mentioned and close relation to each other

 

[Guest]

Can you post a link to all three reports and I'll have a look at it for you?

Thanks

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/z810v1g7
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/mgj1z3g7
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/7g32zlow

Some mixup with Malawi,too.
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/1oek6lop
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/node/results/y8nek2w8
The second seems to not relate with the first,while being related to another Malawi by Mel Frank.

Goat cheese,I get what you're saying,but it strikes me as bizarre that two samples from the same seedbank not showing as direct relatives.Not even related in some others.The different genetic mixup is expected,cause not all offspring have the same genotype.

Also,I have not studied very far into this,so I may sound ignorant,but from what I see the "influences chart" is only dependent to some strains that were picked randomly to represent /be the point of reference .What classifies a certain strain to represent the 100% landrace and what the 100% skunk?Since skunk is derived from some landraces ,at least there should be "landrace influence"in Skunk's heritage,too,but how can it happen since Skunk should be the "100% skunk influenced"by default of the Phylos' classification?

I hope you can get what I'm saying,because English is not my native language and I typed pretty stoned,so thanks for trying

 

[GoatCheese]

Goat cheese,I get what you're saying,but it strikes me as bizarre that two samples from the same seedbank not showing as direct relatives.Not even related in some others.The different genetic mixup is expected,cause not all offspring have the same genotype.

[FONT=&quot]Like i mentioned, so called "Landrace" seed lines, like most modern hybrids, aren't in many cases very stable and have many different genotypes in the lines.. This doesn't mean that the plants on Phylos aren't genetically related at all, it means they aren't closely enough related to show up on the limited charts/info on Phylos.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I would imagine Sam Skunkman, and some others who sent in "landrace" samples, didn't send in samples from identical plants from the same line, but rather samples from dfferent kind of geno/phenotypes from the line, cause the point is to find out large amount of info about these landraces.[/FONT]


The info on Phylos site is quite limited and tainted with samples from US clone/weed markets.

 

[Columbo]

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/z810v1g7
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/mgj1z3g7
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/7g32zlow

Some mixup with Malawi,too.
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/1oek6lop
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/node/results/y8nek2w8
The second seems to not relate with the first,while being related to another Malawi by Mel Frank.

Goat cheese,I get what you're saying,but it strikes me as bizarre that two samples from the same seedbank not showing as direct relatives.Not even related in some others.The different genetic mixup is expected,cause not all offspring have the same genotype.

Also,I have not studied very far into this,so I may sound ignorant,but from what I see the "influences chart" is only dependent to some strains that were picked randomly to represent /be the point of reference .What classifies a certain strain to represent the 100% landrace and what the 100% skunk?Since skunk is derived from some landraces ,at least there should be "landrace influence"in Skunk's heritage,too,but how can it happen since Skunk should be the "100% skunk influenced"by default of the Phylos' classification?

I hope you can get what I'm saying,because English is not my native language and I typed pretty stoned,so thanks for trying

Ok so a few things mught be going on here. First is Dave's and Ace's Panamas appear to be completely unrelated. I would imagine Dave's to be heirloom stock from the 70's. Ace's are 3 seperate strains which while they may have originally been from the 70's and 80's they have extensively inbred for many generations.

Both Ace's Panamas are related. Just not "closely related". This just means they are not Mom, Dad, Bro, Sis, cousin relatives but more distantly related maybe first generation compare to tenth, great great great etc grandparent. We all know dubi and kaiki has ibl this one for many generations.

Why does Ace's Panama seems to be hybridized?

It may appear to be hybridized because it has been contaminated prior to Ace receiving or unintentionally after they received it with other genetics. I.e it may not be pure.

It may also be that Panama may have been the progenitor of modern strains like skunk. The Colombian in Panama may have for example been of the same line that was used in haze and skunk for example. While still being a landrace many of it's landrace genes have been passed on to more modern varities.

Years of selective inbreeding of a landrace Sativa may also give the impression of it being a modern hybrid. Basically Ace has selected for high resin content, moderate flowering time and large yield. All of which are the same traits modern hybrids are selected for. So would give the impression of it not being pure when it really is.

Hope that helps.

 

[Columbo]

If you look up Mangobiche on Phylos, links below, it doesn't show any close relation to "African strains". You can also see that Colombian Gold and Thai are "Immediate family", but no African strains are even mentioned.

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/mgj1y1g7
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/vod6648r

Also Jamaican Lamb's bread from Sam is closely related to Thai and Colombian Gold, no African strains even mentioned

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/sample/genotype/7g32evow



The way i understand it, cannabis was brought to Africa by humans; via trade companies like British East Indian Company, meaning "African" genetics originally came from South East Asia or regions in or near India (Pakistan, Nepal )



EDIT:
Here's also a Panama from Sam ...no close relation to African strains
https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/node/results/1oepdll8

And i was surfing the Phylos abit by clicking many Colombian samples, Gold and Red etc and most of them didn't mention African strains at all, but many times a Thai was mentioned and close relation to each other

While you may be right about Colombian Gold being more closely related to Thai than African
I think you're misinterpreting the phylos data.

