Stop using the word "marijuana"..it's called Cannabis

[Sam_Skunkman]

its cannabis sativa

its SCIENCE

You do understand that all Cannabis Sativa is hemp?
Cannabis Indica includes wide and narrow leaf drug varieties.
-SamS

 

[oldchuck]

its cannabis sativa

its SCIENCE

So I should call my tomatoes Solanum lycopersicum?

And, Sam, as far as I know official taxonomy continues to cling to the single species designation.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

No problem, stick to it.
But it is inadequate, and out dated.
Even Hillig's WLD, WLH, NLD, NLH is not really enough, because a Cannabinoid and terpene profile and %'s as well as early, med, late, maturation, would help to really understand the clone or seed varieties, and any potential future uses.
And that is not including seed yield, oil EFA profile, as well as fiber and hurd yields. Or plant yields of any products and as well any resistance to pests or diseases. Or special traits.

But even as is, NLD is better then a Sativa from India that is a drug variety. At least to me. I get it that all drug varieties are Indica WLD or NLD, we just used to call NLD like Colombian, Sativas, while it is mostly the NLH that are really Sativas.

More DNA science will I suspect confirm the NLD, WLD, NLH, WLH, theories and then everyone will switch over to the new nomenclature. Many have already.
-SamS

So I should call my tomatoes Solanum lycopersicum?

And, Sam, as far as I know official taxonomy continues to cling to the single species designation.

 

[oldchuck]

I agree, the terminology needs extensive clarification but I don't think that necessarily requires additional species. Maybe it does. I'm no taxonomist. Unfortunately the whole "sativa" "indica" nonsense is so entrenched in the pot commercial world any change will require more than a taxonomy ruling from on high.

 

[bombadil.360]

You do understand that all Cannabis Sativa is hemp?
Cannabis Indica includes wide and narrow leaf drug varieties.
-SamS

Hola Sam

wow, interesting, I was still under the impression that Sativa was the proper term to refer to all cultivated cannabis.

if my memory does not fail, Sativa is a Latin term to denote a cultivated species of plant.

And thus I still assumed that since it is still in use to denote cultivated plant species like Oriza Sativa (or Oryza, Rice) it would still be used to denote cultivated cannabis.

I'd really love to know what are the reasons to use Indica to denote Drug varieties and Sativa for hemp varieties? considering that selecting against THC to make Hemp varieties is kinda quite recent in comparison to selecting for psyche-active purposes.

I'm sort of an etymology aficionado, so I need to know

thank you!

peace

 

[DuskrayTroubador]

Words only really make sense within the context of understood usage. What this entails for us is: any word or term that is understood (in its meaning) among the parties participating in the conversation is appropriate. If one person refers to cannabis one way and the others understand, that's fine.

Some names may be (by nigh unanimous agreement) really fucking dumb, but whatever. People still get it.

Let's not attach too much unnecessary stigma to words. Let's not be oversensitive; there are a handful of words that aren't always appropriate (due to histories/etymologies being intertwined with atrocities), but those are very few in number. I don't think "marijuana" counts as one.

Call it whatever makes sense to you and the people you're talking with.

 

[Baron Greenback]

Hopefully this hasn't been posted earlier but it seems to be the latest taxonomy. With any luck the link might even work -http://www.beyondthc.com/mcpartlands-corrected-vernacular-nomenclature/

 

[PaullyHighBred]

Hola Sam

I'd really love to know what are the reasons to use Indica to denote Drug varieties and Sativa for hemp varieties? considering that selecting against THC to make Hemp varieties is kinda quite recent in comparison to selecting for psyche-active purposes.

I'm sort of an etymology aficionado, so I need to know

thank you!

peace

I'm not Sam, but I'll take a stab at answering it...

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"...

 

[bombadil.360]

thank you Paully

I'm still unsatisfied though; not meaning to say the current trend in calling drug-types Indica is wrong, but just that I want to know the reason why is was chosen over Sativa.

Considering that the meaning of Sativa denotes a cultivated species of plant, while Indica denotes a place of origin i.e: India (including areas and new countries that were part of India such as Pakistan etc...)

It seems strange that the term Indica was chosen over Sativa to denote drug-types; unless it has been officially confirmed through genetics that the definite origin of drug varieties is India?

there must be another reason I'm not thinking of and that is what I'd like to know.

thanks again.

peace!

 

[oldchuck]

I don't think even good DNA information will completely resolve the issue. All Cannabis freely, easily, and promiscuously interbreeds. In my garden right now are thriving several F2 cross between Ciskei (a southern Africa variety) and Finola (A Finish hemp variety). These plants don't fall cleanly into any of the aforementioned categories. And, of course, they are not even vaguely uniform.

 

[mofeta]

thank you Paully

I'm still unsatisfied though; not meaning to say the current trend in calling drug-types Indica is wrong, but just that I want to know the reason why is was chosen over Sativa.

Considering that the meaning of Sativa denotes a cultivated species of plant, while Indica denotes a place of origin i.e: India (including areas and new countries that were part of India such as Pakistan etc...)

