What is the chemical explanation for the Sativa/Indica dichtomy?

[mad librettist]

The rough summary Mad, is If two varieties can interbreed and produce viable offspring, then they belong to the same species.

exactly! I wanted to bring up an example with way more variation than cannabis, so people get a sense of how common it is for a specie to have many varieties.


genetic testing has also been turning up some crazy surprises. if you hunt mushrooms, taxonomy can be confusing because traits we assumed must come from a common ancestor often evolve separately in more than one line.

Even microscopic features can lead us "astray".

And yet, there is a new philosophy of all this, that says we may as well group things in a way that helps us understand them. In all cases we have exceptions.

Thinks of dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and wolves (Canis lupus). Those are generally thought of as separate species, but their offspring are viable.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Whether or not the genus Cannabis can be divided into several species is beside the original point of this thread.

Deciding to separate a group into different species is partly based upon what appears to be the evolutionary trends within wild populations, whether or not these wild populations appear to be diverging through time or not. Since Cannabis has a long history of domestication and distribution by humans, this becomes rather complicated.

We do know that the plant probably originated in central/east Asia and was spread about the world for its edible seeds and medicinal and psychoactive effects. These plants which have been cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions tend to have a tall thin growth form with thin leaflets. One could argue that this growth form is an adaptation to tropical environments. Plants from the mountainous regions of Asia have a tendency towards a short squat growth form with broad leaflets. One could argue that this growth form is an adaptation to cold mountain environments and human selection for desirable hashplants.

People call these tropical influenced cannabis plants with a tall thin growth form Sativas, and we call the short squat mountain loving broadleafs Indicas. People have also noticed that there tends to be a difference in the psychoactive characteristics of these two growth forms, which is the original subject of this thread. Whether or not there has been any speciation events is somewhat beside the point. I think the analogies that have been made to other widely diverse domesticated organisms such as dogs and the cabbage group are spot on here.

From the discussions here so far it seems quite reasonable that the observed effects could come down to a compound or compounds which originated in and is isolated to the broadleaf population giving the narcotic effect to "Afghani" derived plants. I remember reading another thread about the history of landraces which discussed the changes in cultivation brought about by war and marketing. Supposedly the pre-drugwar, pre-Soviet, cannabis cultivation emphasized smoking quality bud. But the disruptions of war eliminated many historical local varieties which became replaced with commercial hashplants which could produce a more compact potent product more easily distributed in the growing worldwide black market. Selling to an overseas instead of local boutique market, the emphasis changed from quality of high to potency. And hash which gives you a swift narcotic kick to the head is considered potent and had higher resale value.

The observed "fact" that plant structure can be associated with quality of psychoactive effects lends credence to the idea that a critical gene which codes for some psychoactive compound, and a critical gene for plant structure, are located adjacent to one another on a chromosome, and are hence said to be linked. By their proximity these genes would be less likely to be separated in meiosis during crossing over. Breeders hoping to "tame" a tall lanky "sativa" by crossing it with a short squat "indica" would be trying to obtain a new sample of this chromosome with the rare combination of the "indica" plant structure allele and the "sativa" psychoactive compound allele exisiting side by side. Maybe what I'm calling the "sativa" allele is simply one that doesn't code for a narcotic effect associated with "Afghani" strains.

There is no doubt that cannabis can be grouped into "sativa" and "indica". People have been doing it for a number of generations now. Just as we can compare the different psychological attributes of Toy Poodles and Labrador Retrievers, speciation isn't the issue.

 

[KiefSweat]

the first step would be quantifying your plants.

The basic fact is that we know little about the chemical makeup of the plants.
That info would be key into then determining origins etc.

There have been a few studies besides the THC-V point, I think they have shown various terpenes to be related to various land race stock.

try to follow that and convoluted breeding mythologies and theroy and yea, be quite confusing.

 

[El Toker]

The fact is that there are too many unknowns in terms of the types and quantities of the various psychoactive chemicals in the plant.