The misinterpretation likely comes from a misunderstanding of the terms "immediate family" and "relative" which are not clearly defined by phylos.

I understand "immediate family" as sharing at least 1/8 to 1/16 of all DNA identical by decent (IBD). Such as a mother to daughter relationship or cousins.

"Relative" would be more samples that are related but no so closely, more distantly. Like many generations ago. Maybe a great, great, great grandfather or fifth cousins.

I could be wrong about these definitions so if someone's confirmed with phylos feel free to correct me.

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/node/results/4g7m1nmg

^^^
Here's what I would call a true Asian cluster with Cambodia centered. You'll see it's mostly closely related to other Asian types as expected but has some relation to Angola and Colombia.

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/node/results/7g3pv1r8

^^^
Here's the likely erroneously labelled Ma Dang Thai stick centred. You'll see that it's very closely related to the Colombian but not at all related to the other Thai sticks or other Asians.

https://testing.phylosbioscience.com/node/results/vod714mo

^^^
Here's the other "true" Ma Dang Thai stick centred. You'll see it's closely related to other Thai and Asian types as expected but not at all to Colombian Gold.

You should note Ma Dang submitted most of those Colombians too.

With the samples being so closely related only two scenarios are possible. 1. The sample was mislabeled or mixed up or 2. Thai stick seeds were directly taken to Colombia and grown there as Colombian Gold or vice versa. This would mean Colombian Gold has not descended from Thai stick it would mean it is Thai stick.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[GoatCheese]

[FONT=&quot]Columbo..
There isn't much actual Phylos "data" to be analyzed, mate. Only few samples making up a "web", a web of names that will most likely look different in few months when more samples have been uploaded on Phylos.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As an example: I'm pretty sure Mangobiche Colombian showed up in the "web" of one of the 70's Skunk#1 samples some months ago but it doesn't anymore, cause more closely related samples have now taken that spot in the genetic web we can see. That web thing is quite limited.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First you state that i'm "misinterpreting" data and terminology , but then you ask other people if your definitions of terms are correct. Maybe you should first come to conclusion about the definitions you use, before telling me i'm misinterpreting things[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]..especially when you don't actually explain what i supposedly misinterpreted.

I can assure you i have spend more time surfing Phylos, looking at pictures of various landrace strains and reading grow/smoke reports than thinking about definitions of some words. You should too.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Few posts ago it was you who claimed that Colombian cannabis is more closely related to African strains than Thai based on the "data" you saw.[/FONT]

I'm actually seeing the data as suggesting Columbians being more related to the Africans than Thai. Would make more sense too. African seeds came with the African slaves.

..but now you're saying i was right about it, yet right afterwards you claim it was me who misinterpreted things!!?? So i'm sure you understand when i say your posts are abit confusing.
Maybe you should spend less time speculating things cause clearly you're facts aren't very spot on.

While you may be right about Colombian Gold being more closely related to Thai than African
I think you're misinterpreting the phylos data.

Peace.

 

[Columbo]

[FONT=&quot]Columbo..
There isn't much actual Phylos "data" to be analyzed, mate. Only few samples making up a "web", a web of names that will most likely look different in few months when more samples have been uploaded on Phylos.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As an example: I'm pretty sure Mangobiche Colombian showed up in the "web" of one of the 70's Skunk#1 samples some months ago but it doesn't anymore, cause more closely related samples have now taken that spot in the genetic web we can see. That web thing is quite limited.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First you state that i'm "misinterpreting" data and terminology , but then you ask other people if your definitions of terms are correct. Maybe you should first come to conclusion about the definitions you use, before telling me i'm misinterpreting things[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]..especially when you don't actually explain what i supposedly misinterpreted.

I can assure you i have spend more time surfing Phylos, looking at pictures of various landrace strains and reading grow/smoke reports than thinking about definitions of some words. You should too.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Few posts ago it was you who claimed that Colombian cannabis is more closely related to African strains than Thai based on the "data" you saw.[/FONT]


..but now you're saying i was right about it, yet right afterwards you claim it was me who misinterpreted things!!?? So i'm sure you understand when i say your posts are abit confusing.
Maybe you should spend less time speculating things cause clearly you're facts aren't very spot on.




Peace.

Yeah I was pretty high at the time. Smoking on Lao Stick My bad.

Peace

 

[MadMac]

hi,
i'm still wonder why there is no O-Haze... ?
Sam promised it in beginning...
now after long time still no haze... WHY?
M. :Tiphat: