Cannabis is cannabis. I'm glad you recognize this!
Those variations NOT actually recognized to exist by scientists are posited but HIGHLY contentious and not much evidence really exists to posit more than one species of cannabis and the existence of any subspecies is still quite dubious. Of course cultivars exist, this is what happens with tomatoes, apples, etc., same species but an individual population specifically bred and selected for certain characteristics.
But a new cultivar or the existence of populations of (potentially interbreeding) cultivars DOES NOT give contention for separating the species into further subspecies as Hillig would like to postulate through the use of chemotaxonomic methodology, as such methods are inherently flawed due to the transgenic nature of cannabis and chemical inheritance within it!
Transgenic doesn't mean what you think it does, watercup. I suggest you consult a dictionary before using words you don't understand, if you don't want to look like a total wanker.
Really? Then why don't you tell me what you *think* it means you fucking moron.
Try using your head and coming up with a logical, coherent, complete thought before typing fucking useless bullshit again
Cannabis- one species with many morons spewing bullshit they know nothing about.
Try reading for a change, here's something for you to pine over: "The Species Problem in Cannabis" Vol 1 + 2 by Small, the world's top cannabis taxonomist. Here I'll ruin the end for you: cannabis is one species!
"Transgenic plants possess a gene or genes that have been transferred from a different species. Although DNA of another species can be integrated in a plant genome by natural processes, the term "transgenic plants" refers to plants created in a laboratory using recombinant DNA technology." source: wikipedia
@stinkystinkpot OMFG. You are looking up transgenic plants. Cannabis is NOT a transgenic plant. And since when has cannabis ever been manipulated using DNA in a lab to create a new species? Oh, it hasn't!
The use of the term transgenic from the paper I mentioned refers to the transference of genes from one cannabis plant variety to another through hybridization, something done all the time through selection or direct DNA manipulation in the lab.
@stinkystinkpot The term was not misused. YOU do not understand science or scientists. THAT is the problem! YOU misuse the term, and make up nonsense that has NOTHING to deal with the facts of the issue!
The "biological" species concept that you adhere to is not written in stone, watercup. Your hero Ernest Small discussed several different species concepts and concluded that, "the more rigorously one attempts to specify necessary criteria for species recognition, the less useful that concept becomes." I suggest you heed his advice and be a little more open-minded, instead of lashing out at people who disagree with you.
@stinkystinkpot You mean the biological species concept that ALL scientists adhere to? No it is not written in stone, there have been exceptions, mostly all at the micro level.
My hero Small? Is that like you hero Hillig? OMFG you are an idiot. Try reading scientific articles not making up bullshit off the top of your head because you want to believe it is true. Do you understand what Small is talking about (exceptions at the micro level)? No of course you don't!
@stinkystinkpot Claiming all scientists adhere to the biological species concept is bullshit?
ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE OR JUST A CREATIONIST MORON???
ALL scientists adhere to the biological species concept BECAUSE GUESS WHAT THEY PASSED 4TH GRADE
You CLEARLY DO NOT understand what Small is talking about (have you even read the paper? Don't say yes because you need access to a place like jstor to do so, it is not available free).
I learned about the biological species concept in 10th grade biology, like most other people. It wasn't until college that I learned about other species concepts. Did you drop out after the 4th grade?
Your ability to take works like Small, etc., and construe a conclusion that the very authors of the papers themselves disagree with, is incredibly striking. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding and misreading of the studies. Small shows how he breaks up cannabis sativa into it's discernible varieties, which all freely hybridize. Later genetic studies plainly confirm this; one species with high variation and distinct populations, the intoxicant variety being the most heavily selected by on man
If the fact that the two gene pools can interbreed makes them the same species in your book, that's fine, and if you want to embrace a taxonomy built on an artifical foundation, go right ahead. However, if you think that plant taxonomists who recognize species boundaries on the basis of geographic distributions and stable phenotypic differences are creationist morons, then you are the one who is demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues.
Well seeing as humans, dogs, and numerous other species with varying gene pools to select upon are also one species, and if this is a taxonomy built on an "artificial foundation", whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean, I will go right ahead and embrace reality! Unfortunately for you taxonomists do not consider ecotypes or freely interbreeding varieties different species, and codominant alleles at a single locus do not suddenly make different species from these interbreeding varieties! OOPS!
Its very funny how you will say I do not understand what Small is talking about and you do (especially when you haven't even read his papers, and I have ALL of his work because I actually have access to jstor and other scientific databases) WHEN WHAT SMALL AND I SAY ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT (ie. cannabis is ONE species), and when what Small says entirely disagrees with your position. That's REALLLLY fucking funny ROFL OMFG can you say TROLL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Would that be the same Ernest Small who reported on p. 160 of vol. 1 that the so-called intoxicant and semi/non-intoxicant groups "can be separated with a remarkable level of correct classification of 94%," using numerical taxonomic techniques?
@stinkystinkpot And if you actually read Small you would know classification between intoxicant and semi or non intoxicant groups is just that; distinguishing between the two populations (NOT two different, non interbreeding species), much like one could distinguish between a plants of tall and short variety, or black and white people.
Yes I love morons who take science out of context *believing* it proves their idiot contentions.
The intoxicant, semi-intoxicant, and non-intoxicant chemotypes are determined by a pair of co-dominant alleles at a single locus. These three groups are artificial, and of no taxonomic significance.
The existence of separate indica and sativa gene pools in a diverse germplasm collection was revealed using genetic markers not subject to direct human selection. The two gene pools were then shown to have geographic integrity, and stable morphological and biochemical differences. These patterns of variation provide independent lines of evidence that the two gene pools diverged primarily as a result of natural evolutionary processes rather than human selection.
Again the ability to misrepresent science is amazing! You say "indica" and "sativa" "gene pools". What is that supposed to mean (nothing, since both freely interbreed). What you mean to say are separate cultivars or varieties. As if a diverse gene pool with which to select upon implies different species. You are back to arguing black and white people are different species!
Either a) you have not read Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52:161-180 (not just the abstract), b) you did not understand it, c) you do not think it is science, or d) you think the author is a creationist moron. Which is it?
You keep pulling nonsensical bullshit from nowhere.
A) you have not read Small or any cannabis taxonomy that does not support your futile position. B) you fail to recognize the historical perspective of many individuals trying to delineate cannabis into further subspecies and utterly failing. C) Taxonomists REJECT chemotaxonomic characters to distinguish cannabis populations, which in fact all freely interbreed.
IF you had paid any attention instead of being a spamming trolling idiot, or the other same moron I owned before on a sock puppet account, you would see that Hillig's papers have no basis for splitting up the cannabis genus into more than one species. The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa, along with Hillig's own findings, support this conclusion. Why a few differing alleles among freely interbreeding populations would make you think cannabis is more than one species... Dumb!
Amazing. Hillig managed to hoodwink the scientists who peer-reviewed his manuscripts and the professors on his doctoral committee, but you can find the flaws in his research without even reading it! What other magical powers do you possess?
YEP you CLEARLY have not read Hillig, Small, or any scientific work on cannabis LOL!
Reviewers let poor science get published all the time. Especially in these instances where reviewers are not cannabis experts. They will also publish competing hypotheses so long as it isn't fluff. There have been researchers postulating and trying to prove that cannabis is composed of more than one species, and EVERY TIME they fail! This is why in any taxonomy, botany, or text book, cannabis is one species.
You still fail to read Inheritance, along with other morphological and genetic studies of cannabis, with the multitude of authors all confirming that cannabis is one species with a high degree of variation. The distinction in populations you see is the result of selection acting upon particular landraces/ecotypes, varieties, and cultivars. Indica is no more than a variety, not a separate species. Cannabis Sativa is the species.
What are you talking about again? Cannabis is generally seen as polytypic (it displays more than one type but is one species). Look up the meaning of words you are using in that frantic wiki searching you are doing K!. Again you bring up authors who have tried to distinguish cannabis into subspecies but all they do is distinguish between varieties and cultivars. How about Li, Russo, de Meijer, Bagatta, Starks, Clarke, Lydon, Coffman, Holley, Turner, Beutler, der Manderosian, van der Kamp, etc.?
I knew you would get this wrong, which is why I trapped you with it. In botany a polytypic species describes species that can have more than one "type" or variety (or race if one prefers) or be comprised of subspecies (but does not have to be comprised of subspecies).
Once again you possess a fundamental misunderstanding of biology at even the basic definitions in the context of where and how they are being used! Who is an idiot? Yes we know it is you.
Ah, you have been caught in your own trap, grasshopper. If a genus is polytypic it has multiple species. If a species is polytypic, it has what you said. Cannabis is a genus, and you are both an idiot and a fool.
Cannabis AKA Cannabis sativa: ONE GENUS ONE SPECIES. The species is considered polytypic as there are multiple known varieties DUH everyone knows this but I keep having to remind you please learn it this time! It is ALL cannabis no matter how you look at it.
