Scrutinizing Strains with Science : An Objective Discussion

[spurr]

Just want to throw this out there, scientifically speaking; as a person with experience in the botanical studies. We should really stop mislabeling and accepting "strain" as proper nomenclature, it drives me nuts since I'm a breeder with a formal education. "Cultivar" is the proper, correct, scientific use of the word.

Look into it, there is a big difference. The whole time everyone is trying to be articulate, and display legitimacy with the community, the wrong term has been perpetuated too long.

Thanks, Eugenics Genetics, breeder.

You are correct, however, a few caveats need to be pointed out due to some ambiguity in botanical nomenclature and taxonomy:


1. Most people misuse the word "strain" when they should be using "variety" (aka "cultivar") or "race". The term cultivar is synonymous with variety when referring to human bred crosses, hybrids and some landraces (ex., NL #5 is a variety and a cultivar) [1][2][3]; but the term variety is not synonymous with cultivar when using the term variety as a taxonomic rank according to ICBN* (ex., C. indica var. afghanica) [4]. A race (aka landrace) such as line-bred (aka IBL) Hindu-Kush is not a cultivar in some cases [2][3]. However, cultivars do not need to be human bred as crosses or hybrids, in some cases a cultivar can be a "selection from variants [i.e. forms] within a wild population and maintained as a recognisable entity solely by continued propagation" [2].

I for one prefer to use the term variety instead of cultivar simply because the term variety seems to be more commonly used than cultivar. However, one reason why I like cultivar more than variety is the separate abbreviation for cultivar that avoids taxonomic and nomenclature confusion, ex.: C. indica var. afghanica cv. Master Kush; instead of:C. indica var. afghanica var. Master Kush

* ICBN = International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code)
​

There is no standard usage/definition of the term strain in botanical science. However, it is commonly accepted that botanical usege of the term strain is only used for a living organism (i.e., growing plant, tissue culture from a plant, clone from a plant, etc). In botany the term strain is usually used to refer to an individual plant within a population (ex. 'strain A' from the variety/cultivar NL #5; or 'strain B' from the race Hindu-Kush).


2. I agree when people call a variety/cultivar like NL#5, or a race like (line-bred, aka IBL) Hindu-Kush, a strain, it's a major fail. I have been railing against that for years with little success in changing how people misuse the term strain.


3. All that said, getting people to use the word "variety" or "cultivar" (for crosses and hybrids) and "race" (aka landrace, for traditional populations that are not crossed outside of their own population), instead of "strain", is hard as I am sure you are aware. And in some cases a race can be a cultivar, but not always, freaking ambiguity...grrr!


On the topic of nomenclature for those who are unaware:

These are abbreviations for common taxonomic ranking (#1-6) and botanical nomenclature (#4, #6-7):

1. "sp." means "one species" (used after Genus if not naming the species)
2. "spp." means "more than one species" (used after Genus if not naming the species)
3. "subsp." and "ssp." mean "sub-species"
4. "var." means "variety"
5. "fa." and "f." mean "form"
6. "r." means "race"
7. "cv." means "cultivar"

The terms variety/cultivar, how we (cannabis growers/breeders) are using it as botanical nomenclature, usually implies mixed heredity (i.e., cross or hybrid). Not a line-bred (i.e. IBL) heredity, which in many cases would be a race (or landrace), but in some cases would be a cultivar.

The term variety, in the botanical taxonomic sense, is used to differentiate between populations that are slightly different, ex., intraspecies or intrasub-species. For differentiation within species, sub-species, varieties or races, the term "form" can be used. Form would be used when the difference between populations is smaller than when variety would be used.

The proper listing of a hybrid or cross would be the initial of the genus, then the species, sub-species, variety or race, and finally the cultivar and strain title. I don't expect this to happen but its worth a mention I thought.

An example of such listing, the strain needs to be enclosed within single quotation marks. Also, most common taxonomic convention is that the Genus and species need to be italicized. However, according to the "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" (Vienna code) from 2005, all levels of taxa are to be italicized.

• An example of a hybrid using two landraces, using current genetic taxonomic evidence of drug biotypes, and assuming they are races and not cultivars:
  • C. indica var. afghanica r. Hindu-Kush 'A1' x C. indica var. indica r. Thai 'B1'
  • The title of the new variety/cultivar could be: cv. Hindu-Thai
    

• An example for practical usage of the hybrid above would be the race title along with the strain title. That would be a little more accurate than current naming schemes used by cannabis breeders.
  • Hindu-Kush 'A1' x Thai 'B1'

• An example for a hybrid using two cultivars (instead of two landraces):
  • C. indica cv. Skunk #1 'C1' x C. indica var. indica cv. Haze 'D1'
  • The title of the new variety/cultivar could be: cv. Skunk-Haze

• An example for practical usage of a hybrid using two cultivars (instead of two landraces):
  • Skunk #1 'C1' x Haze 'D1'

A hybrid is when one breeds (relatively) unrelated parents, ex. Hindu-Kush x Thai. And a cross is when one breed (relatively) related parents, ex., Afghan x Hindu-Kush. That said, the term hybrid is often used interchangeably with the term cross.


On the topic of the misuse of the terms "sativa" and "indica":

The most current genetic and chemotypic evidence (ex. from Hillig and Mahlberg) finds that what we call "indica" (i.e. wide-leafleted drug-biotype; WLDB) and "sativa" (i.e. narrow-leafleted drug-biotype; NLDB) are both of the same species: C. indica [5][6][7]. Probally the simplest taxonomy is that WLDB is C. indica var. afghanica and NLDB is C. indica var. indica [8]. Hemp falls under the species C. indica and C. sativa. Ruderalis is most probably a third species of C. spp called C.ruderalis.

That means if people use the term "sativa" for something like Haze they are misusing the term. Haze is really an indica species (i.e. C. indica), aka NLDB. Haze is of the same species as Hindu-Kush, which is a WLDB, both Haze and Hindu-Kush are under the species C. indica. Thus we should not be calling Haze, Thai, Kali-Mist, etc., "sativas", we should be calling them simply "NLDB indica"; and we should not be calling Hindu-Kush, Afghan, NL #5, etc., "indicas", we should be calling them simply "WLDB indica". That said, calling Hindu-Kush an "indica" is far more correct than calling Haze a "sativa"...


In summation:

It appears Eugenics, I and others like MicrobeMan, have our work cut out for us! Getting people to call strains either "cultivars" or "vareites" or "races" (depending upon the situation) and calling individual plants "strains"; and getting people to call sativas either "NLDB indica" or "NLDB cannabis"; and getting people to call indicas either "WLDB indica" or "WLDB cananbis"; is not going to be easy...



Eugenics: if you see anything I wrote that you believe is incorrect please let me/us know (and if you can cite references that would be great); thanks




Refs:


[1] The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
http://www.upov.org/index_en.html


[2] "What is a cultivar?"
International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP)
http://www.anbg.gov.au/acra/what-is-a-cultivar.html


[3] "How to name a new cultivar"
International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRAs)
http://www.ishs.org/sci/icraname.htm


[4] International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN)
http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0030Ch3Sec5a026.htm


[5] "Genetic evidence for speciation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)"
Karl W. Hillig
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution vol. 52, pp. 161–180, 2005
(I uploaded the full text paper to this post)


[6] "A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)"
Karl W. Hillig and Paul G. Mahlberg
American Journal of Botany vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 966–975, 2004
(I uploaded the full text paper to this post)


[7] "Interview: Dr. Paul G. Mahlberg, American Cannabis researcher"
http://www.hempfood.com/IHA/iha02114.html


[8] "Interview with Robert Connell Clarke: Original Hempster"
NORML New Zealand (2005)
http://www.norml.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=588

I corrected some errors in the text of the interview such as:

1. incorrect capitalization by the person who transcribed the interview.
2. errors from R.C. Clark, ex., when he said "broad leafed drug varieties", instead of the correct "wide-leafleted drug-biotypes" (Hillig, 2005). And his misuse of the term "biotype", ex., when he said "Cannabis indica biotype afghanica", instead of saying "variety", as in "Cannabis indica var. afghanica"; biotype and variety are not interchangeable in terms of taxonomic ranking.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

"An example for a hybrid using two cultivars (instead of two landraces):

* C. indica cv. Skunk #1 'C1' x C. indica var. indica cv. Haze 'D1'
* The title of the new variety/cultivar could be: cv. Skunk-Haze"

So why don't you list Skunk as var. indica as well? And if the answer is because Skunk is a hybrid shouldn't we just give up the variety because everything's a cross of a cross of a cross of a hybrid these days anyway...?

