Cannabis Sativa the right name

[Break]

I red on "Erba Medica" the book published by ACT, italian Association Medical Cannabis, that it's wrong to to distinguish cannabis indica and cannabis sativa and to call it just Cannabis Indica. The right name is CANNABIS SATIVA, SUBSPECIES INDICA, for every kind of weed.

[Joe King Park]

Does that even include Jamaiican ?
Are'nt the Big Three Sativa, Indica, and more recently ; Rasta, which bumped Ruderelis as the three Different Varieties of Cannabis
or should we scrap all that and call it hemp, full stop
JKP

[AmeriSkunk]

Rasta is not a new subspecies, you guys shouldn't read Wikipedia, you realize that you can write over that right? That shit is writen by regular people, just watch where you get your info. Bad info can make you look like an ass, and sorry to inform you but that is bad info. I have discussed the topic before and "rasta" is just a crock of shit. You need to realize that you can have indica dominant phenos of strains that are usually "mostly sativa". Go look up pheno's because if you talking Rasta you prolly dont know what a pheno is.

[deliriumt]

I didn't read about 'rasta' on wikipedia, I read an article elsewhere about scientists and students in an australian university doing a dna analysis of over 190 different samples of cannabis plants and they found there to be a 3rd distinct subspecies of cannabis which they themselves called cannabis sativa 'rasta'.

They haven't officially named it as this species yet, it is just a name they came up with at the lab.

you are saying that this is a load of shit yet it was scientists that originally came up with the names of indica and sativa so how can you claim that the rasta subspecies the australian scientists have named can not be true when they did an extensive study of the dna of each plant they had samples of ???

are you saying that you have expertise in the study of cannabis plant dna ??? and that these scientists don't know what they are talking about ???

[Joe King Park]

Oh well, i believe it was chris bradey, through Cannabis Culture who brought this to my attention
But what do i know , i'm just posting what i have read up on, is all, and am not challenging your Knowledge
Sorry for posting. maybe the link to the said article will sway your mindset
don't forget at first Cannabis was linked to the Nettle family
but we learn by making mistakes, and now know Cannabis is not related to the Nettle, but it is related to Hop Plants
JKP

[AmeriSkunk]

I wont say that the scientists are stupid or anything but I have said before that scientists arent usually smokers and this is one tidbit of info on the whole internet that when it came out was a big deal but it has since been overlooked for obvious reasons. Like I said and I think you Delerium will agree that you can have indica dominant pheno's of strains that are usually "mostly sativa". I can take you to a page with an indica dominant pheno of Nevilles Haze, I got into an argument with the dude because I thought it couldn't happen but it did. The whole rasta debate is ove the growth patern and effects, something like Indica growth but with sativa effects, wich is what that page shows and I have chatted with the grower about it and thats what he described. Delerium you also know(I would assume) of the unusual pheno that lurks inside pot genetics, thats what I think is going on with the so called "rasta" strains. I am not going to debate this any further because this is a topic that can get people irritated quickly and I would like to remain a member of good ol Hempcity.

Peace and Happy Turkey Day

[deliriumt]

Heh no worries there

it is just a nice friendly discussion about this new mentioned potential 3rd subspecies of cannabis

I agree totally with on the pheno type thing e.g. jack herer can be a bastard after a few generations and start to loose it's hazey taste and tends to lean towards more of the indica side of things (I guess not allways but certainly for some of my jack herer stock from back in the day)

but according to various articles on this subject it sounded like the scientists collected and analysed samples of land race strains and not modern hybrids ???

can we confirm exactly what type of plants they studied from other resources on the net, wether they were true land race or modern hybrids ???

if they were modern hybrids then I totally agree with you ameriskunk that modern cannabis genetics are so complex and mixed of sativa/indicas that there is no way they could come up with a new subspecies and the study they made is a total waste of time ???

let's make this a nice topic to discuss and not turn it into an argument as we all have good thoughs on this I reckon.

regards

deliriumt

[Joe King Park]

I'm all for no arguments
probably why i signed up here at this peaceful haven
Joe

[AmeriSkunk]

I just find problems with this study in a few different areas, one they didn't and couldn't have grown all the pot, I assume the got the growth info from the growers or people who bought it. There are only two(3rd american government) legal public grow operations one is Dr. Guy in England, the other is Hortapharm in Holland, these guys know there pot and they have came to the conclusion of two main varieties Indica and Sativa and if you look into their studies they have done everything from gene manipulation to adding chemicals to produce very large trichs. What I'm saying is how do we know that these guys are credible? Honestly these are the only people I would accept the Rasta subspecies theory from.