There is no need to repeat myself but you are such a fucking idiot apparently you cannot understand basic genetic and taxonomic concepts or read simple english.
The genus Cannabis and the species Cannabis sativa are not the same thing. They represent different levels in a hierarchy. One level can't equal another. It doesn't matter if there are one, two, or ten species of Cannabis. Your shallowness bores me.
A polytypic species can have different meaning based on zoological or botanical classification. You would do well to learn the difference, along with the problems associated with defining species versus subspecies, varieties, races, etc.
Because you confuse colloquial and taxonomic use of the word cannabis, and fail to recognize that cannabis taxonomically is only comprised of cannabis sativa (sativa the only recognized species consisting of multiple varieties) I suggest more research!
Hillig's data is fine (check the graphs), his conclusions about the data are incorrect. Hillig argues for his ideas without having all the evidence. How can cannabis be more than one species when intoxicant varieties can freely interbreed with non and low intoxicant varieties and produce viable heterozygous offspring? You STILL can't answer this question (or this next one) while I demolish all of your conspiracy claims and ridiculous diatribes.
How can cannabis be more than one species when you can take intoxicant varieties (or even a single variety) and through breeding/ inbreeding create cannabis that is intoxicant or highly intoxicant, or non-intoxicant and fiber producing? Why can you take fibrous and non-intoxicant cannabis and through breeding or inbreeding like you did before create intoxicant cannabis? Why can you hybridize cannabis of any variety on the planet?
Especially when the populations can interbreed and transfer their genes to subsequent populations. And when one does the experiment, they see Mendelian genetics at work - 2 homozygous parents produce intermediate heterozygous offspring, and selfing of intermediate offspring produces a 1:2:1 ratio of "pure" chemotype (homozygous) and heterozygous intermediates. Hillig doesn't check morphology or interfertility between populations for good reason; because these practical tools destroy his claims.
Taxonomists also generally find impractical a criteria for distinguishing species by requiring one to start with HPLC and GCMS in order to distinguish certain highly variable chemical constituents. If strong genetic variation existed that showed differing cannabis species, morphology alone should be enough to make such a distinction. We do not argue whether people with blue or brown eyes, light or dark skin, tall or short, fat or skinny, are different species.
Lamarck also didn't extensively test cannabis and made his conclusions based on intoxication, which is an even worse criterion for determining species than needing to use expensive laboratory equipment to find exact quantities. You either go off of bad information or debunked information.
You then ignore the multitude of studies that show why Lamarck and any other person who has postulated more than one cannabis species is incredibly wrong and cannabis only constitutes one species!
Small didn't need such equipment either, but he was able to research cannabis from all around the globe with different techniques and did not come to the conclusion Lamarck did. He came to the conclusion others who debunked Lamarck came to - that cannabis is one species, Cannabis sativa, and indica is only a cultivated variety.
It seems you really need to go back and re-learn the basics.
You are fucking retarded hahahahahahahaha! You keep making up nonsense and never answering the questions while I dance in circles around you LOL
How are you going to know the actual varying levels of cannabinoids without such? They had no measure for determining the amount of cannabinoid nor standard sample. A variety of cannabis with 1% THC will get you high. This is much different than a variety with 7%. But Lamarck didn't know this and didn't study it either.
Also, the intermediate forms that are seen with varying levels of hetrozygous chemotypes will also get you high. How can you (or Lamarck then) distinguish chemotypes by opinion? How is that scientific? Here smoke this and you can tell? No you can't, because personal tolerance and the biochemistry of the person and individual plant play a role. Scientists want a large sampling size to take a good average that will smooth out individual variation.
The chemotypes are based off more than just "intoxicant" and "non-intoxicant". There is SO much more going on that Lamarck never new about, and I didn't say we need these machines to distinguish cannabis chemotypes, the scientists and taxonomists themselves said these we do (you would know that IF you read the papers).
But you can keep making up nonsense while I dance the night away!
Small distinguished between varieties of cannabis sativa, and he used the terms variety and subspecies interchangeably. I do not agree with this usage of subspecies because I feel it has led to confusion, particularly with people like you, as he clearly states sativa is the only recognizable species (thus a contradiction in using subspecies). Small's interchangeable definition of variety and subspecies is outmoded, but may have been used to please those postulating splitting the species further.
There are pure and intermediate forms of cannabinoid phenotype/genotype and either can be brought out through breeding (much like fiber vs drug type or narrow vs broad leaf)
The "genetic divergence" in the "gene pool" you talk about is a matter of one or so alleles having dominance over the other. Why would simple inheritance characteristics imply separate species? Oh it wouldn't, no wonder taxonomists say cannabis is one species! Nature has selected for cannabis what works best,
Nature has selected for cannabis what works best in what environment, and we notice in environments south of 30 degrees N latitude, plants are more heavily selected for THC type cannabinoids than CBD cannabinoids. Man's discovery of cannabis has also acted on this natural variation, selecting for both traits as needed. The selection process that weeds out plants which can exhibit both characters is not indicative of separate species. Even so called ruderalis was discounted as a separate species!
Cannabis is ONE species, I suggest you read scientific articles and instead of taking out of context nonsense from wikipedia and trusting the bullshit of fellow moron potheads who also don't know dick about cannabis!
Are there ANY instances of non-freely interbreeding cannabis varieties or cultivars or landraces? No there are not. You know why? Because it's all one species with a large degree of variation! The variation you see is the result of selection, either natural or artificial.
Pot is NOT toxic...if it becomes toxic it will be because the government added the garbage...just like they did with tobacco. Prescription meds are loaded with toxins. Anything controlled by the government I would NOT touch.
I'm 54 and I have been around pot for many years...I have NEVER heard of anyone overdosing...it just doesn't happen. Pot is NOT a threat by any means. It should be legal. Now the toxic presciption pain meds that I have been on in the past is a threat and dangerous. These people are full of BS!!
"This difference between indica and sative is really hogwash" - this guy is INSANE. Tell that to the High Times Cup, or anyone who has ever been in a coffeeshop. The whole "Super Skunk" tabloid scare was about sativa having more THC and becoming common where people used to smoke indica.
And by the way I smoke almost exclusively sativas.
Actually that guy is not insane. Most taxonomists consider cannabis one species with a multitude of (either) cultivars, sub species, or varieties depending on who you ask.
When you look at factors such as cannabinoid content (potency), and potential effects, there is generally no difference between "sativa" and "indica". Any particular individual plant can have a varying cannabinoid content, from high to low, and a platitude of factors, including breeding and selection, affect the drug content.
I understand that all cannabis is one species. However, there are clear differences between sativas and indicas. For growers it is mainly in way they grow (flowering time, height). However, the of THC/CBD ratio is much higher in Sativas than in Indicas. This is a major excuse for villifying modern cannabis among prohibitionists.
They claim that CBD chills you out but that THC 'can cause schizophrenia' - which is nonsense of course, but that is how they are trying to get it banned.
Any differences there appear to be are simply the result of individual artificial selection of traits over time.
A species is defined as a population that will only interbreed with itself, and as far as I know there is no such cannabis variety/cultivar that is not interbreeding with another variety (ie. you hear about sativa/indica hybrids - well if sativa and indica were different species they couldn't interbreed and hybridize!)... And...
The study indicates its methodology. Having convinced myself I will no longer bother with someone who is so foul in language. Go ahead and find the stuff for your self. This was the first one I have found, there appear to be more like it. Good luck.
I already explained how THC ratios do not matter because of the property of transgenic segregation and how it can be bred and interbred to increase or decrease the THC content regardless of the kind.
The THC ratios between alleged indicas and sativas is not different, either can be low or high depending on the individual/'variety' and because of this any kind of chemotaxonomic study of cannabis succumbs to an enormous problem as cannabinoid content is not a good indicator of species boundaries
He said"no difference" is there difference between cherry tomato and bigbush? Yes. Is there difference between sour diesel and kush? Yes. Avoid name calling watercuplet, it is frowned upon. I have smoked many kinds of cannabis and have had many different effects. Some make your face numb, others your legs. Some cannabis doesnt make me tired some does. Then there are the ones I have smoked that make me really hungry, and I eat an entire bag of chips and bowls of ice cream. ; - )
Genetically and species wise no there is no difference, they are both of the same species of tomato just different cultivars DUH BOTANY! HELLO!
The difference in high is exactly what I described to you in how individual plants/cultivars can have certain characteristics that set them apart from other individuals. They are still members of the same species! A chihuahua and a great dane are the same species: DOG! and both can interbreed!
Difference in individuals is not difference in species!
I have had sex with many different kinds of girls of all colors, ethnicity, height. Each certainly had different traits I liked and didn't like, different taste, smell, texture.