 

[spurr]

"An example for a hybrid using two cultivars (instead of two landraces):

* C. indica cv. Skunk #1 'C1' x C. indica var. indica cv. Haze 'D1'
* The title of the new variety/cultivar could be: cv. Skunk-Haze"

So why don't you list Skunk as var. indica as well?

Great point, I am glad you noticed that. Yes, I didn't list a var. for Skunk #1 because it's (supposedly) a hybrid of C. indica var. afghanica cv. Afghani x C. indica var. indica cv. Meixcan Acapulco Gold x C. indica var. indica cv. Colombian Gold (I am not sure which cultivar was bred with which firstly and secondly).

The reason I didn't list the var. of Skunk is I am not sure how to list it, I was going to email Karl Hillig and ask him. I think it might be something like C. indica var. afghanica var. indica cv. Skunk #1, but I'm not sure. I didn't want to make a claim I was not sure about.

And if the answer is because Skunk is a hybrid shouldn't we just give up the variety because everything's a cross of a cross of a cross of a hybrid these days anyway...?

I don't think we should give up, but, I have had the same exact concern (and still do), that you pointed out. I am not positive of the answer, so I didn't want to write something that might turn out to be incorrect. I know there is an answer, I just don't know it. But, I think something along the lines I what I wrote above will turn out to be correct.

 

[spurr]

On the topic of the effects of environment on evolutionary THC content (quantitative) and chemotype (qualitative) of cannabis (re: discussion between Sam, Microbeman, bendoslendo, Cannabologist and myself); and the topic of chemotype by terpenoids, here are some interesting papers:

The first two papers can be found here, I compressed them and encrypted them with the passphrase "ilovecanna"; without quotes. I uploaded the file to a Russian file host that doesn't require Javascript for downloading

• http://www.file-upload.net/download-3066533/evolution.zip.html

"LETTER TO THE EDITOR"
Karl Hillig
Journal of Industrial Hemp, Vol. 7(1) 2002


"The Evolution of Cannabinoid Phenotypes in Cannabis"
Ernest Small, H.D. Beckstead and Allan Chan
Economic Botany (1975), vol. 29, ppg. 219-232

• I am not claiming the info in this paper is correct, I just thought it was worth uploading so anyone can read it if they wanted to.

"A chemotaxonomic analysis of terpenoid variation in Cannabis"
Karl W. Hillig
Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 32 (2004) 875–891

 

[pipeline]

Thanks spurr! Those are good ones!

 

[spurr]

No problem, glad you like them

Between you, Cannabologist, Avenger and myself we might upload every paper on cannabis there is! (I'm joking of course, but it would be grand if we could!)

 

[bendoslendo]

From "The Evolution of Cannabinoid Phenotypes in Cannabis"
Ernest Small, H.D. Beckstead and Allan Chan
Economic Botany (1975), vol. 29, ppg. 219-232

In these plants, the resin is composed primarily of CBD, and accordingly such plants are not suitable for the preparation of Cannabis drugs.

How far we've come eh?

Also, the frequent use of the word "psychotomimetic" to describe delta 9 THC kind of pissed me off. So much in fact, I'll likely travel back in time and murder them... which I believe is within my power due to the psychotomimetic properties of THC.

 

[Cannabologist]

Spurr:

I think it's reasonable to speculate that wild ecotype populations could have > 10% THC as a rule. But we are just speculating so it's not worth much.

- I think in a given natural population, even a population that had been unaffected by artificial selection, that its not unreasonable to speculate that a particular population could maintain stable THC levels of around 5-7% average, with up to 10 percent being a high. Actually I just read DeMeijer’s “Patterns of Diversity in Cannabis” and he describes such natural populations.

The main factor would be "what purpose does THC serve the cannabis plant in nature?". For example, terpenoids often are used by plants to attract insects for various reasons, e.g., pollination. Thus, if THC was used by the plant for some important purpose then it could indeed have been high in wild strains (i.e., within wild ecotype populations) before THC was human-bred to be high in non-wild cultivars (i.e., within varietal populations).
The fact THC is increased under sufficient UV-b irradiation (e.g., greater conversion of CBG into THC vs. CBG into CBD) could have made high altitude ecotypes higher in THC as rule, not as an exception to a rule.

- Good info to know on Hornsby.

- This is a really really really interesting subject I like to think about, and to me it touches upon the largest aspects of Cannabis evolution.

- I don’t like to think about it in terms of purpose, because sometimes, in nature, things can evolve without purpose, or be vestigial organs (perhaps some insect pollinator was attracted to THC and/or CBD but has since gone extinct). Perhaps it is truly a random fluke, why Cannabis resin comprises mostly of the sticky, gooey THC, the biochemical precursors and the end result all a matter of random mutation and lucky selection, as opposed to any other kind of secretion.
- I think the real question to think about is “why and how (which are two very different questions, but still in a way conjoined), did Cannabis, Cannabinoids, and THC, evolve?” It’s kind of the same question but a little more broad so as to not be so biased in terms of thinking THC actually has or had a purpose (or still has one).
- So when I try to answer this question, I first want to think about what we know. One thing is that Cannabis is said to have evolved no earlier than 34 million years ago, and that it probably evolved somewhere in Asia.

- One interesting thing I like to think about, is that at this time, CO2 levels had been elevated to a level of about 700-750ppm (Perhaps something to think about concerning the “best” levels for cultivated gardens ), were higher earlier, and after this time were dropping until 280 where they have risen to 480(?) today.
Also, some time earlier, India was a great island and broke away from Africa and collided with Asia, forming the mountainous Himalaya range (around 50mya when India met Asia). And we also have the formation of Antarctica at this time…

- Now, I always like to remember that evolution is a bush. It is a great selection pressure (extinction) that thins this bush, trims it down to branches, or single stems. I in a way find it odd that there are no other plants that are so related to Cannabis that they as well produce Cannabinoids (in a similar vein how other psychoactives are found across species of plants/fungi, such as mescaline, dimethyltryptamine, and psilocybin). Then again, there are many such plants, so I suppose it is not all that uncommon… But can we pinpoint traumatic events in those areas at key times and perhaps get an idea of when a speciation event occurred?

- As an offshoot to all this, I like to think about Cannabis’s ancestors, and where they evolved. Did Cannabis perhaps start evolving on the island of India before and during its collide with Asia and selection pressures took over hence (and perhaps great ancestors of Cannabis evolving on Africa and what would be India? Was Cannabis confined to Asia, or perhaps was a Cannabis ancestor able to spread southward to India from Asia after the collision, encountering new environments and subsequently evolving there under selection pressures? Perhaps investigations into Cannabis’s photoperiod could elucidate the issue…

- In terms in hard evidence, I am unaware of any Cannabis fossils or ancestors being found. If so, this could help shed light on some questions and larger issues surrounding Cannabis evolution.

- When thinking about THC inheritance, I remember that Cannabis is by nature polymorphic, you will get sort of a cline for any particular trait, and selection pressure, natural or artificial, will capitalize on that trait. But these polymorphisms are preserved throughout generations.

