This is along the lines of what I read once, that the best grows are when the plants are always a little hungry. And the smoothest smoke I ever produced was some died on the vine flower.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Tom Hill Haze
- Thread starter Morphote
- Start date
I havent read that post by Mr. Hill, but I have read about indicas that have skinny leaves, tall as fuck and take forever to flower. Dont ask me to recall where I saw that, thats from over 14 years or so of reading. Lol
I've found a lot of info since that post.. He is correct. All drug type cannabis is Indica..
The Latin name may be a bit misleading, but NLD types are more commonly called “Sativa” in the commercial cannabis industry. Technically speaking, however, all THC- producing varieties of cannabis are indicas.
Last edited:
All cannabis (even fiber hemp) produces thc, the elderly in my country know something about it ...
In many areas considered the home of indica (or wld) many plants are sativa (or nld)...
It’s rather funny when cannabis is called ”indica” (India), thou it evolved in the North Eastern corner of Tibetan plateu around modern day Qinghai lake, after the Indian subcontinent collided with the Eurasian plate around 40 million years ago; creating the Himalayans and the Tibetan plateu. Cannabis is about 25 million years old.
..but according to a pollen studies it has been in India only little over 30 thousand years.
Cannabis was in Eastern Europe millions of years before it arrived to India.
I’m sure most of you have seen this study already, but it’s quite interesting how it all got started. According to some info, a good part of the Tibetan Plateu and Himalayas rose up during the first 10-15 million years – So wind and climate pattern changed because of this, forests and lush vegetation started to disappear. It became more windy and dry and then cannabis started to split from the more viney and bushy Humulus.
Now all you hippies can ask yourself did God really create Cannabis!? Hah-hah
..quite dramatic if it was conscious act; splitting the Pan Gaea and then smacking the Indian sub continent only to create pot. That left behind quite a big pile of dead meat only to create weed, ay. Jah Bless? Bom Shiva? Thank you Jesus?
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1...JIHjzpQZ27a6aPyQG_xiy0f0n1KVUwesdN1SfW75LAMEw==
Cannabis inAsia: its center oforigin andearly cultivation, based onasynthesis ofsubfossil pollen andarchaeobotanical studies
JohnM.McPartland1,2· WilliamHegman3· TengwenLong4Received: 20 December 2018 / Accepted: 6 May 2019 / Published online: 14 May 2019 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
Biogeographers assign the Cannabis centre of origin to “Central Asia”, mostly based on wild-type plant distribution data. We sought greater precision by adding new data: 155 fossil pollen studies (FPSs) in Asia. Many FPSs assign pollen of either Cannabis or Humulus (C–H) to collective names (e.g. Cannabis/Humulus or Cannabaceae). To dissect these aggregate data, we used ecological proxies. C–H pollen in a steppe assemblage (with Poaceae, Artemisia, Chenopodiaceae) was identified as wild-type Cannabis. C–H pollen in a forest assemblage (Alnus, Salix, Quercus, Robinia, Juglans) was identified as Humulus. C–H pollen curves that upsurged alongside crop pollen were identified as cultivated hemp. Subfossil seeds (fruits) at archaeo-logical sites also served as evidence of cultivation. All sites were mapped using geographic information system software. The oldest C–H pollen consistent with Cannabis dated to 19.6 ago (Ma), in northwestern China. However, Cannabis and Humulus diverged 27.8Ma, estimated by a molecular clock analysis. We bridged the temporal gap between the divergence date and the oldest pollen by mapping the earliest appearance of Artemisia. These data converge on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau, which we deduce as the Cannabis centre of origin, in the general vicinity of Qinghai Lake. This co-localizes with the first steppe community that evolved in Asia. From there, Cannabis first dispersed west (Europe by 6Ma) then east (eastern China by 1.2Ma). Cannabis pollen in India appeared by 32.6 thousand years (ka) ago. The earliest archaeological evidence was found in Japan, 10,000 BCE, followed by China.