They must all be a different species I can't imagine why there is no homogeneity within populations (wait there is... along with degrees of heterogeneity too, enough variation within species to allow for uniformity and evolution; though again not always as some species go extinct for lack of adaptive traits)!
A chemotaxonomic analysis of terpenoid variation in Cannabis.
This is the title. and here is the begining "To determine whether the terpenoid composition of the essential oil of Cannabis is useful for chemotaxonomic discrimination, extracts of pistillate inflorescences of 162 greenhouse-grown plants of diverse origin were analyzed by gas chromatography"
I posted it. Readily available online with a google search. But bad news for them as from The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis Sativa: "...no barriers between the different chemotypes of cannabis can be postulated. The plants that are differently distributed in a CBD vs THC plot have no large genetic differences, only DIFFERENT ALLELES AT ONE SINGLE LOCUS. Therefore the commonly practiced application of chemotype as a taxonomic criterion is very disputable." Hillig's work is flawed!
You don't seem to realize also that Hillig is more trying to differentiate between sub species, varieties, cultivars, and landrace cannabis populations as opposed to trying to schism the genus into 2 species sativa and indica. And while I am sure he would love to do that and get the credit for proving such, all his chemotaxonomy aside he fails to do the simple botanical test of crossbreeding that is really required to differentiate species from one another!
Because breeders can artificially select the phenom individuals that they can obtain, and hybridize and interbreed the plant to increase cannabinod content, this is where the "pot is stronger today then it was long ago" comes from. In one sense they are correct, but really the argument is a distortion of science, trying to turn the fact that you can breed more potent, or less potent pot, into a magical thing. People don't seem to realize the door swings both ways you CAN cross the streams!
I grow black eggplant and an oriental eggplant. The back one is of course black and bitter. The oriental one is white and crescent shaped, with a more delicate flavor. These non similarities can also be called differences. What a marvelous thing!
Just like all cannabis is cannabis one species and can interbreed with itself (actually I would disagree with this in all instances, I do believe there may be speciation in cannabis between certain cultivars but it is not yet been proven scientifically and needs further inquiry.)
You don't seem to understand what a species is and how it differs from a sub species, variety, and cultivar. Trust me I have researched this for a long long time!
I enjoy crescent eggplant much more than the other. There is an obvious difference to me. By your logic they are the same with no difference. That is not the way I see or taste it. Where you see no difference in cannabis I see lots. You agree with guy on tv, I disagree. I cant say I do not enjoy sativa, I do, but I like to smoke indica for its traits.
It doesn't matter how much you enjoy one over the other, you don't understand basic genetics and the species concept in biology.
BOTH are the same species. Tomato, eggplant, and cannabis. Look it up, all right there in 5 seconds on google.
In terms of species YES they are the same so long as they are interbreeding populations.
I am not saying I see no difference I am saying there is only one species, cannabis sativa. The difference you see accounts for individual variation and variety.
Most of the difference you find in indica and sativa is your own predisposition (brainwashing) tricking yourself one way or the other. There really is no difference, you should expand your horizons! Cannabis of all varieties and individuals has different potency, flavor, high, etc.
It is still one single species that can interbreed with itself. Nothing you say makes any sense, you would do well taking some biology and genetics 101. I don't need luck, I have the scientific method!
Most drugs (and THC included), will work like this; upon first imbibing, the drug will generally act as a stimulant (the uppity clear headed oh I'm high phase), after time relegating itself to more of a depressant (I'm relaxed and tired and my head is cloudy phase) upon which you smoke more and it's back up to stimulant again. This process repeats as per smoking habits, and of course changes somewhat depending on the individual.
By your logic white and black people are of a different species...
Hm, I have seen pygmy humans... There are even albinos! And blue people! Are these still humans? How can that be? And even intersex people? People can have all different shapes and sizes, and when they hybridize, you may get a blending of traits or find certain traits which are dominant over the other (in addition to a host of other things).
BUT they are still all humans!
And its the same with dogs and cats too!
And eggplants! Apples! Tomatoes! And Cannabis! Lots of difference same species!
You CLEARLY do not understand what the person in the video meant by difference.
You really need to learn some science and taxonomy, and how the binomial nomenclature system works. He is NOT saying there is no difference, but that there is only one species, and no genetic difference between alleged indica and sativa. I agree with him. This is different from there being differences within individuals and populations within a species.
You are wrong. Try and learn something about what you smoke!
What matters if I am sick and I enjoy sativa over indica. That is what is being discussed here. That is what matters.
I illustrate this by saying how I enjoy white eggplant over purple. I enjoy indica over sativa. Why? because I feel different when I use indica. That is my observations. So I conclude that the man on cnn saying no difference, is a lie.
You won't know any difference, either so called indica or sativa have varying cannabinoid levels from low to high, and breeding and selection can affect these levels.
There is no quantification of cannabinoid constituents in cannabis plant and products most people obtain from places like coffee shops, med shops, street. There are a few medicinal products, (spray like sativex and oral caplets marinol and drinks with cannabinoids) with a set percentage of THC per dose available by prescription.
Your perception and preconceived notions of "indica" versus "sativa" are also shaping what the experience of either will be like. You go to someone or a shop and they tell you "this is indica", and so you have the thought in your head and the predetermined idea of what it will do.
There is a term for this, it is called the placebo effect, and it works like a charm!
I have already explained effects, the rush, euphoria, pain reduction, tachycardia etc, at onset and drowsiness as effects subside.
I know plenty about cannabis first hand, from patients, doctors, and friends. The difference between sativa and indica is plain for me to see and feel. Scientific research on cannabis is not complete or agreed upon. Besides I know how to think for myself, and in the end that is what science is about my friend.
I'm a scientist junior, and LIFE is science so time to grow up stop shitting in your panties and get that life I previously mentioned.
All your anecdotes from friends and whoever IS ENTIRELY GARBAGE K? K. People make up so much nonsense about cannabis it's not even funny.
The difference is.. You have no clue. You are making things up based on nothing but your own ingrained brainwashing. There really is no difference in species, only in the individual. DUMB DUMB DUMB
Science is NOT about thinking for yourself. That's philosophy which is down the hall to the right. Science is about evidence, data. What did you find, and how do you explain what you found.
There is no room for belief and boxed up thinking in science, only critical thinking and skepticism.
Of course research on cannabis is not complete, it is rather years behind due to governmental restrictions.
Figured out ONE species with much variety yet or still think black people are another species?
There is differences within the species. I smoke indica weed and get a different high than sativa. This is evident to me. You cannot be that smart of a scientist when you talk like an asshole. I am in college and working my way into biology, so I will be able to prove the differences one day. Until then try to get some manners. Maybe have a closer look at indicas and sativas next time you get a chance. Good luck!
Of course there are differences within the individual, I have been having to beat this fact into your head since the beginning!
You smoke ANY kind of weed it will be a different high moron!
If you weren't such an idiot I wouldn't have to treat you like one. Try LEARNING something before you spew complete and utter bullshit about a subject you know nothing about!
You are a complete fool and keep IGNORING simple genetic facts! I'd skip on the sciences and work on the phrase "fries with that?"
Guess what? There have been PLENTY of taxonomists who have tried to find a new species within the cannabis genus and they ALL come up short EVERY TIME.
You still ramble on about looking at sativas and indicas MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK NEXT TIME AND PUT THE BOWL DOWN HAHAHAHAHAHA OMFG ROFL
How will you prove the difference you cannot even explain in the slightest WHY you can cross alleged "sativas" and "indicas" and wind up with a "indica/sativa" hybrid if cannabis is 2 species??!?!
Didn't fucking listen to anything I told you didn't want to hear any facts just keeps rambling on and on about indica this and sativa that STILL doesn't realize that all cannabis has varying cannabinoid levels and that selection can change these levels AND that you cannot differentiate cannabis by species based on cannabinoid profile OMFG DUMB not to mention that ALL cannabis plants can interbreed, meaning they are all one species. Plenty of REAL morphological and genetic studies back this up!
Why are you becoming so hostile? You know I am speaking sativas as a collective have different high than indicas as a collective. I think sativas have chemicals that do not exist in indicas. My evidence is from personal experience, having different effects from indica and sativa cannabis. I know people who feel the same way about it. I would guess due to different living conditions cannabis produces different chemicals. Without being an asshole, prove me wrong.
Its like hitting your head against a brick wall every time now OMFG
You can think whatever you like, you are STILL wrong. Cannabinoid profiles vary from individual to individual, there is no magic group of sativas and magic indicas that have all these magic differences.
You failed to read what I wrote numerous times and continue to ignore facts of reality.
The effects of cannabis has NOTHING to do with there being separate species. I have ALREADY proved this. READ A BOOK, do a google search!
You don't have any evidence. This is the problem. Personal experience is not evidence of a species difference, just because you *want* there to be a difference, because you *think* you are experiencing a "different" high. Other people repeating the same nonsense all around does not magically make blind belief factual.