The only thing that's going to change that is a lot of real scientists working on the question, which is not likely to happen any time soon.

I've smoked sativas and indicas for nearly 30 years and found that my state of mind beforehand, the environment I'm in and the way that I take it has a much more profound effect on the experience than the particular strain of cannabis that I'm smoking.

There's a great Penn and Teller "Bullshit" episode where they get a bunch of people to try different bottled waters and record their reviews. There were a lot of "connoisseurs" who were able to pick up the differences in flavour indicated by the labels. This, despite the fact that they were all from the same tap. The human capacity for this kind of self delusion is huge.

 

[G.O. Joe]

The human capacity for this kind of self delusion is huge.

Amen.

myrcene may be what people have been attributing the effects of cbd to for all these years.

It doesn't sound likely since it's widely found. CB1 binding has been shown to be the same whether or not terpenes are included with THC. Myrcene being one of the more volatile components, is the first to go on aging of the plant and aging of the finished product, so this is the reverse of what is said about the high at the clear/amber trichome stage, and Afghan hash-aging tradition. Still, myrcene and myrcene/limonene predominance has been found in unnamed indica strains:
http://www.ihc2010.org/eposters/posters/Poster_4987.swf

Sativa strains have different terpene profiles. It's not surprising if indicas do too. Do all indicas smell the same?

There is a dozen if not dozens of scientific papers on chemical fingerprinting of cannabis/hash samples/seedlings of known origin since the 80's. Here is a quote from the latest news:

The loading plot along the positive PC1 and positive PC2 shows that Bedropuur and AO contained more of the sesquiterpene alcohols guaiol, c-eudesmol, b-eudesmol (Fig. 2). The study by Hillig (2004) reported that guaiol, c-eudesmol, and b-eudesmol were characteristic terpenoid compounds of the C. indica varieties originating from Afghanistan. These sesquiterpenoid alcohols appear to be important in distinguishing C. indica varieties from one another because the AG, AN, AM, and AD varieties which are also C. indica morphotypes did not contain detectable levels of these compounds.

 

[draco]

...so to clarify...

there IS a difference. but it's not clear why.

i can be with that because i love them both! for myself - i'll happily live with the mystery - and enjoy them each for what they are to me.

viva la differance!!

 

[shmalphy]

"It's an ambiguous enterprise fraught with contradiction, but forward! Ever forward!"
Terence McKenna

 

[SourPurp]

Good thread, thanks for everybody contributing scientific information and viewpoint. I would like to see analysis of cannabinoid / terpenoid profiles of strains that can be considered defining or expressive of what we are used to calling sativa and indica - especially landraces from africa and south-america, afghanica indicas and so on, maybe followed by double blinds on psychoactive effects of these certain specimens. If enough data is gathered, some educated guesses could be made on expression of certain active compunds, though this would still be far from anything conclusive.

The sativa and indica thing propably originated in way described in this thread - electric s-a sativas being consumed and only afterwards narcotic afghanica 'indicas' being introduced to public. And our speak is fueled further by commercial interest - if you buy sativa seeds, you expect the high to be UP, and vica versa with Indicas. That being said, in common speak, this vocabulary is in my opinion very useful, and no matter how you feel about it, it's so widespread it's not going to go away, even if it is taxonomically wrong.

Completely agree, excellent thread.. very surprised this issue hasn't been actively discussed and investigated before now. Some people have offered some good suggestions for what it could be that causes the difference (ie terpenes/terpenoids/other cannabinoids). It could very well be some heretofore unknown constituent of cannabis as well..it will be interesting to find out for sure

 

[Ruosk]

I feel only cannabis community can spawn this kind of project. Even if some company did this kind of research - as they very well may - it'd take decades for the results to be publicly available - if even then.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

When indicas first became available to my market in the early eighties, it didn't put me to sleep. Mention is also commonly made in threads to broadleaf varieties which don't knock you out. The extreme narcotic effect is definitely not a trait of all indica morphotypes.