..but according to a pollen studies it has been in India only little over 30 thousand years.
Cannabis was in Eastern Europe millions of years before it arrived to India.
I’m sure most of you have seen this study already, but it’s quite interesting how it all got started. According to some info, a good part of the Tibetan Plateu and Himalayas rose up during the first 10-15 million years – So wind and climate pattern changed because of this, forests and lush vegetation started to disappear. It became more windy and dry and then cannabis started to split from the more viney and bushy Humulus.
Now all you hippies can ask yourself did God really create Cannabis!? Hah-hah
..quite dramatic if it was conscious act; splitting the Pan Gaea and then smacking the Indian sub continent only to create pot. That left behind quite a big pile of dead meat only to create weed, ay. Jah Bless? Bom Shiva? Thank you Jesus?
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1...JIHjzpQZ27a6aPyQG_xiy0f0n1KVUwesdN1SfW75LAMEw==
Cannabis inAsia: its center oforigin andearly cultivation, based onasynthesis ofsubfossil pollen andarchaeobotanical studies
JohnM.McPartland1,2· WilliamHegman3· TengwenLong4Received: 20 December 2018 / Accepted: 6 May 2019 / Published online: 14 May 2019 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
Biogeographers assign the Cannabis centre of origin to “Central Asia”, mostly based on wild-type plant distribution data. We sought greater precision by adding new data: 155 fossil pollen studies (FPSs) in Asia. Many FPSs assign pollen of either Cannabis or Humulus (C–H) to collective names (e.g. Cannabis/Humulus or Cannabaceae). To dissect these aggregate data, we used ecological proxies. C–H pollen in a steppe assemblage (with Poaceae, Artemisia, Chenopodiaceae) was identified as wild-type Cannabis. C–H pollen in a forest assemblage (Alnus, Salix, Quercus, Robinia, Juglans) was identified as Humulus. C–H pollen curves that upsurged alongside crop pollen were identified as cultivated hemp. Subfossil seeds (fruits) at archaeo-logical sites also served as evidence of cultivation. All sites were mapped using geographic information system software. The oldest C–H pollen consistent with Cannabis dated to 19.6 ago (Ma), in northwestern China. However, Cannabis and Humulus diverged 27.8Ma, estimated by a molecular clock analysis. We bridged the temporal gap between the divergence date and the oldest pollen by mapping the earliest appearance of Artemisia. These data converge on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau, which we deduce as the Cannabis centre of origin, in the general vicinity of Qinghai Lake. This co-localizes with the first steppe community that evolved in Asia. From there, Cannabis first dispersed west (Europe by 6Ma) then east (eastern China by 1.2Ma). Cannabis pollen in India appeared by 32.6 thousand years (ka) ago. The earliest archaeological evidence was found in Japan, 10,000 BCE, followed by China.
sbeanonnamellow
Well-known member
Love me some Mc.Partland and really enjoy the conversation. I heard Tom was banned from ic again, does anyone know if it's temporary like usual or something more? It seems like it's been a while now.
From Chapter 4 in Cannabis sativa L. - Botany and Biotechnology.
Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica versus "Sativa" and "Indica"
Abstract
"The formal botanical taxonomy of Cannabis sativa Linnaeus and C. indica Lamarck has become entangled and subsumed by a new vernacular taxonomy of “Sativa” and “Indica.” The original protologues (descriptions, synonymies, and herbarium specimens) by Linnaeus and Lamarck are reviewed. The roots of the vernacular taxonomy are traced back to Vavilov and Schultes, who departed from the original concepts of Linnaeus and Lamarck. The modified concepts by Vavilov and Schultes were further remodeled by underground Cannabis breeders in the 1980s and 1990s. “Sativa” refers to plants of Indian heritage, in addition to their descendants carried in a diaspora to Southeast Asia, South- and East Africa, and even the Americas. “Indica” refers to Afghani landraces, together with their descendants in parts of Pakistan (the northwest, bordering Afghanistan). Phytochemical and genetic research supports the separation of “Sativa” and “Indica.” But their nomenclature does not align with formal botanical C. sativa and C. indica based on the protologues of Linnaeus and Lamarck. Furthermore, distinguishing between “Sativa” and “Indica” has become nearly impossible because of extensive cross-breeding in the past 40 years. Traditional landraces of “Sativa” and “Indica” are becoming extinct through introgressive hybridization. Solutions for reconciling the formal and vernacular taxonomies are proposed."