Your guess is wrong, it is not due to living conditions, though a poor or altered environment can cause variations in cannabinoid levels the profile is largely genetically fixed.
I have already told you that individuals will all express a varying cannabinoid profile, the profile of subsequent generations from the hybridization of 2 parents can be dramatically different from the parents, and further selection can alter this. Heres a simple way to look at it. Take 2 plants High and Low THC and you cross them your (F1) babies are Lower, Low, Medium, Higher High THC. Take the babies and cross 2 of them you now get No THC, way Low, Lower, Low, Med, Higher, High, way High THC
I love how some moron thumbs down my comment on how to take 2 cannabis varieties and make insanely potent cannabis through breeding and artificial selection! Way to go you fucking narc!
This is the study you should read w w w (dot) genetics (dot) org/ cgi/ content /full /163/ 1/ 335
This is also interesting comes out about the same time as the previous study w w w (dot) amjbot (dot) org /cgi / content/ full /91 /6 /966
Though it is too bad because given the previous study what they say here about a two species concept in cannabis based on chemotaxonomic characters falls under huge scrutiny!
In a study at Indiana uni. 162 plants of wide variation were analyzed and broken down into sativa and indica based on preexisting morphology. The conclusion of the study showed the two varieties have distinct medicinal properties based on vast differences in terpenoids. I would give you a link but you would have to belong to my university. Good luck.
Give me the name of the paper I can find it. I probably already have the article saved anyway. There are quite a few like you mention
Again, the study I posted to you shows why these studies that are trying to differentiate species chemotaxonomically come under large question.
If sativa and indica were really different, they could not interbreed. But they can. Actually, even alleged ruderalis can breed with alleged sativa/indica (ie. alleged is moot, they are same species)!
The article I read explains how they use some special analysis to identify proteins and terpines and stuff. They are able to correctly identify which type of cannabis it is, and create a plot chart. Recognizing the properties of certain terpine compounds the study concludes that sativa and indica have specific medical application. This is the heart of what the cnn guy is calling hogwash.
Yeah, special analysis. Its called GC, HPLC, PCR, gel electrophoresis, etc
They a priori assume there is a difference in species and then go about looking for the differences.
The problem is all their work comes into question given the study I previously gave, due to the way cannabinoids are inherited.
Differing cananbinod profiles within individual cannabis plants will have varying degrees of medical application because of this variation in cannabinoid content, but that is well known.
What that guy was saying is that people seem to believe that there are 2 different species of cannabis out there, a whole separate species from cannabis sativa and its subspecies, cultivars, and varieties.
This is not true and simply factually incorrect as the person on cnn was stating, as there is only one scientifically recognized species within the genus cannabis, even though there is wide variation in individuals, cultivars, and landraces, there is still only 1 cannabis species - sativa.
Yeah, it is. But this study points out specifically the differences between the two groups of indica and sativa. Remember, This guy on here says there is no distinction. He says nothing of species and if it is implied it means nothing, difference between indica and sativa exist.
Difference between black and white people exist. They are STILL the same species, and this is what he was implying.
Difference WITHIN a population of organisms of the same species does not mean there is another species in the pop. Just one species with LOTS of variation. Genetically and morphologically there is for the most part no distinction as you can cross and select for the traits you want.
Why people try to fight points based on sheer nonsense when they are clearly wrong is beyond me.
No. He is trying to deny medical cannabis by saying there is no use for sativa or indica when indeed there is. He is telling people who dont know any better not to believe anyone who says otherwise. Many people dont even know about the effects of cannabis and dont care, that is the audience he is playing to.
He is trying to deny medical use of cannabis all together. Much different from the species question.
He is still correct when he says cannabis comprises of one species, and people trying to posit "sativas" as being better than "indicas" or vice versa is not only spurious but ridiculous for MANY reasons of which I have previously mentioned.
Can't control the dose? You can't with Nyquil either and it's a over the counter drug that is much more dangerous. I see nothing wrong with pot. It's better then taking their toxic prescriptions.
Well, you cannot know the particular cannabinoid (drug) content of the particular plant you are smoking unless it has been sampled for cannabinoid content in some way.
To my knowledge no one is doing this commercially for clubs and there are only a handful of labs worldwide that test for cannabinod content in plant samples.
In this sense you CAN titrate how much you smoke but you cannot titrate properly since you never know the amount of drug in a sample, thus can't gauge accurately.
He says there is not different in indica and sativa. That is flat out lies. Is there difference between bigboy tomato and cherry tomato? Kentucky bluegrass and the kind in your lawn? Gonna gold or Macintosh? Ask any connoisseur and they will tell you the real story. Smoke your mexi-bickweed if you want, I wont.
Lies huh? Do you have any actual scientific literature, you know, real scientific journal articles that show this?
Of course not you are blowing it out your ass!
No there isn't a difference between those tomatoes they are both varieties of ONE tomato species OMFG BOTANY NOT HARD!
I don't smoke brickweed moron, I was merely using it as an example morons like you in the usa can readily relate to, since sativas are not all uppity highs.
I still can't believe that medical cannabis is so controversial; especially since it was perfectly legal to use in the U.S. (even for recreational purposes) until 1938.
Whether or not it "works" in medically beneficial ways isn't even the issue; the issue is "do I, or do I not, have the right to my own body?"
We tolerate many narcotics that have NO medicinal value and are much more harmful to the human mind and body than cannabis (alcohol and tobacco, for example). Where's the logic?
Marijuana need be managed as a collective owned by the people but run as a state monopoly via management that enforces for diversion, weights & measures, money transfers, non-criminal history ownership or/ employment; Insurance for Security presences and group rate underwriting for other security measures.
ON-site medication might be a La Brea Tar pit; avoid.
This product is renewable for paper, possible household construction, medicine and a gateway drug to less crime.
Not so. Cannabis displays a property called transgenic segregation. It works like this; you take 2 individuals, female and male, and cross them. Invariably the genetics of one will have a higher THC content than the other. This results in a F1 population. This population will have a generally even distribution of THC content relative to the parents. Self the F1 to make an F2, and the resultant population now has individuals with contents 2-3 times higher, lower, and again inbetween the parents!
What this means is that both so called "sativa" and "indica" varieties can have high or low THC contents, and display a wide variety of highs, from the so called stony couchlock or the uppity head high, and neither kind of "high" will be exclusive to a particular "variety" ie. so called "indicas" will have uppity highs and sativas stony downer highs. Don't think so? In america you can get this shit called mexican brick weed. Its all sativa, but always a couchlock stony downer high. Why? CBD.
Legalize the freedom to pursuit happiness.
Alxscode 2 years ago
Cannabis is cannabis, recognized to exist in different variations such as sativa and indica and ruderalis.
theeeees 2 years ago
Taxonomy FACEPALM
Cannabis is cannabis. I'm glad you recognize this!
Those variations NOT actually recognized to exist by scientists are posited but HIGHLY contentious and not much evidence really exists to posit more than one species of cannabis and the existence of any subspecies is still quite dubious. Of course cultivars exist, this is what happens with tomatoes, apples, etc., same species but an individual population specifically bred and selected for certain characteristics.
watercup123456 2 years ago
But a new cultivar or the existence of populations of (potentially interbreeding) cultivars DOES NOT give contention for separating the species into further subspecies as Hillig would like to postulate through the use of chemotaxonomic methodology, as such methods are inherently flawed due to the transgenic nature of cannabis and chemical inheritance within it!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Comment removed
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
Transgenic doesn't mean what you think it does, watercup. I suggest you consult a dictionary before using words you don't understand, if you don't want to look like a total wanker.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
Really? Then why don't you tell me what you *think* it means you fucking moron.
Try using your head and coming up with a logical, coherent, complete thought before typing fucking useless bullshit again
Cannabis- one species with many morons spewing bullshit they know nothing about.
Try reading for a change, here's something for you to pine over: "The Species Problem in Cannabis" Vol 1 + 2 by Small, the world's top cannabis taxonomist. Here I'll ruin the end for you: cannabis is one species!
watercup123456 2 years ago
"Transgenic plants possess a gene or genes that have been transferred from a different species. Although DNA of another species can be integrated in a plant genome by natural processes, the term "transgenic plants" refers to plants created in a laboratory using recombinant DNA technology." source: wikipedia
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
@stinkystinkpot OMFG. You are looking up transgenic plants. Cannabis is NOT a transgenic plant. And since when has cannabis ever been manipulated using DNA in a lab to create a new species? Oh, it hasn't!