- I like to go back to “Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis Sativa” for this, as it describes what I feel we (would) find in naturalized Cannabis populations.
You take 2 inbred lines (THC and CBD) and hybridize them, and the F1 is a 50/50 blend of the two IBLs (THC/CBD). Polymorphic expression of the phenotype results in a cline of low to high levels of THC/CBD.
So in nature, I like to think about it as not necessarily inbred lines, but isolated populations, ecotypes. So in the same vein you will have 2 ecotypes, and if they encounter one another, hybridize.
Going further, an F1+F1 cross will give us the F2 generation, where we again see the polymorphic nature in the phenotypic expression of THC/CBD homogenous and heterozygous genotypes. Whether the crossing of IBLS(cultivars) or ecotypes to get F1 and F2 generations happens naturally or artificially does not matter, nature will select for the individuals that happen to survive and reproduce (and may have high THC, high fiber, etc.) or humans will artificially select what survives and reproduces.

FWIW, CBD does hinder the psychoactivity of THC at CB1 receptors*, even though CBD binds poorly to CB1 receptors; that is why one hypothesis is that "non-CB1" receptors are the primary receptors for CBD.

- Right about CBD, this is one reason I mentioned it as it is a known THC antagonist. I also thought CBD primarily binds to CB2 receptors, I’ll have to check that. I wound up reading briefly on wikipedia that CB1/CB2 knockout mice can still able to succumb to the effects of Cannabis (THC?). Given reading of some of the latest study there are supposedly more receptors than just CB1 and CB2 receptors that cannabinoids like THC can bind to.

Why did you use the term "accessory" cannabinoids? CBD, CBC, THCV, CBDV, etc., are all equal cannabinoids to THC. Do you mean accessory in terms of what we, as humans, see as the primary cannabinoid of interest (i.e. THC)

- I suppose my language is indicative of my knowledge going mainly off of older papers who would describe THC and CBD as being the “primary” Cannabinoid in the sense that either is found to be the highest level of cannabinoid contained in the plant, as a further way to distinguish ecotypes and cultivar populations and strains.
- In this sense I use it not to say any of those cannabinoids has any less importance, but that THC and/or CBD is found in the highest amounts in individuals, as opposed to other cannabinoids.

FWIW, I am still holding out the very outside possibility that there could be psychoactive terpenoids from cannabis. Currently there are no known terpenoids from cannabis that are psychoactive, but I think psychoactive terpenoids could exist in cannabis, mostly because there are psychoactive terpenoids in other plants. Ex., it's a specific terpenoid from Saliva that provides the psychoactive/psychotropic effects from Saliva (i.e., "Salvinorin A", aka "Divinorin A").

= Its really funny you say that… Shit I want to find the paper now. It’s another old one, describing constituents of Cannabis like Cannabinoids. The interesting thing to me is that among what they found, were alkaloids. Now, I don’t know if what they found and described as alkaloids were really terpenes and terpenoids, but it made me wonder, and it really makes me wonder with what you say about Salvinorin A…

I have been planning to look into the potentiating effects certain terpenoids can have upon the psychoactive effects of THC; but at this time I think terpenoids do not make THC get us higher, I think they do however seem to make the high 'better'.

- Likewise, I don’t think terpenes and terpenoids necessarily get us higher, but like Sam has said, they modulate the high and can produce differing effects, like making time seem to slow or speed up, or making you tired or not tired, or hungry/ not hungry, and so on. The way I imagine it working, is that a certain terpene or terpenoid (and certain level of it) will have that particular modulation (or lacking it, there will be no modulating effect). To me accessory terpenes and terpenoids do not seem as something that will generally get us “higher”, but “mask” the pure THC qualities. Then again, when we talk about “get us higher”, I like to ask, “what is ‘high’?”…

Here is my poor analogy of tepenoids to THC: Kind of like adding spices to meat: the spices (i.e. terpenoids) do not make the meat (i.e. THC) have more protein (i.e. psychoactive effects of THC), but the spices do make the meat taste better (i.e. potentiates some affects from THC) and thus we enjoy eating (i.e. smoking) the meat more than without spices.

- And as an addendum, I would say, some people like certain kinds of spices/spicing more than others, and some too much of certain spices is not necessarily a good thing; rather as I hypothesize, there may be (a) certain terpene or terpenoid(s) that are modulating THC in ways we all would rather it does not modulate it (ie. causing ceiling/tolerance).

I doubt it, but maybe. A ceiling I am sure is also a factor of the of the person getting high, e.g., two people smoking the same bud might not experience the same lack of ceiling.

- Always there will be biological factors involved with the individual experience, but I think we know there is more going on than just activation and saturation of CB1 and Cb2 receptors. In terms of tolerance, from what I’ve read tolerance was described as this sort of “saturation” of CB1/CB2 receptors, an individual has no more available receptor sites THC can bind to. But, if we are saying terpenes and terpenoids and other cannabinoids are involved in modulating THC’s effects (and that there are more than just CB1/CB2 receptors in terms of sites cannabinoids can bind to), then discerning the root causes of tolerance may be more difficult.
To me, this is the “ying-yang” interplay between biological factors within an individual person and the individual plant they are smoking.

- What I’ve found with different cultivars/strains, is that while any individual will experience tolerance over time using the same strain, certain rare ones just don’t seem to have that quality, and this is for any person smoking; no one seems to get tolerant, even after a few weeks of smoking, it will still get you very, very high. I can remember a kind, alleged “afgooy-haze”, that bore this quality. It also had this “high” quality, a certain potency quality I like to call “pizzazz”… Very particular strains I can name have this… Northern Lights, Ak-47, Bubblegum, Black berry…
- Truth be told, I just know when I find a cultivar that lacks this tolerance, or simply has a strong, good quality high, and others can distinctly tell as well. Its anecdotal, but it works. There is something beyond personal individual biology with certain cultivars and the qualities of having “super potency”, and so on, that people universally can pick up on.

If that were true it would seem smoking (close to) pure THC (i.e. > 98%) would have no ceiling. Sam can comment here because he has smoked pure THC. And IIRC, he has written he didn't like the high as much as smoking whole cannabis (or whole cannabis extracts). He can probably comment on wither or not there is a ceiling with pure THC.

- I have researched that pure THC will give a lot of paranoia and has more of a “rush” effect, there is not much mellow in pure THC (and the dislike of the pure THC experience is not limited to Sam’s). But I don’t know about anything concerning tolerance or ceiling. I’m fairly sure each individual person, with enough THC, will attain that “saturation point” to where they can’t get “higher” off of THC; there are simply no more receptor sites available that THC can bind to. I feel as though this in literature is what has been described as “tolerance”, the point to where an individual person is personally “titrated” and that smoking more will not produce any further effect (and a person themselves may not want to smoke more either, the body in a way telling the mind, which concurs, “I’ve had enough”).

Possibly, I will look through some studies I have and see if I find anything. I didn't get a chance to email Dr. ElSohly last week (re: DLI, PPFD, Co2), but I will this coming week and I will ask him about your question regarding possible saturation of CB1/CB2 receptors by THC in terms of a limit to 'highness'.

- Well, I’m pretty sure this is what happens and is one limiting effect of THC, and I believe it is due to a lack of available receptor sites which already have THC or other Cannabinoid bound to them. If this is wrong, that would be interesting to know. I’m also wondering about the modulating effect of terpenes and terpenoids (and now like you also stated with flavinoids), and if they could have a part in tolerance/ceiling (we really should have a standard way of defining “tolerance/ceiling” too..).

Sam can probably provide some good insights to your question.

- I am hoping so..

I feel any worries about agro-industry are unfounded on this board, and limiting the free flow of information is counter productive to the goals of this sub-forum. AFAIK there is only one person here who fits the bill of being from "corporate agro-industry", and I am sure Sam isn't worried about him...

- Well, the only reason I mentioned that, and I may be (probably am) mistaken, is because certain ideas I have now about these topics we are discussing, I garnered from Sam in reading certain posts of his some time ago, and I remember somewhere reading certain apprehensions with him regarding Cannabis and patenting and the ability of farmers to freely trade and cultivate strains. The concern is probably unwarranted.