 

[Han Grolo]

Perhaps Chimeras DNA profiling will unearth some clues.

Has anyone given one of these home use TLC profilers a go?

 

[BasementBreeder]

When indicas first became available to my market in the early eighties, it didn't put me to sleep. Mention is also commonly made in threads to broadleaf varieties which don't knock you out. The extreme narcotic effect is definitely not a trait of all indica morphotypes.

^^^I assume this is the reason I frequently see Tom Hill use 'broadleaf' and 'narrow leaf' to describe plants. "Up high" and "couchlock" are traits than can be bread into or out of plants.

 

[G.O. Joe]

The aforementioned Hillig also did genetic testing on very possibly the same strains, and defines indica and sativa completely by geographic origin. Actually he defines them by how they graph on his little graphic, since they happen to fall into 2 clusters. In the chemical analysis article, (the abstract says) his graph has Afghan separate from everything else, but the genetic article graph overlaps with other Asian samples. The clone-only "G13" is included as 1 of the 10 Afghans; maybe it was instead seed of one of Nevil's hybrids.

Others have looked genetically at a large number of diverse samples in a different way, with different strains, and made different graphs, and concluded that Cannabis is a single species.

 

[plastochron]

Howdy all,

Great discussion so far. I recognize that the entourage effects conferred by terpene profiles are of utmost important. I think it is also important to consider that there may be differences in expression of THCA enzymes that could lead to subtle differences in the psychoactive perception of THC from different chemotypes. The attached article found that there was no predictable difference in the number of THCA synthase gene copies between different cannabis chemotypes, suggesting that there must be another biosynthetic mechanism (i.e. differences in THCA synthase enzyme or the expression of it) that confers elevated accumulation of THCA. This may be a stretch, but I think that differences in THCA synthase and its expression may also account for different highs. Clearly its a complex issue that also varies by consumer and situation. That being said, there are also some consistent perceptions experienced by most users of certain cultivars (e.g. forehead pressure after smoking headband or a more uplifting effect if you smoke a little bit of Paradise Seed's White berry and a sleepier, couchlock high if you smoke a bunch of it). Hopefully institutions in medical states will begin to perform more research soon; I think that there are a few main explanations for the lack of research by institutions currently making a killing off of selling medicinal cannabis: 1) they are only motivated by profit, 2) they do not want to draw more attention from government agencies by executing research and publishing results, and 3) these places are not run by people with the expertise to perform such research.

 

[atarijedi]

In my opinion, the couch-lock effects of Cannabis come from CBN (Cannabinol), which is a known sedative, and I believe the only compound in Cannabis with known sedative effects.

CBN comes from the degradation of THC. So if you think about how people grow, harvest and cure their plants, you can see how a plant that was allowed to grow for a longer time before harvest (as indicas do), and then you top it off with the curing process where no new THC is being created. That indicas might have a naturally higher CBN content.

I have also found that longer curing times also seem to increase the sedative effects of the cannabis. I haven't done any real experiments though, so this is all just supposition.

 

[Dysnomia]

I don't think differences in the THCA synthase have any effect on the high. Why should it? The end product is still THCA, isn't it?

I agree about the CBN being a sedative but lets not forget the terpenoids. Russo suggests in his article that Mycrene combined with THC could be behind the couch-lock phenomenon. I'm sure both of them (and perhaps some others) play a role whether we get couch-locked or not.

Also my anecdotal evidence suggests that higher levels of CBN (as in letting the plant over-ripen) attribute to a more 'confusing' and 'foggy' high.

I don't however understand why you think 'indicas' are allowed to grow(flower?) for a longer time compared to say a tropical 20 week 'satvia' and how that might contribute to a naturally higher CBN content.

Regards,
Dysnomia

 

[Hrpuffnkush]

i was speaking with Robert Clarke , He told me that All satvia's are Hemp, they contain little to no psychoactive properties..