The use of the term transgenic from the paper I mentioned refers to the transference of genes from one cannabis plant variety to another through hybridization, something done all the time through selection or direct DNA manipulation in the lab.
watercup123456 2 years ago
If the term transgenic was misused in "the paper" you cited, and you knew it was a mistake, then why did you repeat it?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
@stinkystinkpot The term was not misused. YOU do not understand science or scientists. THAT is the problem! YOU misuse the term, and make up nonsense that has NOTHING to deal with the facts of the issue!
watercup123456 2 years ago
The "biological" species concept that you adhere to is not written in stone, watercup. Your hero Ernest Small discussed several different species concepts and concluded that, "the more rigorously one attempts to specify necessary criteria for species recognition, the less useful that concept becomes." I suggest you heed his advice and be a little more open-minded, instead of lashing out at people who disagree with you.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
@stinkystinkpot You mean the biological species concept that ALL scientists adhere to? No it is not written in stone, there have been exceptions, mostly all at the micro level.
My hero Small? Is that like you hero Hillig? OMFG you are an idiot. Try reading scientific articles not making up bullshit off the top of your head because you want to believe it is true. Do you understand what Small is talking about (exceptions at the micro level)? No of course you don't!
watercup123456 2 years ago
You make the ridiculous claim that "all scientists" adhere to the biological species concept, and you think it's me that's making up bullshit?
I understand what Small is talking about, you? Not so much.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
@stinkystinkpot Claiming all scientists adhere to the biological species concept is bullshit?
ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE OR JUST A CREATIONIST MORON???
ALL scientists adhere to the biological species concept BECAUSE GUESS WHAT THEY PASSED 4TH GRADE
You CLEARLY DO NOT understand what Small is talking about (have you even read the paper? Don't say yes because you need access to a place like jstor to do so, it is not available free).
watercup123456 2 years ago
I learned about the biological species concept in 10th grade biology, like most other people. It wasn't until college that I learned about other species concepts. Did you drop out after the 4th grade?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
Your ability to take works like Small, etc., and construe a conclusion that the very authors of the papers themselves disagree with, is incredibly striking. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding and misreading of the studies. Small shows how he breaks up cannabis sativa into it's discernible varieties, which all freely hybridize. Later genetic studies plainly confirm this; one species with high variation and distinct populations, the intoxicant variety being the most heavily selected by on man
watercup123456 2 years ago
If the fact that the two gene pools can interbreed makes them the same species in your book, that's fine, and if you want to embrace a taxonomy built on an artifical foundation, go right ahead. However, if you think that plant taxonomists who recognize species boundaries on the basis of geographic distributions and stable phenotypic differences are creationist morons, then you are the one who is demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
Well seeing as humans, dogs, and numerous other species with varying gene pools to select upon are also one species, and if this is a taxonomy built on an "artificial foundation", whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean, I will go right ahead and embrace reality! Unfortunately for you taxonomists do not consider ecotypes or freely interbreeding varieties different species, and codominant alleles at a single locus do not suddenly make different species from these interbreeding varieties! OOPS!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Its very funny how you will say I do not understand what Small is talking about and you do (especially when you haven't even read his papers, and I have ALL of his work because I actually have access to jstor and other scientific databases) WHEN WHAT SMALL AND I SAY ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT (ie. cannabis is ONE species), and when what Small says entirely disagrees with your position. That's REALLLLY fucking funny ROFL OMFG can you say TROLL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are a fucking moron LOL
watercup123456 2 years ago
Would that be the same Ernest Small who reported on p. 160 of vol. 1 that the so-called intoxicant and semi/non-intoxicant groups "can be separated with a remarkable level of correct classification of 94%," using numerical taxonomic techniques?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
@stinkystinkpot And if you actually read Small you would know classification between intoxicant and semi or non intoxicant groups is just that; distinguishing between the two populations (NOT two different, non interbreeding species), much like one could distinguish between a plants of tall and short variety, or black and white people.
Yes I love morons who take science out of context *believing* it proves their idiot contentions.
watercup123456 2 years ago
The intoxicant, semi-intoxicant, and non-intoxicant chemotypes are determined by a pair of co-dominant alleles at a single locus. These three groups are artificial, and of no taxonomic significance.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
So why would cannabis then be comprised of more than one species?
watercup123456 2 years ago
The existence of separate indica and sativa gene pools in a diverse germplasm collection was revealed using genetic markers not subject to direct human selection. The two gene pools were then shown to have geographic integrity, and stable morphological and biochemical differences. These patterns of variation provide independent lines of evidence that the two gene pools diverged primarily as a result of natural evolutionary processes rather than human selection.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
Again the ability to misrepresent science is amazing! You say "indica" and "sativa" "gene pools". What is that supposed to mean (nothing, since both freely interbreed). What you mean to say are separate cultivars or varieties. As if a diverse gene pool with which to select upon implies different species. You are back to arguing black and white people are different species!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Either a) you have not read Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52:161-180 (not just the abstract), b) you did not understand it, c) you do not think it is science, or d) you think the author is a creationist moron. Which is it?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
You keep pulling nonsensical bullshit from nowhere.
A) you have not read Small or any cannabis taxonomy that does not support your futile position. B) you fail to recognize the historical perspective of many individuals trying to delineate cannabis into further subspecies and utterly failing. C) Taxonomists REJECT chemotaxonomic characters to distinguish cannabis populations, which in fact all freely interbreed.
watercup123456 2 years ago
IF you had paid any attention instead of being a spamming trolling idiot, or the other same moron I owned before on a sock puppet account, you would see that Hillig's papers have no basis for splitting up the cannabis genus into more than one species. The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa, along with Hillig's own findings, support this conclusion. Why a few differing alleles among freely interbreeding populations would make you think cannabis is more than one species... Dumb!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Amazing. Hillig managed to hoodwink the scientists who peer-reviewed his manuscripts and the professors on his doctoral committee, but you can find the flaws in his research without even reading it! What other magical powers do you possess?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
YEP you CLEARLY have not read Hillig, Small, or any scientific work on cannabis LOL!
Reviewers let poor science get published all the time. Especially in these instances where reviewers are not cannabis experts. They will also publish competing hypotheses so long as it isn't fluff. There have been researchers postulating and trying to prove that cannabis is composed of more than one species, and EVERY TIME they fail! This is why in any taxonomy, botany, or text book, cannabis is one species.
watercup123456 2 years ago
You still fail to read Inheritance, along with other morphological and genetic studies of cannabis, with the multitude of authors all confirming that cannabis is one species with a high degree of variation. The distinction in populations you see is the result of selection acting upon particular landraces/ecotypes, varieties, and cultivars. Indica is no more than a variety, not a separate species. Cannabis Sativa is the species.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Do those multiple authors who "all" confirm that Cannabis is monotypic include Schultes, Anderson, and Emboden?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
What are you talking about again? Cannabis is generally seen as polytypic (it displays more than one type but is one species). Look up the meaning of words you are using in that frantic wiki searching you are doing K!. Again you bring up authors who have tried to distinguish cannabis into subspecies but all they do is distinguish between varieties and cultivars. How about Li, Russo, de Meijer, Bagatta, Starks, Clarke, Lydon, Coffman, Holley, Turner, Beutler, der Manderosian, van der Kamp, etc.?
watercup123456 2 years ago
A polytypic genus is one with multiple species. You are an idiot.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
I knew you would get this wrong, which is why I trapped you with it. In botany a polytypic species describes species that can have more than one "type" or variety (or race if one prefers) or be comprised of subspecies (but does not have to be comprised of subspecies).
Once again you possess a fundamental misunderstanding of biology at even the basic definitions in the context of where and how they are being used! Who is an idiot? Yes we know it is you.
Why haven't you answered the questions?
watercup123456 2 years ago
Ah, you have been caught in your own trap, grasshopper. If a genus is polytypic it has multiple species. If a species is polytypic, it has what you said. Cannabis is a genus, and you are both an idiot and a fool.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Cannabis AKA Cannabis sativa: ONE GENUS ONE SPECIES. The species is considered polytypic as there are multiple known varieties DUH everyone knows this but I keep having to remind you please learn it this time! It is ALL cannabis no matter how you look at it.
There is no need to repeat myself but you are such a fucking idiot apparently you cannot understand basic genetic and taxonomic concepts or read simple english.
Learn biology dip shit K!
watercup123456 2 years ago
The genus Cannabis and the species Cannabis sativa are not the same thing. They represent different levels in a hierarchy. One level can't equal another. It doesn't matter if there are one, two, or ten species of Cannabis. Your shallowness bores me.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
A polytypic species can have different meaning based on zoological or botanical classification. You would do well to learn the difference, along with the problems associated with defining species versus subspecies, varieties, races, etc.