The most current genetic and chemotypic evidence (ex. from Hillig and Mahlberg) finds that what we call "indica" (i.e. wide-leafleted drug-biotype; WLDB) and "sativa" (i.e. narrow-leafleted drug-biotype; NLDB) are both of the same species: C. indica [5][6][7]. Probally the simplest taxonomy is that WLDB is C. indica var. afghanica and NLDB is C. indica var. indica [8]. Hemp falls under the species C. indica and C. sativa. Ruderalis is most probably a third species of C. spp called C.ruderalis.

- As an addendum to this, I believe an update of Hillig merges C. ruderalis into C sativa, which would give two species, C sativa and C indica, respectively. I know the paper is open source online, it may have already been posted somewhere here...

- BTW, I am highly skeptical of Hillig and Mahlberg’s interpretation of the data. Mahlberg has been trying to argue for a multiple species approach to Cannabis for years (and IMO like the “splitter” camp is incorrect on several issues).
- I feel all of Cannabis’s traits are better explained as a matter of polymorphism and selection pressure, and artificial selection for the past 6,000+ years has not led to speciation events in Cannabis, nor has there been a speciation event prior that, and that Cannabis comprises one singly, highly variable species (and thus, there is no C indica, it is all C sativa).

-Talking like this may get me lynched here, as “indica” is sacrosanct in Cannabis horticulture, and given the nature of many here to not only distrust science but outright deny science, I am extremely apprehensive to give this counter view even though I do my best to root it in evidence and sound logic (yeah who doesn’t with their arguments).

- In fact I’d rather not even discuss my views at all but because it happened to come up, and I figured out of most anyone here, you are one of the few that this issue could be discussed with without it turning into a shit fest, so I figure whatever

- IMO one cannot have a new species of Cannabis unless you have a population that cannot interbreed with other Cannabis populations, and as there are no relatives to Cannabis that are so closely related that it can create a “true” hybrid (an inter-species cross, say between Cannabis and Hops), and all populations of Cannabis, no matter how they are subsequently defined, all freely interbreed, then all Cannabis populations should be defined as one species, Cannabis sativa.

- If Cannabis has been evolving for around 30 million years, when did it suddenly have a speciation event giving us two species, sativa and now indica (and potentially ruderalis)?

- Horticulturalists are telling me that Cannabis had a speciation event within the last thousand, or hundred years, or less (why? Maybe global warming ha!), but interesting to me, Cannabis did not seem to change much for 30 million years, going through all the changes in earth’s environment that occurred through time (ice ages, asteroid impacts, plate shifting, etc.).
- So artificial selection for high calyx to leaf ratio and high THC suddenly makes Cannabis, in a few generations, a new species? The things Cannabis horticulturalists and aficionados have been saying for many years now just doesn’t make sense to me given what I have learned about species, ecotype variation, polymorphism, selection, evolution, etc. I am not opposed to a hypothesis that Cannabis could be undergoing changes like a ring species, but I have never seen solid evidence of this in regards to Cannabis.
- What would help is a sort of Cannabis pedigree for known varieties and cultivars (and landraces/ecotypes), to get a better picture of Cannabis and it’s artificially selected lineage. I am in fact doing just that

- Hillig’s work represents to me a great victory for those who are Cannabis species “lumpers” who do not split up the genus into multiple species!

- His analysis completely obliterates a common misconception about Cannabis often spread by Cannabis subculture magazines and horticulturalists alike; that Cannabis bearing narrow leaves, and Cannabis bearing wide leaves, are of a different species (C sativa and C indica respectively). This is entirely incorrect, rather they are both the same species (which IMO Hillig has misclassified as “C indica”, and should be merged with what he deems C sativa)!

- I could go on at length about this issue; indeed a volume on Cannabis taxonomy could be written about the subject
- I am not opposed to there being more than one species of Cannabis, only that I prefer to start at a simplified position that there is only one species and move on to see what I can figure out from that starting position. Those that see Cannabis as comprising of multiple species seem to want to do the opposite; they want to assume there are many species of Cannabis and then they go about looking for evidence to fit their presupposition (while, to me, ignoring evidence to the contrary). Anyone could try and argue with me why I would start from such a position, and I will answer that this is simply the easiest and most logical position to start from.

- In terms of the most common “splitter” arguments, they seem to regularly ignore the polymorphic nature of Cannabis, contradictions in taxonomic keys and inability of taxonomists to come to similar conclusions on denoting species. Hillig cites de Meijer and takes data/quotes from him while ignoring the conclusions de Meijer came to about the data. Of course he is allowed to do this I suppose, given they disagree with each other on Cannabis taxonomy, but I do not think Hillig makes his point.

and getting people to call sativas either "NLDB indica" or "NLDB cannabis"; and getting people to call indicas either "WLDB indica" or "WLDB cananbis"; is not going to be easy...

- There is a whole camp of scientists who are under the presupposition that ALL cannabis populations are C sativa, and beyond that are only subsequent varieties, cultivars, etc., but there is no separate species of Cannabis. This means all cannabis can be deemed Cannabis sativa, and calling it Cannabis indica is incorrect. In trying to denote phenotypes or polymorphic forms of Cannabis, I have no problem with horticulturalists using NLDB or WLDB cannabis, as these epithets only denote phenotypic forms, not species. - I am aware there are noted persons in the Cannabis community who do not share this view, like Mahlberg and Clarke. I have read certain authors I can remember describe different habitats (habits?) for ecotypes, I would like for them to expound on those habitats, and their differences, and what they mean (it was either Clarke or DeMeijer, I can't remember, I'm not looking for the quote I'm remembering …).

- Attached are some interesting recent articles on the topic of terpenoids and other constituents of Cannabis!

 

[spurr]

I think it's reasonable to speculate that wild ecotype populations could have > 10% THC as a rule. But we are just speculating so it's not worth much.

- I think in a given natural population, even a population that had been unaffected by artificial selection, that its not unreasonable to speculate that a particular population could maintain stable THC levels of around 5-7% average, with up to 10 percent being a high. Actually I just read DeMeijer’s “Patterns of Diversity in Cannabis” and he describes such natural populations.

Interesting, thanks. Is that another study by DeMijer?

The main factor would be "what purpose does THC serve the cannabis plant in nature?". For example, terpenoids often are used by plants to attract insects for various reasons, e.g., pollination. Thus, if THC was used by the plant for some important purpose then it could indeed have been high in wild strains (i.e., within wild ecotype populations) before THC was human-bred to be high in non-wild cultivars (i.e., within varietal populations).
The fact THC is increased under sufficient UV-b irradiation (e.g., greater conversion of CBG into THC vs. CBG into CBD) could have made high altitude ecotypes higher in THC as rule, not as an exception to a rule.

- Good info to know on Hornsby.

- This is a really really really interesting subject I like to think about, and to me it touches upon the largest aspects of Cannabis evolution.

- I don’t like to think about it in terms of purpose, because sometimes, in nature, things can evolve without purpose, or be vestigial organs (perhaps some insect pollinator was attracted to THC and/or CBD but has since gone extinct). Perhaps it is truly a random fluke, why Cannabis resin comprises mostly of the sticky, gooey THC, the biochemical precursors and the end result all a matter of random mutation and lucky selection, as opposed to any other kind of secretion.

- I think the real question to think about is “why and how (which are two very different questions, but still in a way conjoined), did Cannabis, Cannabinoids, and THC, evolve?” It’s kind of the same question but a little more broad so as to not be so biased in terms of thinking THC actually has or had a purpose (or still has one).

Good points

- So when I try to answer this question, I first want to think about what we know. One thing is that Cannabis is said to have evolved no earlier than 34 million years ago, and that it probably evolved somewhere in Asia.

- One interesting thing I like to think about, is that at this time, CO2 levels had been elevated to a level of about 700-750ppm (Perhaps something to think about concerning the “best” levels for cultivated gardens ), were higher earlier, and after this time were dropping until 280 where they have risen to 480(?) today.

That is my exact reasoning for why using over 1,000 ppm is a waste; that and there are studies showing terrestrial C3 plants that evolved along side (time wise) Cannabis spp. have Co2 saturation of ~800-1,000 ppm.