McPartland (2014) also proposes, "reconciling "Sativa" and "Indica" with C. sativa and C. indica by correcting the vernacular nomenclature: "Sativa" is really indica, and "Indica" is actually afghanica, and "Ruderalis" is usually sativa."
The chapter presents a timeline from Linnaeus to Lamarck, Hillig to Clarke and Merlin, and everything in between. It seems Hillig was the first to step out of the muddied "Indica" and "Sativa" nomenclature by introducing NLD and WLD biotypes around 2004/2005. It even looks like McPartland throws a little dig at the Clarke and Merlin publication for not citing precedent publications. Going as far to say, "if these phrases were botanical names, a taxonomist would invoke the principle of priority. For example, Clarke and Merlin (2013) erected a new biotype name, "BLD" (broad leaf drug). They objected to Hillig's names of biotypes based on leaf shape. Nevertheless, invoking priority, BLD is a later synonym of Hillig's WLD. Similarly, Clarke and Merlin (2015) strenuously rejected Small's taxonomic character "intoxicant." They replaced it with "psychoactive."
He ends the chapter by stating "Old landraces of Indian and Afghani heritage face extinction through introgressive hybridization. We need to recognize this biodiversity and conserve it----for future breeding efforts, at the very least."
When I read that last line I gain immense respect for all the legends before us and among us who work to keep lines pure. We truly stand on the shoulders of giants. Much love
From Chapter 4 in Cannabis sativa L. - Botany and Biotechnology.
Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica versus "Sativa" and "Indica"
Abstract
"The formal botanical taxonomy of Cannabis sativa Linnaeus and C. indica Lamarck has become entangled and subsumed by a new vernacular taxonomy of “Sativa” and “Indica.” The original protologues (descriptions, synonymies, and herbarium specimens) by Linnaeus and Lamarck are reviewed. The roots of the vernacular taxonomy are traced back to Vavilov and Schultes, who departed from the original concepts of Linnaeus and Lamarck. The modified concepts by Vavilov and Schultes were further remodeled by underground Cannabis breeders in the 1980s and 1990s. “Sativa” refers to plants of Indian heritage, in addition to their descendants carried in a diaspora to Southeast Asia, South- and East Africa, and even the Americas. “Indica” refers to Afghani landraces, together with their descendants in parts of Pakistan (the northwest, bordering Afghanistan). Phytochemical and genetic research supports the separation of “Sativa” and “Indica.” But their nomenclature does not align with formal botanical C. sativa and C. indica based on the protologues of Linnaeus and Lamarck. Furthermore, distinguishing between “Sativa” and “Indica” has become nearly impossible because of extensive cross-breeding in the past 40 years. Traditional landraces of “Sativa” and “Indica” are becoming extinct through introgressive hybridization. Solutions for reconciling the formal and vernacular taxonomies are proposed."
McPartland (2014) also proposes, "reconciling "Sativa" and "Indica" with C. sativa and C. indica by correcting the vernacular nomenclature: "Sativa" is really indica, and "Indica" is actually afghanica, and "Ruderalis" is usually sativa."
The chapter presents a timeline from Linnaeus to Lamarck, Hillig to Clarke and Merlin, and everything in between. It seems Hillig was the first to step out of the muddied "Indica" and "Sativa" nomenclature by introducing NLD and WLD biotypes around 2004/2005. It even looks like McPartland throws a little dig at the Clarke and Merlin publication for not citing precedent publications. Going as far to say, "if these phrases were botanical names, a taxonomist would invoke the principle of priority. For example, Clarke and Merlin (2013) erected a new biotype name, "BLD" (broad leaf drug). They objected to Hillig's names of biotypes based on leaf shape. Nevertheless, invoking priority, BLD is a later synonym of Hillig's WLD. Similarly, Clarke and Merlin (2015) strenuously rejected Small's taxonomic character "intoxicant." They replaced it with "psychoactive."