Because you confuse colloquial and taxonomic use of the word cannabis, and fail to recognize that cannabis taxonomically is only comprised of cannabis sativa (sativa the only recognized species consisting of multiple varieties) I suggest more research!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Hillig's data is fine (check the graphs), his conclusions about the data are incorrect. Hillig argues for his ideas without having all the evidence. How can cannabis be more than one species when intoxicant varieties can freely interbreed with non and low intoxicant varieties and produce viable heterozygous offspring? You STILL can't answer this question (or this next one) while I demolish all of your conspiracy claims and ridiculous diatribes.
watercup123456 2 years ago
What does his allozyme study have to do with intoxicant and non-intoxicant varieties?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
You are fucking retarded. Go back and re-learn the basics K!
watercup123456 2 years ago
How can cannabis be more than one species when you can take intoxicant varieties (or even a single variety) and through breeding/ inbreeding create cannabis that is intoxicant or highly intoxicant, or non-intoxicant and fiber producing? Why can you take fibrous and non-intoxicant cannabis and through breeding or inbreeding like you did before create intoxicant cannabis? Why can you hybridize cannabis of any variety on the planet?
Are pygmy and asian people different species?
I shoot fireballs!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Especially when the populations can interbreed and transfer their genes to subsequent populations. And when one does the experiment, they see Mendelian genetics at work - 2 homozygous parents produce intermediate heterozygous offspring, and selfing of intermediate offspring produces a 1:2:1 ratio of "pure" chemotype (homozygous) and heterozygous intermediates. Hillig doesn't check morphology or interfertility between populations for good reason; because these practical tools destroy his claims.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Taxonomists also generally find impractical a criteria for distinguishing species by requiring one to start with HPLC and GCMS in order to distinguish certain highly variable chemical constituents. If strong genetic variation existed that showed differing cannabis species, morphology alone should be enough to make such a distinction. We do not argue whether people with blue or brown eyes, light or dark skin, tall or short, fat or skinny, are different species.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Lamarck didn't need expensive laboratory equipment to determine that C. indica is more intoxicating than C. sativa.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
Lamarck also didn't extensively test cannabis and made his conclusions based on intoxication, which is an even worse criterion for determining species than needing to use expensive laboratory equipment to find exact quantities. You either go off of bad information or debunked information.
You then ignore the multitude of studies that show why Lamarck and any other person who has postulated more than one cannabis species is incredibly wrong and cannabis only constitutes one species!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Small didn't need such equipment either, but he was able to research cannabis from all around the globe with different techniques and did not come to the conclusion Lamarck did. He came to the conclusion others who debunked Lamarck came to - that cannabis is one species, Cannabis sativa, and indica is only a cultivated variety.
It seems you really need to go back and re-learn the basics.
watercup123456 2 years ago
You are one who said HPLC and GCMS are needed to distinguish Cannabis chemotypes. Are you just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
You are fucking retarded hahahahahahahaha! You keep making up nonsense and never answering the questions while I dance in circles around you LOL
How are you going to know the actual varying levels of cannabinoids without such? They had no measure for determining the amount of cannabinoid nor standard sample. A variety of cannabis with 1% THC will get you high. This is much different than a variety with 7%. But Lamarck didn't know this and didn't study it either.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Also, the intermediate forms that are seen with varying levels of hetrozygous chemotypes will also get you high. How can you (or Lamarck then) distinguish chemotypes by opinion? How is that scientific? Here smoke this and you can tell? No you can't, because personal tolerance and the biochemistry of the person and individual plant play a role. Scientists want a large sampling size to take a good average that will smooth out individual variation.
watercup123456 2 years ago
The chemotypes are based off more than just "intoxicant" and "non-intoxicant". There is SO much more going on that Lamarck never new about, and I didn't say we need these machines to distinguish cannabis chemotypes, the scientists and taxonomists themselves said these we do (you would know that IF you read the papers).
But you can keep making up nonsense while I dance the night away!
watercup123456 2 years ago
We both agree that Small's method of distinguishing subspecies is impractical. At least we agree on something.
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
Small is distinguishing varieties and he plainly states this. He describes cannabis as one species and defines further varieties from there.
You use incompatible lines of reasoning and incorrect definitions to defend a position that is ill defined and simply not tenable!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Small distinguished two subspecies , each divided into two varieties. Do you accept his subdivision of C. sativa into subspecies and varieties?
stinkystinkpot 2 years ago
Small distinguished between varieties of cannabis sativa, and he used the terms variety and subspecies interchangeably. I do not agree with this usage of subspecies because I feel it has led to confusion, particularly with people like you, as he clearly states sativa is the only recognizable species (thus a contradiction in using subspecies). Small's interchangeable definition of variety and subspecies is outmoded, but may have been used to please those postulating splitting the species further.
watercup123456 2 years ago
There are pure and intermediate forms of cannabinoid phenotype/genotype and either can be brought out through breeding (much like fiber vs drug type or narrow vs broad leaf)
The "genetic divergence" in the "gene pool" you talk about is a matter of one or so alleles having dominance over the other. Why would simple inheritance characteristics imply separate species? Oh it wouldn't, no wonder taxonomists say cannabis is one species! Nature has selected for cannabis what works best,
watercup123456 2 years ago
Nature has selected for cannabis what works best in what environment, and we notice in environments south of 30 degrees N latitude, plants are more heavily selected for THC type cannabinoids than CBD cannabinoids. Man's discovery of cannabis has also acted on this natural variation, selecting for both traits as needed. The selection process that weeds out plants which can exhibit both characters is not indicative of separate species. Even so called ruderalis was discounted as a separate species!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Cannabis is ONE species, I suggest you read scientific articles and instead of taking out of context nonsense from wikipedia and trusting the bullshit of fellow moron potheads who also don't know dick about cannabis!
Are there ANY instances of non-freely interbreeding cannabis varieties or cultivars or landraces? No there are not. You know why? Because it's all one species with a large degree of variation! The variation you see is the result of selection, either natural or artificial.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Pot is NOT toxic...if it becomes toxic it will be because the government added the garbage...just like they did with tobacco. Prescription meds are loaded with toxins. Anything controlled by the government I would NOT touch.
TBA4Freedom 2 years ago 4
I'm 54 and I have been around pot for many years...I have NEVER heard of anyone overdosing...it just doesn't happen. Pot is NOT a threat by any means. It should be legal. Now the toxic presciption pain meds that I have been on in the past is a threat and dangerous. These people are full of BS!!
TBA4Freedom 2 years ago 6
"This difference between indica and sative is really hogwash" - this guy is INSANE. Tell that to the High Times Cup, or anyone who has ever been in a coffeeshop. The whole "Super Skunk" tabloid scare was about sativa having more THC and becoming common where people used to smoke indica.
And by the way I smoke almost exclusively sativas.
tigerone1970 2 years ago 2
Actually that guy is not insane. Most taxonomists consider cannabis one species with a multitude of (either) cultivars, sub species, or varieties depending on who you ask.
When you look at factors such as cannabinoid content (potency), and potential effects, there is generally no difference between "sativa" and "indica". Any particular individual plant can have a varying cannabinoid content, from high to low, and a platitude of factors, including breeding and selection, affect the drug content.
watercup123456 2 years ago
I understand that all cannabis is one species. However, there are clear differences between sativas and indicas. For growers it is mainly in way they grow (flowering time, height). However, the of THC/CBD ratio is much higher in Sativas than in Indicas. This is a major excuse for villifying modern cannabis among prohibitionists.
They claim that CBD chills you out but that THC 'can cause schizophrenia' - which is nonsense of course, but that is how they are trying to get it banned.
tigerone1970 2 years ago 2
What differences are there between the two?
Any differences there appear to be are simply the result of individual artificial selection of traits over time.
A species is defined as a population that will only interbreed with itself, and as far as I know there is no such cannabis variety/cultivar that is not interbreeding with another variety (ie. you hear about sativa/indica hybrids - well if sativa and indica were different species they couldn't interbreed and hybridize!)... And...
watercup123456 2 years ago
The study indicates its methodology. Having convinced myself I will no longer bother with someone who is so foul in language. Go ahead and find the stuff for your self. This was the first one I have found, there appear to be more like it. Good luck.
theeeees 2 years ago
I already explained how THC ratios do not matter because of the property of transgenic segregation and how it can be bred and interbred to increase or decrease the THC content regardless of the kind.
The THC ratios between alleged indicas and sativas is not different, either can be low or high depending on the individual/'variety' and because of this any kind of chemotaxonomic study of cannabis succumbs to an enormous problem as cannabinoid content is not a good indicator of species boundaries
watercup123456 2 years ago
He said"no difference" is there difference between cherry tomato and bigbush? Yes. Is there difference between sour diesel and kush? Yes. Avoid name calling watercuplet, it is frowned upon. I have smoked many kinds of cannabis and have had many different effects. Some make your face numb, others your legs. Some cannabis doesnt make me tired some does. Then there are the ones I have smoked that make me really hungry, and I eat an entire bag of chips and bowls of ice cream. ; - )
Good luck!
theeeees 2 years ago
Genetically and species wise no there is no difference, they are both of the same species of tomato just different cultivars DUH BOTANY! HELLO!
The difference in high is exactly what I described to you in how individual plants/cultivars can have certain characteristics that set them apart from other individuals. They are still members of the same species! A chihuahua and a great dane are the same species: DOG! and both can interbreed!