I also do not let Co2 go above 1,000 ppm because Rubsico activase is hindered in high Co2, and from a few studies I have read, > 1,200 ppm can indeed hinder Rubisco activase that in turn hinders conversion of inactive Rubisco into active Rubisco, which means reduced Pnnet (net rate of photosynthesis). The only study I am aware of looking at Co2 (along with irradiance and temp) of cannabis plants found 750 ppm provided highest Pn (the workers didn't look at Co2 higher than 750 ppm). Not only is the issue of Rubisco activase a concern for me, but as Co2 increases Gs (stomatal conductance) decreases (not linearly AFAIK). Thus, at very high Co2, e.g., 1,500 ppm common to many cannabis growers, Gs will be lower than at 750 ppm; and as Gs is reduced so is Co2 fixation.

- Now, I always like to remember that evolution is a bush. It is a great selection pressure (extinction) that thins this bush, trims it down to branches, or single stems. I in a way find it odd that there are no other plants that are so related to Cannabis that they as well produce Cannabinoids (in a similar vein how other psychoactives are found across species of plants/fungi, such as mescaline, dimethyltryptamine, and psilocybin). Then again, there are many such plants, so I suppose it is not all that uncommon… But can we pinpoint traumatic events in those areas at key times and perhaps get an idea of when a speciation event occurred?

It would be nice to do so, I think though, your suggestion of a 'fluke' might not be far from the truth. I too find it odd that we have not (yet) found phytocannabinoids in any other genus than C.spp.

- As an offshoot to all this, I like to think about Cannabis’s ancestors, and where they evolved. Did Cannabis perhaps start evolving on the island of India before and during its collide with Asia and selection pressures took over hence (and perhaps great ancestors of Cannabis evolving on Africa and what would be India? Was Cannabis confined to Asia, or perhaps was a Cannabis ancestor able to spread southward to India from Asia after the collision, encountering new environments and subsequently evolving there under selection pressures? Perhaps investigations into Cannabis’s photoperiod could elucidate the issue…

- In terms in hard evidence, I am unaware of any Cannabis fossils or ancestors being found. If so, this could help shed light on some questions and larger issues surrounding Cannabis evolution.

Funny, I was about to write the best way might be finding C.spp tissue fossils for carbon dating, genetic testing and landmass-geography at that time.

- When thinking about THC inheritance, I remember that Cannabis is by nature polymorphic, you will get sort of a cline for any particular trait, and selection pressure, natural or artificial, will capitalize on that trait. But these polymorphisms are preserved throughout generations.

- I like to go back to “Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis Sativa” for this, as it describes what I feel we (would) find in naturalized Cannabis populations.

You take 2 inbred lines (THC and CBD) and hybridize them, and the F1 is a 50/50 blend of the two IBLs (THC/CBD). Polymorphic expression of the phenotype results in a cline of low to high levels of THC/CBD.

So in nature, I like to think about it as not necessarily inbred lines, but isolated populations, ecotypes. So in the same vein you will have 2 ecotypes, and if they encounter one another, hybridize.

Going further, an F1+F1 cross will give us the F2 generation, where we again see the polymorphic nature in the phenotypic expression of THC/CBD homogenous and heterozygous genotypes. Whether the crossing of IBLS(cultivars) or ecotypes to get F1 and F2 generations happens naturally or artificially does not matter, nature will select for the individuals that happen to survive and reproduce (and may have high THC, high fiber, etc.) or humans will artificially select what survives and reproduces.

Yup, DeMijer wrote a good study on such breeding, IIRC. I can't recall if the F1 progeny as above were mostly chemotype II, but I believe they were.

FWIW, CBD does hinder the psychoactivity of THC at CB1 receptors*, even though CBD binds poorly to CB1 receptors; that is why one hypothesis is that "non-CB1" receptors are the primary receptors for CBD.

- Right about CBD, this is one reason I mentioned it as it is a known THC antagonist. I also thought CBD primarily binds to CB2 receptors, I’ll have to check that. I wound up reading briefly on wikipedia that CB1/CB2 knockout mice can still able to succumb to the effects of Cannabis (THC?). Given reading of some of the latest study there are supposedly more receptors than just CB1 and CB2 receptors that cannabinoids like THC can bind to.

Yup, I have read about knock-out mice being affected by THC too. I can't recall where though, it wasn't wikipedia, I think I was reading a study.

Why did you use the term "accessory" cannabinoids? CBD, CBC, THCV, CBDV, etc., are all equal cannabinoids to THC. Do you mean accessory in terms of what we, as humans, see as the primary cannabinoid of interest (i.e. THC)

- I suppose my language is indicative of my knowledge going mainly off of older papers who would describe THC and CBD as being the “primary” Cannabinoid in the sense that either is found to be the highest level of cannabinoid contained in the plant, as a further way to distinguish ecotypes and cultivar populations and strains.

- In this sense I use it not to say any of those cannabinoids has any less importance, but that THC and/or CBD is found in the highest amounts in individuals, as opposed to other cannabinoids.

Thanks, that makes sense. And yup, chemotype has been used for a long time to distinguish between drug and non-drug cutlivars and ecotypes. For those reading who are unaware: chemotype I = more THC to CBD; chemotype II = similar levels of THC and CBD; and chemotype III = more CBD to THC. Chemotype was/is used to distinguish between species in (older) works for those who thought the genus Cannabis is multi-species. Now genetic work is being used to distinguish between species of Cannabis, for those who believe the genus has more than one species.

FWIW, I am still holding out the very outside possibility that there could be psychoactive terpenoids from cannabis. Currently there are no known terpenoids from cannabis that are psychoactive, but I think psychoactive terpenoids could exist in cannabis, mostly because there are psychoactive terpenoids in other plants. Ex., it's a specific terpenoid from Saliva that provides the psychoactive/psychotropic effects from Saliva (i.e., "Salvinorin A", aka "Divinorin A").

= Its really funny you say that… Shit I want to find the paper now. It’s another old one, describing constituents of Cannabis like Cannabinoids. The interesting thing to me is that among what they found, were alkaloids. Now, I don’t know if what they found and described as alkaloids were really terpenes and terpenoids, but it made me wonder, and it really makes me wonder with what you say about Salvinorin A…

Would love to read that paper if you find it

I have been planning to look into the potentiating effects certain terpenoids can have upon the psychoactive effects of THC; but at this time I think terpenoids do not make THC get us higher, I think they do however seem to make the high 'better'.

- Likewise, I don’t think terpenes and terpenoids necessarily get us higher, but like Sam has said, they modulate the high and can produce differing effects, like making time seem to slow or speed up, or making you tired or not tired, or hungry/ not hungry, and so on. The way I imagine it working, is that a certain terpene or terpenoid (and certain level of it) will have that particular modulation (or lacking it, there will be no modulating effect). To me accessory terpenes and terpenoids do not seem as something that will generally get us “higher”, but “mask” the pure THC qualities. Then again, when we talk about “get us higher”, I like to ask, “what is ‘high’?”…

Good question re "what is 'high'?", answer the question quantitatively would be nice, not simply qualitatively as it seems to be answered currently (and subjective qualification at that)...

Here is my poor analogy of tepenoids to THC: Kind of like adding spices to meat: the spices (i.e. terpenoids) do not make the meat (i.e. THC) have more protein (i.e. psychoactive effects of THC), but the spices do make the meat taste better (i.e. potentiates some affects from THC) and thus we enjoy eating (i.e. smoking) the meat more than without spices.

- And as an addendum, I would say, some people like certain kinds of spices/spicing more than others, and some too much of certain spices is not necessarily a good thing; rather as I hypothesize, there may be (a) certain terpene or terpenoid(s) that are modulating THC in ways we all would rather it does not modulate it (ie. causing ceiling/tolerance).

Good point...and what about those poor vegetarians!