He ends the chapter by stating "Old landraces of Indian and Afghani heritage face extinction through introgressive hybridization. We need to recognize this biodiversity and conserve it----for future breeding efforts, at the very least."
When I read that last line I gain immense respect for all the legends before us and among us who work to keep lines pure. We truly stand on the shoulders of giants. Much love
Last edited:
Hello Elanius!! Hope all is well. Thanks for posting. Is the plant in this post your THH #24 or #25? The effects you describe are what I am searching for. How many weeks was this girl?
Thank you all! So that is what that means, ok cool, I thought it was across the pond slang. I know and love liver, but on a plate with onions and grits, not in my joint.
I’m caught up!!! 
The knowledge grows!! 
Three haze threads down, @MadMac, @MAHA KALA and this one. Next onto @flower~power s thread and the questions for Sam. Off to read another 10k post to pick up jewels along the way.
The knowledge grows!! Three haze threads down, @MadMac, @MAHA KALA and this one. Next onto @flower~power s thread and the questions for Sam. Off to read another 10k post to pick up jewels along the way.
Hopefully he will come back ..sometimes people take his smack talking way too seriously.
You should check out Hempy's Haze Discussion thread too. That's where the REAL Haze-fun is. Another 14K posts to shift thru ..talk about shifting thru when you get into that one!I’m caught up!!!
The Haze discussion thread
Hi all seams a few are getting there panty's all twisted out of shape when we bring up Neville's work with Haze and his contributions so i felt it was best to open a new thread were we can discuss both Sam and Neville's Haze lines is a mature and respectful way.
www.icmag.com
It’s not too bad in the smoke actually. Some have called it diesel-like also and i get that ..people are bonkers about RKS so why not some liver
exoticrobotic
Well-known member
Tom obviously knows his onions.
I've smoked quite a few of his hazes and crosses and they are a way above anything else i've sampled in years. They also show great diversity.
It's obvious a great deal of work has gone into the line.
A few months of smoking straight THH does something great to the brain. Like it connects more pathways and speeds pathways up a lot.
I got a great deal more done smoking it, had some amazing abstract ideas and was able to solve quite a few problems from the surreal perspective it gave.
I hope he hasn't been banned again
I've smoked quite a few of his hazes and crosses and they are a way above anything else i've sampled in years. They also show great diversity.
It's obvious a great deal of work has gone into the line.
A few months of smoking straight THH does something great to the brain. Like it connects more pathways and speeds pathways up a lot.
I got a great deal more done smoking it, had some amazing abstract ideas and was able to solve quite a few problems from the surreal perspective it gave.
I hope he hasn't been banned again
exoticrobotic
Well-known member
At some point i will get round to trying Sam's haze too
Hopefully he will come back ..sometimes people take his smack talking way too seriously.
You should check out Hempy's Haze Discussion thread too. That's where the REAL Haze-fun is. Another 14K posts to shift thru ..talk about shifting thru when you get into that one!
The Haze discussion thread
Hi all seams a few are getting there panty's all twisted out of shape when we bring up Neville's work with Haze and his contributions so i felt it was best to open a new thread were we can discuss both Sam and Neville's Haze lines is a mature and respectful way.www.icmag.com
Thank you!! I will definitely check out Hempys thread. And diesel-like isnt too bad, not like its cat piss or dog shit lol
yes I agree, I alwas enjoy when there's a new wave of tom posts. I like his style, and he knows what he's talking about.
Mods and Admins agree also and Tom will be unbanned/re-instated shortly!
GreenAndFast
Well-known member
He's hysterical. Humour doesn't come across well in written form does it
Whats the name of it?