Difference in individuals is not difference in species!
watercup123456 2 years ago
I have had sex with many different kinds of girls of all colors, ethnicity, height. Each certainly had different traits I liked and didn't like, different taste, smell, texture.
They must all be a different species I can't imagine why there is no homogeneity within populations (wait there is... along with degrees of heterogeneity too, enough variation within species to allow for uniformity and evolution; though again not always as some species go extinct for lack of adaptive traits)!
watercup123456 2 years ago
A chemotaxonomic analysis of terpenoid variation in Cannabis.
This is the title. and here is the begining "To determine whether the terpenoid composition of the essential oil of Cannabis is useful for chemotaxonomic discrimination, extracts of pistillate inflorescences of 162 greenhouse-grown plants of diverse origin were analyzed by gas chromatography"
theeeees 2 years ago
I posted it. Readily available online with a google search. But bad news for them as from The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis Sativa: "...no barriers between the different chemotypes of cannabis can be postulated. The plants that are differently distributed in a CBD vs THC plot have no large genetic differences, only DIFFERENT ALLELES AT ONE SINGLE LOCUS. Therefore the commonly practiced application of chemotype as a taxonomic criterion is very disputable." Hillig's work is flawed!
watercup123456 2 years ago
You don't seem to realize also that Hillig is more trying to differentiate between sub species, varieties, cultivars, and landrace cannabis populations as opposed to trying to schism the genus into 2 species sativa and indica. And while I am sure he would love to do that and get the credit for proving such, all his chemotaxonomy aside he fails to do the simple botanical test of crossbreeding that is really required to differentiate species from one another!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Because breeders can artificially select the phenom individuals that they can obtain, and hybridize and interbreed the plant to increase cannabinod content, this is where the "pot is stronger today then it was long ago" comes from. In one sense they are correct, but really the argument is a distortion of science, trying to turn the fact that you can breed more potent, or less potent pot, into a magical thing. People don't seem to realize the door swings both ways you CAN cross the streams!
watercup123456 2 years ago
I grow black eggplant and an oriental eggplant. The back one is of course black and bitter. The oriental one is white and crescent shaped, with a more delicate flavor. These non similarities can also be called differences. What a marvelous thing!
theeeees 2 years ago
And both are of the same species of eggplant!
Just like all cannabis is cannabis one species and can interbreed with itself (actually I would disagree with this in all instances, I do believe there may be speciation in cannabis between certain cultivars but it is not yet been proven scientifically and needs further inquiry.)
You don't seem to understand what a species is and how it differs from a sub species, variety, and cultivar. Trust me I have researched this for a long long time!
watercup123456 2 years ago
I enjoy crescent eggplant much more than the other. There is an obvious difference to me. By your logic they are the same with no difference. That is not the way I see or taste it. Where you see no difference in cannabis I see lots. You agree with guy on tv, I disagree. I cant say I do not enjoy sativa, I do, but I like to smoke indica for its traits.
Good luck!
theeeees 2 years ago
It doesn't matter how much you enjoy one over the other, you don't understand basic genetics and the species concept in biology.
BOTH are the same species. Tomato, eggplant, and cannabis. Look it up, all right there in 5 seconds on google.
In terms of species YES they are the same so long as they are interbreeding populations.
I am not saying I see no difference I am saying there is only one species, cannabis sativa. The difference you see accounts for individual variation and variety.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Most of the difference you find in indica and sativa is your own predisposition (brainwashing) tricking yourself one way or the other. There really is no difference, you should expand your horizons! Cannabis of all varieties and individuals has different potency, flavor, high, etc.
It is still one single species that can interbreed with itself. Nothing you say makes any sense, you would do well taking some biology and genetics 101. I don't need luck, I have the scientific method!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Most drugs (and THC included), will work like this; upon first imbibing, the drug will generally act as a stimulant (the uppity clear headed oh I'm high phase), after time relegating itself to more of a depressant (I'm relaxed and tired and my head is cloudy phase) upon which you smoke more and it's back up to stimulant again. This process repeats as per smoking habits, and of course changes somewhat depending on the individual.
By your logic white and black people are of a different species...
watercup123456 2 years ago
Hm, I have seen pygmy humans... There are even albinos! And blue people! Are these still humans? How can that be? And even intersex people? People can have all different shapes and sizes, and when they hybridize, you may get a blending of traits or find certain traits which are dominant over the other (in addition to a host of other things).
BUT they are still all humans!
And its the same with dogs and cats too!
And eggplants! Apples! Tomatoes! And Cannabis! Lots of difference same species!
watercup123456 2 years ago
"lots of difference"- watercuplet
"difference is hogwash"- Guy on this video
"Indica is different than sativa" Me
theeeees 2 years ago
You CLEARLY do not understand what the person in the video meant by difference.
You really need to learn some science and taxonomy, and how the binomial nomenclature system works. He is NOT saying there is no difference, but that there is only one species, and no genetic difference between alleged indica and sativa. I agree with him. This is different from there being differences within individuals and populations within a species.
You are wrong. Try and learn something about what you smoke!
watercup123456 2 years ago
What matters if I am sick and I enjoy sativa over indica. That is what is being discussed here. That is what matters.
I illustrate this by saying how I enjoy white eggplant over purple. I enjoy indica over sativa. Why? because I feel different when I use indica. That is my observations. So I conclude that the man on cnn saying no difference, is a lie.
theeeees 2 years ago
You won't know any difference, either so called indica or sativa have varying cannabinoid levels from low to high, and breeding and selection can affect these levels.
There is no quantification of cannabinoid constituents in cannabis plant and products most people obtain from places like coffee shops, med shops, street. There are a few medicinal products, (spray like sativex and oral caplets marinol and drinks with cannabinoids) with a set percentage of THC per dose available by prescription.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Your perception and preconceived notions of "indica" versus "sativa" are also shaping what the experience of either will be like. You go to someone or a shop and they tell you "this is indica", and so you have the thought in your head and the predetermined idea of what it will do.
There is a term for this, it is called the placebo effect, and it works like a charm!
I have already explained effects, the rush, euphoria, pain reduction, tachycardia etc, at onset and drowsiness as effects subside.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Dont go all scientific on me professor.
I know plenty about cannabis first hand, from patients, doctors, and friends. The difference between sativa and indica is plain for me to see and feel. Scientific research on cannabis is not complete or agreed upon. Besides I know how to think for myself, and in the end that is what science is about my friend.
theeeees 2 years ago
Holy shit are you kidding.
I'm a scientist junior, and LIFE is science so time to grow up stop shitting in your panties and get that life I previously mentioned.
All your anecdotes from friends and whoever IS ENTIRELY GARBAGE K? K. People make up so much nonsense about cannabis it's not even funny.
The difference is.. You have no clue. You are making things up based on nothing but your own ingrained brainwashing. There really is no difference in species, only in the individual. DUMB DUMB DUMB
watercup123456 2 years ago
Science is NOT about thinking for yourself. That's philosophy which is down the hall to the right. Science is about evidence, data. What did you find, and how do you explain what you found.
There is no room for belief and boxed up thinking in science, only critical thinking and skepticism.
Of course research on cannabis is not complete, it is rather years behind due to governmental restrictions.
Figured out ONE species with much variety yet or still think black people are another species?
watercup123456 2 years ago
did you check the link? Did that help you any???
theeeees 2 years ago
If indica and sativa are different species, how come they can interbreed and create hybrids??
watercup123456 2 years ago
There is differences within the species. I smoke indica weed and get a different high than sativa. This is evident to me. You cannot be that smart of a scientist when you talk like an asshole. I am in college and working my way into biology, so I will be able to prove the differences one day. Until then try to get some manners. Maybe have a closer look at indicas and sativas next time you get a chance. Good luck!
theeeees 2 years ago
Of course there are differences within the individual, I have been having to beat this fact into your head since the beginning!
You smoke ANY kind of weed it will be a different high moron!
If you weren't such an idiot I wouldn't have to treat you like one. Try LEARNING something before you spew complete and utter bullshit about a subject you know nothing about!
You are a complete fool and keep IGNORING simple genetic facts! I'd skip on the sciences and work on the phrase "fries with that?"
watercup123456 2 years ago
Guess what? There have been PLENTY of taxonomists who have tried to find a new species within the cannabis genus and they ALL come up short EVERY TIME.