- I have researched that pure THC will give a lot of paranoia and has more of a “rush” effect, there is not much mellow in pure THC (and the dislike of the pure THC experience is not limited to Sam’s). But I don’t know about anything concerning tolerance or ceiling.

Of note is that CBD works to counteract that sense of paranoia, which some studies refer to schizophrenia. That is one reason I think some CBD is good.

I’m fairly sure each individual person, with enough THC, will attain that “saturation point” to where they can’t get “higher” off of THC; there are simply no more receptor sites available that THC can bind to. I feel as though this in literature is what has been described as “tolerance”, the point to where an individual person is personally “titrated” and that smoking more will not produce any further effect (and a person themselves may not want to smoke more either, the body in a way telling the mind, which concurs, “I’ve had enough”).

I really like your insights.

- Well, the only reason I mentioned that, and I may be (probably am) mistaken, is because certain ideas I have now about these topics we are discussing, I garnered from Sam in reading certain posts of his some time ago, and I remember somewhere reading certain apprehensions with him regarding Cannabis and patenting and the ability of farmers to freely trade and cultivate strains. The concern is probably unwarranted.

Ah, OK, I see your line of thought now. As far as that concern being 'unwarranted', I feel there is some justification for that concern, from what I have read from legit sources (i.e., not from cannabis forums). Granted, only time will tell, and a person should be able to protect their work to a certain degree; to what the degree 'is', I will leave it to brighter minds than my own.

The most current genetic and chemotypic evidence (ex. from Hillig and Mahlberg) finds that what we call "indica" (i.e. wide-leafleted drug-biotype; WLDB) and "sativa" (i.e. narrow-leafleted drug-biotype; NLDB) are both of the same species: C. indica [5][6][7]. Probally the simplest taxonomy is that WLDB is C. indica var. afghanica and NLDB is C. indica var. indica [8]. Hemp falls under the species C. indica and C. sativa. Ruderalis is most probably a third species of C. spp called C.ruderalis.

- As an addendum to this, I believe an update of Hillig merges C. ruderalis into C sativa, which would give two species, C sativa and C indica, respectively. I know the paper is open source online, it may have already been posted somewhere here...

That would make sense, re two species and not three (or more).

- BTW, I am highly skeptical of Hillig and Mahlberg’s interpretation of the data. Mahlberg has been trying to argue for a multiple species approach to Cannabis for years (and IMO like the “splitter” camp is incorrect on several issues).

- I feel all of Cannabis’s traits are better explained as a matter of polymorphism and selection pressure, and artificial selection for the past 6,000+ years has not led to speciation events in Cannabis, nor has there been a speciation event prior that, and that Cannabis comprises one singly, highly variable species (and thus, there is no C indica, it is all C sativa).

Well, Carl Linnaeus would certainly sure agree I do see your reasoning, you make very valid points. What is correct I do not know, why are you skeptical of their interpretation, if I may ask?

-Talking like this may get me lynched here, as “indica” is sacrosanct in Cannabis horticulture, and given the nature of many here to not only distrust science but outright deny science, I am extremely apprehensive to give this counter view even though I do my best to root it in evidence and sound logic (yeah who doesn’t with their arguments).

Haha, I doubt you'll get lynched. If people don't respect you after reading what you write, even if they disagree, they probably can't tie a knot to hang you by!

I have been in your shoes, re the sacrosanct nature of many claims in the cannabis world. E.g., that plants don't use green light for photosynthesis, that plants do better with 1,500 ppm than with 1,000 ppm, etc.; and I am still alive, even if a bit bruised...

- In fact I’d rather not even discuss my views at all but because it happened to come up, and I figured out of most anyone here, you are one of the few that this issue could be discussed with without it turning into a shit fest, so I figure whatever

I would like to read more about your thoughts and opinions, feel free to PM me if you would prefer, or I can send you my email address. I will not continue this topic in open forum in case it would turn into a feces fest.

- So artificial selection for high calyx to leaf ratio and high THC suddenly makes Cannabis, in a few generations, a new species?

Using chemotype (or leaf morphology) to distinguish between species is not sound science, IMO anyway. It seems we agree on that point, at least. Using genetic analysis seems to be the best route, if only we could find fossilized cannabis tissue.

- There is a whole camp of scientists who are under the presupposition that ALL cannabis populations are C sativa, and beyond that are only subsequent varieties, cultivars, etc., but there is no separate species of Cannabis.

I imagine good ol' Carl Linnaeus leading the pack, if he were still alive.

Thanks for your interesting insights and comments.

 

[highonmt]

Canabologist wrote:- "I have researched that pure THC will give a lot of paranoia and has more of a “rush” effect, there is not much mellow in pure THC (and the dislike of the pure THC experience is not limited to Sam’s). But I don’t know about anything concerning tolerance or ceiling. I’m fairly sure each individual person, with enough THC, will attain that “saturation point” to where they can’t get “higher” off of THC; there are simply no more receptor sites available that THC can bind to. I feel as though this in literature is what has been described as “tolerance”, the point to where an individual person is personally “titrated” and that smoking more will not produce any further effect (and a person themselves may not want to smoke more either, the body in a way telling the mind, which concurs, “I’ve had enough”). "

Interestingly enough I had the opportunity to purify a sample of THC as an undergrad. I worked in an excellent lab run by two chemists focused on isolation and characterization of novel compounds with interesting biological activity eg cytotoxicity, bacterial inhibition. I was working on a native american ethnobotany project. We ran an ether extract of a cannabis sample through a 6ft x3in size exclusion chromatograpy column (sephedex Lh20), and collected uv active fractions I forget the eludate composition. NMR verification indicated we had circa 500mg of 99% pure delta 9THC. Smoked this in a glass pipe. (burning is of course not the ideal method lol but I was 20) The effects were a strong high, soaring but without much charactor. The paranioa of which you speak was not noted. Slight diskynesia, very red eyes ie vasciilo dilation...I sampled some marinol and found the effects to be very similar. Of course as they say individual results may vary.
HM

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

Interestingly enough I had the opportunity to purify a sample of THC as an undergrad. I worked in an excellent lab run by two chemists focused on isolation and characterization of novel compounds with interesting biological activity eg cytotoxicity, bacterial inhibition. I was working on a native american ethnobotany project. We ran an ether extract of a cannabis sample through a 6ft x3in size exclusion chromatograpy column (sephedex Lh20), and collected uv active fractions I forget the eludate composition. NMR verification indicated we had circa 500mg of 99% pure delta 9THC. Smoked this in a glass pipe. (burning is of course not the ideal method lol but I was 20) The effects were a strong high, soaring but without much charactor. The paranioa of which you speak was not noted. Slight diskynesia, very red eyes ie vasciilo dilation...I sampled some marinol and found the effects to be very similar. Of course as they say individual results may vary.
HM

Great post. I think the paranoia comes from the smoker, not the smoke.

ps. I won't bother posting my lab analysis on IC anymore, but I'm glad it spurred this thread. I'll just say quality bubble hash will easily test over 50% THC...

 

[whodair]

I won't bother posting my lab analysis on IC anymore

promises promises

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

promises promises

right now we are working on a study mapping harvest date and cannabinoid profile. First time I've let a plant go so far past maturity since the ones I forgot about back in the guerilla days. Does over ripening increase CBD or CBN? I'll let ya know when I can say for sure.

 

[whodair]

my 51 day indica taken past 70 may break your grinder, bust your lungs and crack a skull !!

 

[smokesalot420]

right now we are working on a study mapping harvest date and cannabinoid profile. First time I've let a plant go so far past maturity since the ones I forgot about back in the guerilla days. Does over ripening increase CBD or CBN? I'll let ya know when I can say for sure.

I remember reading it increases CBN but you never know what to believe when reading these days!

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I remember reading it increases CBN but you never know what to believe when reading these days!

that is the theory as CBN is a degradation product of THC (or CBD can't remember right now). But we are looking for increased CBD, as this molecule is of major importance to MMj. I'll report back... if im not banned by then lol

 

[jump117]

we had circa 500mg of 99% pure delta 9THC.