It seems strange that the term Indica was chosen over Sativa to denote drug-types; unless it has been officially confirmed through genetics that the definite origin of drug varieties is India?

there must be another reason I'm not thinking of and that is what I'd like to know.

thanks again.

peace!

Hi bombadil.360

Plant taxonomy and the closely nomenclature are arts that are opaque to most laymen. They follow a strict set of rules and protocols that can seem (even to professionals) to defy common sense sometimes. They really do make sense a lot of the time, though (with some notable exceptions).

The principle of botanical nomenclature that will help you understand this particular question about sativa vs indica is called "The Priciple of Priority". The first valid description published establishes the name for that organism. When Linnaeus (the originator of modern taxonomy and nomenclature) first introduced the name "Cannabis sativa" he was describing hemp. So it trumps all later namings.

Here are some terms/subjects to look up about taxonomy and nomenclature that can help a person understand some key concepts:

Carl Linnaeus
binomial nomenclature
Plant Taxonomy
Botanical Nomenclature
The Priciple of Priority
type specimen
circumscription


This is a link to the "International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code)"

Here is a relevant section:

DIVISION I. PRINCIPLES

Principle I

The nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants is independent of zoological and bacteriological nomenclature. This Code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups treated as algae, fungi, or plants, whether or not these groups were originally so treated (see Pre. 8).

Principle II

The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of nomenclatural types.

Principle III

The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication.

Principle IV

Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in accordance with the rules, except in specified cases.

Principle V

Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated as Latin regardless of their derivation.

Principle VI

The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.

Happy reading!

mofeta

 

[Donn]

It's unfortunate that the botanical nomenclature has become common usage, for a couple reasons. One of them is the instability of the botanical nomenclature, which I suppose wreaks a little havoc in its own world where everyone's able to keep up with things but existing literature isn't going to be edited and reprinted. Common usage has a much harder time adapting. I have to appeal to anyone who cares, please don't follow McPartland's recommendation and start calling NLD "indica", that's guaranteed to cause nothing but confusion.

Narrow Leaf Drug is fine. It's great if people want to start using that. When others use "sativa", it's really utterly irrelevant whether that matches botanical nomenclature. No one ever sees botanists any more, you're more likely to run into the Prince of Persia. The only problem I have with Narrow Leaf Drug is that it's an incomplete phrase - we aren't talking about "a drug", it's a ... strain. Is that OK? I am pretty sure it isn't OK with everyone, but is there a better alternative than "biotype"?

 

[mofeta]

Hi Don

Yeah, I am with you on that. I keep up on the "official" stuff out of curiosity, but modern taxonomy and nomencalture leaves me gritting my teeth and rolling my eyes more often than not, especially in my pet genera (like Trichocereus). Taxonomists are usually kinda weird Aspergerish guys that get lost in the formalities at the expense of utility.

With that in mind, when I consider the original topic of this thread, I feel like asking the OP:

What do you call this?:

Is that a tomato, or Lycopersicon? (Ha Ha! Trick question! After a couple centuries of officially calling this Lycopersicon, after reclassifying it from Solanum as Linnaeus placed it originally, have decided that it is Solanum after all! This illustrates Donn's point about common names, it has been a tomato all along.)

The answer is, it is both, but almost all people, even taxonomists, refer to that thing as a tomato, in an everyday context. Even in scientific papers you will see guys using common names, just because it makes sense to. Just like I refer to my little friend as my "dog", not my "canid".

 

[mofeta]

Ha Ha, I see that the tomato example was used by oldchuck on the previous page. Sorry oldchuck, if you want me to delete that part of my post above, just say the word. Great minds think alike, eh?

 

[Donn]

Well, common names can be messed up, that's for sure. Texans call evening primroses "buttercups." Pink flowers, even. But in the present case, it isn't like people are really being called upon to learn any plant taxonomy, mostly they're just labels attached to dried plant material.

 

[Jellyfish]

mostly they're just labels attached to dried plant material.

Which we love to smoke. Smoke pot, people.

 

[Bud Green]

smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot...

Hmm, somebody told me that a very long time ago... they never said anything about "cannabis"....

 

[noyd666]

HELL YER LETS GO GET STONED.

 

[Granger2]

I call it whatever rolls off my tongue. I like the term Marijuana. Considering that Ruderalis fundamentally differs from the others in it's not being affected by daylength, I don't see how it can be grouped with sativas.

We, the people, we who grow, breed, use Cannabis sativa/afghanica/indica/ruderalis should have the final say. The word in the Marijuana Culture is that sativas have a more up high and longer bloom/maturity, indicas/afghanicas have a more sedative high and shorter bloom/maturity. Ruderalis isn't daylength sensitive and isn't very potent. Science can do what it wants, but it should follow our lead and nomenclature. -granger

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Yes I am familiar with John's work he had sent it to me for comments before he presented the poster at the ICRS last year.
I do not agree with all of it.
DNA will reveal the facts.
-SamS

Hopefully this hasn't been posted earlier but it seems to be the latest taxonomy. With any luck the link might even work -http://www.beyondthc.com/mcpartlands-corrected-vernacular-nomenclature/