You still ramble on about looking at sativas and indicas MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK NEXT TIME AND PUT THE BOWL DOWN HAHAHAHAHAHA OMFG ROFL
How will you prove the difference you cannot even explain in the slightest WHY you can cross alleged "sativas" and "indicas" and wind up with a "indica/sativa" hybrid if cannabis is 2 species??!?!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Didn't fucking listen to anything I told you didn't want to hear any facts just keeps rambling on and on about indica this and sativa that STILL doesn't realize that all cannabis has varying cannabinoid levels and that selection can change these levels AND that you cannot differentiate cannabis by species based on cannabinoid profile OMFG DUMB not to mention that ALL cannabis plants can interbreed, meaning they are all one species. Plenty of REAL morphological and genetic studies back this up!
watercup123456 2 years ago
Why are you becoming so hostile? You know I am speaking sativas as a collective have different high than indicas as a collective. I think sativas have chemicals that do not exist in indicas. My evidence is from personal experience, having different effects from indica and sativa cannabis. I know people who feel the same way about it. I would guess due to different living conditions cannabis produces different chemicals. Without being an asshole, prove me wrong.
theeeees 2 years ago
Its like hitting your head against a brick wall every time now OMFG
You can think whatever you like, you are STILL wrong. Cannabinoid profiles vary from individual to individual, there is no magic group of sativas and magic indicas that have all these magic differences.
You failed to read what I wrote numerous times and continue to ignore facts of reality.
The effects of cannabis has NOTHING to do with there being separate species. I have ALREADY proved this. READ A BOOK, do a google search!
watercup123456 2 years ago
You don't have any evidence. This is the problem. Personal experience is not evidence of a species difference, just because you *want* there to be a difference, because you *think* you are experiencing a "different" high. Other people repeating the same nonsense all around does not magically make blind belief factual.
Your guess is wrong, it is not due to living conditions, though a poor or altered environment can cause variations in cannabinoid levels the profile is largely genetically fixed.
watercup123456 2 years ago
I have already told you that individuals will all express a varying cannabinoid profile, the profile of subsequent generations from the hybridization of 2 parents can be dramatically different from the parents, and further selection can alter this. Heres a simple way to look at it. Take 2 plants High and Low THC and you cross them your (F1) babies are Lower, Low, Medium, Higher High THC. Take the babies and cross 2 of them you now get No THC, way Low, Lower, Low, Med, Higher, High, way High THC
watercup123456 2 years ago
I love how some moron thumbs down my comment on how to take 2 cannabis varieties and make insanely potent cannabis through breeding and artificial selection! Way to go you fucking narc!
watercup123456 2 years ago
This is the study you should read w w w (dot) genetics (dot) org/ cgi/ content /full /163/ 1/ 335
This is also interesting comes out about the same time as the previous study w w w (dot) amjbot (dot) org /cgi / content/ full /91 /6 /966
Though it is too bad because given the previous study what they say here about a two species concept in cannabis based on chemotaxonomic characters falls under huge scrutiny!
watercup123456 2 years ago
In a study at Indiana uni. 162 plants of wide variation were analyzed and broken down into sativa and indica based on preexisting morphology. The conclusion of the study showed the two varieties have distinct medicinal properties based on vast differences in terpenoids. I would give you a link but you would have to belong to my university. Good luck.
theeeees 2 years ago
Give me the name of the paper I can find it. I probably already have the article saved anyway. There are quite a few like you mention
Again, the study I posted to you shows why these studies that are trying to differentiate species chemotaxonomically come under large question.
If sativa and indica were really different, they could not interbreed. But they can. Actually, even alleged ruderalis can breed with alleged sativa/indica (ie. alleged is moot, they are same species)!
watercup123456 2 years ago
The article I read explains how they use some special analysis to identify proteins and terpines and stuff. They are able to correctly identify which type of cannabis it is, and create a plot chart. Recognizing the properties of certain terpine compounds the study concludes that sativa and indica have specific medical application. This is the heart of what the cnn guy is calling hogwash.
theeeees 2 years ago
Yeah, special analysis. Its called GC, HPLC, PCR, gel electrophoresis, etc
They a priori assume there is a difference in species and then go about looking for the differences.
The problem is all their work comes into question given the study I previously gave, due to the way cannabinoids are inherited.
Differing cananbinod profiles within individual cannabis plants will have varying degrees of medical application because of this variation in cannabinoid content, but that is well known.
watercup123456 2 years ago
What that guy was saying is that people seem to believe that there are 2 different species of cannabis out there, a whole separate species from cannabis sativa and its subspecies, cultivars, and varieties.
This is not true and simply factually incorrect as the person on cnn was stating, as there is only one scientifically recognized species within the genus cannabis, even though there is wide variation in individuals, cultivars, and landraces, there is still only 1 cannabis species - sativa.
watercup123456 2 years ago
Yeah, it is. But this study points out specifically the differences between the two groups of indica and sativa. Remember, This guy on here says there is no distinction. He says nothing of species and if it is implied it means nothing, difference between indica and sativa exist.
theeeees 2 years ago
Difference between black and white people exist. They are STILL the same species, and this is what he was implying.
Difference WITHIN a population of organisms of the same species does not mean there is another species in the pop. Just one species with LOTS of variation. Genetically and morphologically there is for the most part no distinction as you can cross and select for the traits you want.
Why people try to fight points based on sheer nonsense when they are clearly wrong is beyond me.
watercup123456 2 years ago
No. He is trying to deny medical cannabis by saying there is no use for sativa or indica when indeed there is. He is telling people who dont know any better not to believe anyone who says otherwise. Many people dont even know about the effects of cannabis and dont care, that is the audience he is playing to.
theeeees 2 years ago
He is trying to deny medical use of cannabis all together. Much different from the species question.
He is still correct when he says cannabis comprises of one species, and people trying to posit "sativas" as being better than "indicas" or vice versa is not only spurious but ridiculous for MANY reasons of which I have previously mentioned.
watercup123456 2 years ago
are you get the videos I send to you?
theeeees 2 years ago
It sounds solid to me.
theeeees 2 years ago
Can't control the dose? You can't with Nyquil either and it's a over the counter drug that is much more dangerous. I see nothing wrong with pot. It's better then taking their toxic prescriptions.
TBA4Freedom 2 years ago
Well, you cannot know the particular cannabinoid (drug) content of the particular plant you are smoking unless it has been sampled for cannabinoid content in some way.
To my knowledge no one is doing this commercially for clubs and there are only a handful of labs worldwide that test for cannabinod content in plant samples.
In this sense you CAN titrate how much you smoke but you cannot titrate properly since you never know the amount of drug in a sample, thus can't gauge accurately.
watercup123456 2 years ago
He says there is not different in indica and sativa. That is flat out lies. Is there difference between bigboy tomato and cherry tomato? Kentucky bluegrass and the kind in your lawn? Gonna gold or Macintosh? Ask any connoisseur and they will tell you the real story. Smoke your mexi-bickweed if you want, I wont.
theeeees 2 years ago
Lies huh? Do you have any actual scientific literature, you know, real scientific journal articles that show this?
Of course not you are blowing it out your ass!
No there isn't a difference between those tomatoes they are both varieties of ONE tomato species OMFG BOTANY NOT HARD!
I don't smoke brickweed moron, I was merely using it as an example morons like you in the usa can readily relate to, since sativas are not all uppity highs.
ONE species cannabis sativa with many varieties!
watercup123456 2 years ago
I still can't believe that medical cannabis is so controversial; especially since it was perfectly legal to use in the U.S. (even for recreational purposes) until 1938.
Whether or not it "works" in medically beneficial ways isn't even the issue; the issue is "do I, or do I not, have the right to my own body?"
We tolerate many narcotics that have NO medicinal value and are much more harmful to the human mind and body than cannabis (alcohol and tobacco, for example). Where's the logic?
RationalDischarge 2 years ago
Marijuana need be managed as a collective owned by the people but run as a state monopoly via management that enforces for diversion, weights & measures, money transfers, non-criminal history ownership or/ employment; Insurance for Security presences and group rate underwriting for other security measures.
ON-site medication might be a La Brea Tar pit; avoid.
This product is renewable for paper, possible household construction, medicine and a gateway drug to less crime.
Hkepfer 2 years ago
Difference between indica and sativa? Hogwash? That guy is hogwash!
theeeees 2 years ago
Not so. Cannabis displays a property called transgenic segregation. It works like this; you take 2 individuals, female and male, and cross them. Invariably the genetics of one will have a higher THC content than the other. This results in a F1 population. This population will have a generally even distribution of THC content relative to the parents. Self the F1 to make an F2, and the resultant population now has individuals with contents 2-3 times higher, lower, and again inbetween the parents!
watercup123456 2 years ago
What this means is that both so called "sativa" and "indica" varieties can have high or low THC contents, and display a wide variety of highs, from the so called stony couchlock or the uppity head high, and neither kind of "high" will be exclusive to a particular "variety" ie. so called "indicas" will have uppity highs and sativas stony downer highs. Don't think so? In america you can get this shit called mexican brick weed. Its all sativa, but always a couchlock stony downer high. Why? CBD.
watercup123456 2 years ago
DIE OBSTIANT OLD FARTS! jk
theeeees 2 years ago
Comment removed
RationalDischarge 2 years ago