Hey highonmt, do you remember how this sample look like?

 

[smokesalot420]

My Doctor recommended "Cannatonic" from Spain apparently. It's CBD, if I recall right is at 6% or higher. As a grower I would be interested in these higher CBD strains because I would rather go the medical route then the recreational route if prop 19 passes here in California.

Im about to pop 2 packs of the Cannatonic! I plan on testing all females for cannabinoid percentages and you better believe I'm keeping males and collecting pollen. I have some plans for these and a couple other packs of seeds... I will update as I progress if wanted.

 

[Cannabologist]

spurr:

Interesting, thanks. Is that another study by DeMijer?

- Yes, “Patterns…” is an earlier study from 1994 I believe. I was going to upload it, but it is over the 1MB limit.

That is my exact reasoning for why using over 1,000 ppm is a waste; that and there are studies showing terrestrial C3 plants that evolved along side (time wise) Cannabis spp. have Co2 saturation of ~800-1,000 ppm.

- So all the more that makes a lot of sense as lines of evidence and reasoning coalesce..

- Now, why hasn’t that saturation gone down over time as CO2 has? These plants have been evolving for millions and millions of years, adapting to lower CO2 levels over time, but the ability to use higher CO2 levels from the time when it allegedly evolved still remains… I guess the ability to use lower CO2 levels does not need much genetic retooling, the genes are there, but changes in the environment have not warranted selection for new genes...
- Its funny to think about too.. And with the handful of global warming deniers here it becomes humorous to contemplate… But I’ve considered that growers of today are probably having some slight increases in yields as opposed to growers from 50, 75, and further hundred and hundreds of hundreds of years ago because of additional CO2 concentrations globally rising within the atmosphere.

Yup, DeMijer wrote a good study on such breeding, IIRC. I can't recall if the F1 progeny as above were mostly chemotype II, but I believe they were.

- Yes, I am pretty sure they were all of chemotype II, as previous studies had also found. In terms of Mendelian genetics, this makes perfect sense, especially if you write it out in a Punnet Square. In the F2, we get a 1:2:1 ratio of chemotypes, also predicted by simple Mendelian rules.

Funny, I was about to write the best way might be finding C.spp tissue fossils for carbon dating, genetic testing and landmass-geography at that time.

- In terms of finding fossilized tissues.. I don’t know. I think that’s an even longer shot than finding a fossil or fossil ancestor that seems to bear similar morphology. I would be interested in anything from that time, or any time really, that could be related to Cannabis or be a potential ancestor or extant cousin or sister species. I should look more to hops and any other related plants and studies to see what kinds of relationships come up there. I know the taxonomy has changed over time in accordance with newer studies, particularly genetic studies that place Cannabis and Hops into Rosales and further split families Cannabaceae.

- Really for all we know, such fossils have been found by some paleo-botanist and relegated to some large shelf or drawer full of tagged specimens, but no study has come out on it. Or worse and more likely, it’s untagged in some large collection of stuff that no one has time or money to go over.

Yup, I have read about knock-out mice being affected by THC too. I can't recall where though, it wasn't wikipedia, I think I was reading a study.

- I think then it is not an over-reaching statement to claim that for the most part people/scientists have no idea what is going on

Would love to read that paper if you find it

- You’ve probably seen it, it wasn’t that interesting. I think I found it and re-read it briefly and then forgot about it again haha. Like I said it was an old paper and describing some of the constituents of Cannabis that were first being found and analyzed, Cannabinoids, terpenes, and the like. I can distinctly remember they said something to the effect of “among these were alkaloids.” That was basically it, nothing about what they meant, what the chemicals were, were they describing terpenes or terpenoids, they just made a blanket statement about it and that was all. It’s something distinct though that’s been in my brain having read it and then when you brought it up brought it out, so it makes me wonder if we really know all we think we know with what’s going on with Cannabis (considering how much they don’t know..). Hmmm are we stumbling upon something that we should worry ninjas trying to assassinate us? I am a ninja myself,... a weed ninja ha!

Good point...and what about those poor vegetarians!

- You almost lost me if I didn’t re-read over what you and I had said at least a few times. I liken this to vaporizing and strict vaporists (is that a thing? haha).. Vaporizing is a very different effect from smoking (ie. combustion). I do not like it as much, “pure” smoke has the “fullest” feeling (and taste, which I also enjoy greatly).

- I’m sure as you know you don’t get that “full” effect from vaporization because certain terpenes and terpenoids are boiled off at different temperatures, particularly higher temperatures than THC.

- Also combustion in itself may bio-chemically change certain components in a way that a vaporization doesn’t (really? Is that true? Chemistry?? Hmmm.. Would that be like the difference in flash frying from a slow roast? The analogy works, but does the reality match?)…

I really like your insights.

- I like yours. One could write a book of a new overgrow guide with an accurate and detailed explanation of nutrients based on your postings.

Granted, only time will tell, and a person should be able to protect their work to a certain degree; to what the degree 'is', I will leave it to brighter minds than my own.

- I think it could take people with our kind of minds to do it. I think there could be a way to “patent” strains using an academically minded company to create a genetically based database of “registered” strains, and rules for cultivators and seed sellers in how to legitimately create new strains without encroaching on another’s work. While anyone could breed anything and steal and use another’s plants and sell their own wares, they would not have any backing from the organization, which in a way legitimizes those that use the service. This gives incentive for persons/companies to use the organization to “license” their products, as customers then know the product and the company selling it can be trusted, having been vetted. Those that don’t have that prerogative, but customers will also know that none of their products are verified, who knows what strains they are actually getting, are they hybrids, are they “stolen” products, ie. people who bought seed at xyz company and are then trying to pass it off as their own. All it really takes is people/ a company organization that is willing to do the work and strive to be credible. Also it would take a pedigree of strain as it were, and histograms for strains... Hehe it would take a lot, but be fun.

That would make sense, re two species and not three (or more).

- But it still doesn’t make sense. “Ruderalis” was supposedly shorter and bushier, more like an “indica”. It is hybridized as well with “indicas” for its auto-flowering characteristics.

What is correct I do not know, why are you skeptical of their interpretation, if I may ask?

It’s almost hard to begin where I view their (mis)-interpretation of the data. I like to start back with the simple chemotype hybrid cross, because much of their argument comes from this area.
I think mainly too their arguments are circular; again instead of starting from one species, and looking for 2, they “a priori” start with 2 species based on 2 known chemotypes, and then argue for 2 species therein. and then try to find whether there are 2 or more species. And that is exactly what they find, at least 2 species (when looking at any 2 characters).

- My problem is that in this experiment, we can go from homozygous to heterozygous and back with simple breeding. But I am to presuppose homozygous plants are of a different species, which then hybridize to some new heterozygous hybrid species, and then can differentiate back into 3 species, 2 being pure homozygous types and the third heterozygous type. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I do not know how they come about to their logic that cannabis is more than one species, I really don’t.
- I am further compounded by the illogic of sellers of cannabis products and their descriptions of species and hybrids. No larger is this realm of morons and liars all swapping the same misinformation between each other back and forth.

- People will ascribe the kind of high one has to species. This is nearly sacred in cannabis banter from smokers and horticulturalists the same. They do not seem to realize that all cannabis use follows a typical pattern, onset will make one energetic, and over time drowsiness sets in. Likewise as we have discussed, other compounds within cannabis affect the “high” one has, either “up” or “down”. Suffice to say, there is no legitimate way to qualify whether any particular strain does make one feel “up” or “down” (ie. what smokers and growers alike will call “sativa” and “indica”).

- None of it makes sense and the whole thing is broken down to me, yet smokers and growers alike just roll on with this nonsense and I’m left wondering am I really smarter than these people or am I wrong? And I always keep coming away thinking that millions and millions of people are simply wrong in what they are saying and thinking when it comes to cannabis, what they are smoking, the “high” and how it biochemically works in an individual, etc.