Psychoactive properties are only found in Indicas "ie" our today satvias are just different indicas adapted to there environment over time ..

"ie" plant shapes and leaf shapes vari over time , Afghanica to narrow leaf patterns is an environmental adaptation..
A plants concept of time , compared to humans is incomprehensible...

i feel the basic tests that most labs are doing now days , dont have any real meaning just #'s for marketing
you could take a blue dream with 18.50 thc .30 cbd's and a bubba with exact same numbers and effect is waaay different..
like mentioned.. theres a lot going on tests dont show.
There is HUGE$$ involved and there way a head of us peasants on this subject...
look at the share price http://www.gwpharm.com/ LOL

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Hillig's work is maybe the most current. If you want to fix Wikipedia, do it, but Cannabis research is in the fast lane now and any changes you make will need to be updated soon. Good luck....
-SamS

- I hate to attack Wikipedia, which IS usually a resoundingly good offhand source for information, but their information on cannabis is largely a joke and should be taken with a grain of salt.

- I have considered doing large revisions myself of such sections but I don't really have the time and that is a book's worth of info to pine over that perhaps will be written some day and people can quote that and fix wikipedia.

- Schultes and Emboden at the time were trying to reclassify cannabis for a few reasons; one, taxonomists love to "discover" things that are already there, this happens all the time.
- I could get very technical with problems I've found described in various cannabis taxonomies, with quite a few large contradictory descriptions given between taxons (morphological traits some describe as "sativa" say, and others describe as "indica", and so on..). It gets veryyyy jargon-y and taxing to work through, even for someone who is familiar with botanical nomenclature, taxonomic keys, and so on.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

While I do agree in the importance of set and setting, no way they are more important then the chemical makeup of the plant.
I can assure you that plant material with little THC and all the wrong terpenes will not get you very high and you will likely not enjoy it regardless of set and setting.
Importance to the high is first of all THC, second terpenes depending on the type of high you seek as well as the taste and smell you prefer. If CBD, THCV, CBC, CBG, or CBN are found in significant amounts they will effect the high, but the other cannabinoids are not found very often in large amounts.
-SamS

The fact is that there are too many unknowns in terms of the types and quantities of the various psychoactive chemicals in the plant.

The only thing that's going to change that is a lot of real scientists working on the question, which is not likely to happen any time soon.

I've smoked sativas and indicas for nearly 30 years and found that my state of mind beforehand, the environment I'm in and the way that I take it has a much more profound effect on the experience than the particular strain of cannabis that I'm smoking.

There's a great Penn and Teller "Bullshit" episode where they get a bunch of people to try different bottled waters and record their reviews. There were a lot of "connoisseurs" who were able to pick up the differences in flavour indicated by the labels. This, despite the fact that they were all from the same tap. The human capacity for this kind of self delusion is huge.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Plant shapes and leaf shapes genotype are controlled by genetics, only the phenotypes are influenced by the environment.
And yes you can find a narrow leaf that is only THC and say 10%, vs a wide leaf that is only THC and also 10% and they will be very different due to the terpenes present. If you test Cannabinoids and Terpenes then you do get a good idea why a particular variety does what it does.
-SamS

i was speaking with Robert Clarke , He told me that All satvia's are Hemp, they contain little to no psychoactive properties..

Psychoactive properties are only found in Indicas "ie" our today satvias are just different indicas adapted to there environment over time ..

"ie" plant shapes and leaf shapes vari over time , Afghanica to narrow leaf patterns is an environmental adaptation..
A plants concept of time , compared to humans is incomprehensible...

i feel the basic tests that most labs are doing now days , dont have any real meaning just #'s for marketing
you could take a blue dream with 18.50 thc .30 cbd's and a bubba with exact same numbers and effect is waaay different..
like mentioned.. theres a lot going on tests dont show.
There is HUGE$$ involved and there way a head of us peasants on this subject...
look at the share price http://www.gwpharm.com/ LOL