As far as them being landrace I would think that the landrace strains would be more definative with their appearance, I mean Hazes are sativas the less its outcrossed the more sativa it will be influinced, does this sound right to you too? Indicas like Afghans are really heavy and I would think the more its outcrossed the less indica it would be influinced that is unless it was crossed with another 100% indica strain but you know where this is going. I think if they actually grew it that they were working with modern genes. But Like I said I dont think they grew it, theres no way the Aussie government would have given anyone a permit to grow pot, let alone release the information about it. On top of that what was the origional purpose of the "study", I mean they wouldn't have said "just grow around two hundred plants and lets describe the growth patterns" If the tests even happend there was a different study going on, thats why I dispute the whole thing.

Glad to hear that we can have a discussion not an argument, Im eager to hear what you think on he whole "reason of study"

Peace

[deliriumt]

same thoughts here ????

why was the study conducted to begin with ???

it was definately interesting to read the article the first time round, but you have raised valid points now, which in turn has made us doubt the study

I mean did they know they would possibly find another subspecies or were they originally conducting the study to try and find out something completly different ????

what the hell were those aussies up to

regards

deliriumt

[AmeriSkunk]

Thats what Im saying If it did happen what was the origional study about, if it did happen and to me thats a big IF. I have tried to look into it and I cant find the origional article the was supposidly posted by the scientists, so personally I think its a big rumor, thats whay I was saying origionally about bad info.

Happy Thanksgiving, its turkey time for me.

[deliriumt]

I see you have already discussed this on another forum a while back

you got to admit though it is interesting because they are mentioned on a lot of news sites ??

but I agree that trying to classify cannabis in this modern age is very difficult indeed ??

example why is it supposed that real drug cannabis should really be classed as indica ??

that just totally fucks with the whole sativa indica thing ???

e.g. a pure thai according to what rob clarke says should be really called a variant of indica ???

wouldn't that distort the whole industry all together being that we are used to saying things like haze is a pure sativa hybrid built up of sativa crosses between columbian, thai, mexican etc. ?

does this make sense to you ???

it totally blows my mind

regards

deliriumt

[AmeriSkunk]

I think if we tried to figure it all out our brains would explode

My definition of a Haze is just a semi spicy, uppity sativa regardless of its genetic makeup, you know what I mean right? I consider Acapulco gold a Haze even thoug its actually a landrace strain, wich I will proudly boast that I have a few beans of.

I see you have already discussed this on another forum a while back

God dont remind me, wasnt that on ACD? I hate that site and the "high ranking" members all hate me so I told Lemmi today to cancel my membership after someone took a shot at me. If I was wrong thats what I was told by a reliable source.

I think that the Indica get the "Drug" term is because of the lack of motivation that most give and the narcotic effect wich go hand in hand, but thats just my take because to me sativa's help me think more clearly, I can remember things that I wouldn't be able to on a strong Indica like Afghani #1 for instance(powerful)

I cant comment on the pure Thai, but I did read that Nol thinks its a pure sativa he wrote that it really helps him think, that doesnt sound like an Indica variant to me.

I think the whole canna industry is allready going a million different directions and yea this would convfuse things further.


KA BOOM, brain explosion

Peace

[deliriumt]

much prefer sativa dominant hybrids myself

if we are allowed to call them that these days

much prefer the energetic motivational highs you get from them.

then again there are some nice indica dominant hyrbids out there also that I like.

personally don't like that hazey taste e.g. S.A.G.E I can't stand the taste and smell of.

much prefer fruity tasting weed like blueberry for example.

gone off topic a bit here now haven't we

o well probably end up more interesting this way than it first started off

regards

deliriumt

[AmeriSkunk]

Ah conversations usually end up on a different topic, but I'm not the type of person to give a shit. Its all in good conversation, one thing leads to another.

I really cant say I have a specific preference, well maybe a good sour skunk the kind that makes your mouth salivate but I never turn down a good smoke, I like the Haze taste nice zest and with good company its hard to remember to keep smoking as I tend to talk when smoking some sativa, but on the other hand I enjoy a good strong indica, you know the kind you dont want to go around family after you smoke Afghani #1 will allways be a fav of mine nice peppery taste and a knockout stone, its one for the personal garden.

whats your take on purps, some people say "purps are crappy, and not powerful" well I say your smokin the wrong buds then. I've smoked some dank purps and I allways love that specific taste that they all share, damn it brings back memories. Im on probation now so I cant smoke for a while but when I get released I am hittin the dam and staying until the make me leave(lol)

I also love the fruity smokes, hell who doesn't? I think we just all together just love weed of all kinds as long as its not shitty.

Peace