- Honestly to me, if I was doing a blind test, I could tell better by taste and smell the kind of pot I am smoking as opposed to the high. And honestly, most all pot to me gives me the same kind of high, no matter what the THC percent. I’ve had shawaggy brick that gets me as high as the kindest kind (and shitty brick that can’t do shit too), and the kindest looking kind not get me as high as that other shit shwig brick. All in all though, the high often is the same no matter the strain (it’s all pretty much good ha!). It takes one of those “beyond” strains, I guess you could say “elite” strains, to get a really different, ‘“higher” high’, from the “generic high” I experience with most any strain. That’s the shit I seek out like a DEA agent.
- I could make arguments like this against there being multiple species of cannabis all day long

- I think smokers have been lied to by growers and cannabis product sellers (like coffee shops and medical dispensaries), and growers have been lied to by other growers and so called experts, and growers and so called experts have taken poor scientific studies and completely misinterpreted them and then sold their misinterpretations to other smokers and growers, all whom perpetuate these same very tired lies.
I point my fingers, like you, at so called cannabis gurus and aficionados, cannabis magazines, but mainly at 2 people, the scientists making the initial claims, who I often suspect of having ulterior motives behind their interpretations of data (ie, fame, legal challenges for growers in law to say the law is referring to a different species; which actually the law fixed any loophole for that anyway, to keep the “status quo” among smokers and horticulturalists concerning “indica” and “sativa”, even though the “common knowledge” often spread is incorrect.), and the person who reads or hears the claim and simply accepts it as true. I have had “indica”/”sativa” illogic drilled into my head from day one. You can go to every coffee shop or dispensary around the world and read their “indica” catagories and “sativa” catagories and their “indica/sativa” hybrid catagories, each which by the way may be 40% indica, and 60% sativa, or perhaps 30% sativa, and 70% indica, or any combination therein. How the grower or product seller knows any of those percentages, and on what genetics they are basing their numbers on, I do not know, but I DO know they have not heard of Mendel or genetics!

- I’ve been reading over Hillig’s genetic analysis. I’m trying to find ways to poke holes in his reasoning. Outside of attacking his use of a small number of allozyme frequencies, I feel like we both come up against a wall; I don’t feel he proves his point that you have separate species based on these few differences in genes, but I don’t know how to best explain away the disparity either (probably that he is using insignificant traits to judge species by) I’ll probably need to look at similar studies and see why they came to those conclusions.

- When I refer to a whole camp, most studies on cannabis only refer to cannabis as cannabis sativa, and it is studies related to taxonomy that will refer to more than one species.

Haha, I doubt you'll get lynched. If people don't respect you after reading what you write, even if they disagree, they probably can't tie a knot to hang you by!

I have been in your shoes, re the sacrosanct nature of many claims in the cannabis world. E.g., that plants don't use green light for photosynthesis, that plants do better with 1,500 ppm than with 1,000 ppm, etc.; and I am still alive, even if a bit bruised...”

- That doesn’t matter when people can troll you into oblivion. And because of their post rating, clout, and seniority, they can troll you and not get in trouble for it, and if you come back at them they can have you banned, even if what you are saying is rooted in years of science. This pertains to any scientific issue (brought up on here), not just to cannabis. Perhaps that has changed, I know it has gotten better, I should see if some notable trolls I know of here still exist.

- It can also be extremely hard to explain anything scientific to someone who has no background in it, where as I have always pulled toward the sciences all my life, and so it comes naturally to me. I have had a problem of trying to explain my views on cannabis species to others in person and have them debate me, and it actually is good because it makes one go back and have to explain and learn what is the fundamental nature of a species and what we mean when we say species and try to distinguish species from one another. What we find are often very blurry lines.

I would like to read more about your thoughts and opinions, feel free to PM me if you would prefer, or I can send you my email address. I will not continue this topic in open forum in case it would turn into a feces fest.

- Well, no one’s jumped into it (yet), and where it is is probably the best place for the discussion, as opposed to tokers den, or other. You should probably pm me, because I do not have enough posts to pm you otherwise I would.. Working my way there...

Using chemotype (or leaf morphology) to distinguish between species is not sound science, IMO anyway. It seems we agree on that point, at least. Using genetic analysis seems to be the best route, if only we could find fossilized cannabis tissue.

- I’m pretty sure de Meijer in “Patterns” uses a bunch of characters that many wouldn’t generally think of for his analysis.

- I agree genetic analysis is the way to go, but no one is really doing it in the way I feel we would like, except perhaps Hillig, who I completely disagree with.

- I very much doubt we will find fossilized cannabis tissue. Perhaps something in some rare amber find, but I think the best we can hope for are ancient burial sites of Cannabis user-worshippers that are found sporadically around Asia, and those are only going to be a handful of thousands of years old. We want millions and tens of millions. That’s the gold mine my friend that I’ve been thinking about for about 6 years or more now.
- And then, there is where to find that fossil! Like my questions before contemplated, did Cannabis evolve in Asia, and spread after India collided and forced up the Himalayas, or did its ancestors first evolve somewhere on eastern Africa before India split off, or while on India when it was still an island continent, or after it met with Asia while it was forming the Himalayas, and then spread to Asia, evolving into Cannabis there… Or something of the sort. And with the chicken and the egg, were we to find a fossil, would surely answer the question, where did Cannabis or its ancestors first evolve. But where to look? Perhaps people looking in Asia – India for such fossils have not found them because they are looking in the wrong places, and should look further to Africa… Or maybe I’m entirely wrong and we should look northward of central Asia?...
This is all great speculation, but it takes actually finding the fossil. I have speculated whether genetic methodologies could help elucidate the issue. I should look at some of the most recent cladograms to see of species around Cannabis and their locations and location origins and origins of ancestors. Ahhh more work haha. I have also speculated whether study into cannabis peculiar photoperiodic mechanisms and auto-flowering traits could help shed light on further understanding the issue, say if the ancestor was evolving on India before it hit Asia, and spread there of, could photoperiodic traits from this evolving ancestor of Cannabis, or ancestral Cannabis itself, be carried over in Cannabis of today.
- I am uncertain exactly how it is determined that Cannabis evolved around ~34 mya and not any earlier or later (given CO2 saturation at ~750 ppm though and the higher concentrations of CO2 within the atmosphere in earth’s earlier history it makes fair amount of sense to me, I’ve also been looking for a reference for that number, or a graph. I know I’ve seen a graph of paleoclimate and CO2 somewhere, and that’s what I’m running off of ..), and why it has remained unchanged, other than that it is simply a given, and no one has put forth reasoning as to why it may have been something like 20 or 10 or 5 million years ago that Cannabis first evolved.

- In doing some more research I found that there was a major extinction event about 35 mya .. Possibilities range from meteorites that hit both Siberia and north America to changing climate and polar glaciations… So this could be the trimming of the bush I was contemplating earlier regarding Cannabis ancestors.. I feel like an extinction event probably trimmed that tree of Cannabis ancestors down, and then glaciations were the final factor, including geographical limiting factor, in Cannabis’ evolution...

- So baked...

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Have you seen "Physical evidence for the antiquity of Cannabis sativa L." in the Dec. 1998 JIHA?
http://www.internationalhempassociation.org/jiha/jiha5208.html
I have seen a bit that was newer, but none as complete.

"Honestly to me, if I was doing a blind test, I could tell better by taste and smell the kind of pot I am smoking as opposed to the high. And honestly, most all pot to me gives me the same kind of high, no matter what the THC percent."

The type of high is determined by first of all THC and maybe any other Cannabinoids, if any besides THC are even present. Second and until recently overlooked is the Terpenoid contents, and besides THC it is the Terpenoids with THC that create all the different highs that have been reported by smokers, and yes the subjective effects are very different depending on the Terpenoids. Pure 100% THC is flat and boring, with the right Terpenoids I can make it up, speedy, clear, cerebral, psychedelic, or physical and couch lock like a narcotic. I assure you the highs are not even close to being the same. It is all dependent on the Terpenoids + THC.
-SamS