CSI humboldt thread

waterproof808 said:
I dont think all the names listed on phylos are identical. Sour Best Shit Ever, 707 Headband, Malibu PK, etc. are all different but listed in the same clone group as TK
Click to expand...

of course theyre different.. but people have submitted the same exact cut with all those different names. So whats being sold as headband one place is the same cut that csi submitted as tk
 
jayblaze710 said:
Phylos fucking sucks.
Click to expand...
LOL. When I read that I had to laugh. I'm blazed. Does phylos suck that much or do you think the same plant gets renamed a lot and people call S1 bag seeds the same name as the mom? Maybe phylos isn't that wrong people have just screwed things up. I don't know, asking. What is phylos testing? DNA? So S1s should have the same DNA as the mom, correct? I have a hard time using their galaxy gui so I don't use it much
 
rollinfunk said:
LOL. When I read that I had to laugh. I'm blazed. Does phylos suck that much or do you think the same plant gets renamed a lot and people call S1 bag seeds the same name as the mom? Maybe phylos isn't that wrong people have just screwed things up. I don't know, asking. What is phylos testing? DNA? So S1s should have the same DNA as the mom, correct? I have a hard time using their galaxy gui so I don't use it much
Click to expand...
Both.

But Phylos on its own sucks. Here’s Phylos results for Chem D. Which apparently is identical to Chem Dog, Girl Scout Cookies and Green Dragon Pineapple Thailand. It is just as closely related to Chem 4 as Motor Breath and OG Chem. It’s apparently not related to Chem 91. The results just aren’t very good.
 

Attachments

  • C5D7B246-742C-4ABE-AF17-2149ABEF2F68.png
    C5D7B246-742C-4ABE-AF17-2149ABEF2F68.png
    149.7 KB · Views: 32
jayblaze710 said:
Both.

But Phylos on its own sucks. Here’s Phylos results for Chem D. Which apparently is identical to Chem Dog, Girl Scout Cookies and Green Dragon Pineapple Thailand. It is just as closely related to Chem 4 as Motor Breath and OG Chem. It’s apparently not related to Chem 91. The results just aren’t very good.
Click to expand...
Something fishy going on there.
I'd be a little pissed to pay and find some plant I bred was identical to something else.
 
Last edited:
quiescent said:
Phylos isn't there yet. They need a real, complete snapshot of current genetics to make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...

idk.. maybe Im lookin at things wrong but if you look up something like "girl scout cookies".. you see the majority belong to "clone group: girl scout cookies GAL300". When you look at the clone group you can see all the different names that the same "girl scout cookie" cut was submitted. You've got people submitting it as sherbert, kandyland.. even something called paris OG 968. It's called the girls scout cookie clone group because thats what the majority of the submissions were submitted as but its not saying that (real)sherbert is the same as girl scout cookies just that someone submitted the girl scout cookie cut as "sherbert". If I were to submit a real girl scout cookie cut as Triangle Kush, it would be put in the "girl scout cookie" clone group.

You can see where csi submitted different chem S1's (#7 and #11) and phylos was able to distinguish the two (not in the same clone group), so it's not just that they are grouping similar cuts.
 
There's tons of issues with what phylos says is in a familial group. Either strains that are definitely related are excluded or strains that are at best very distant relatives, likely unrelated, are in the same grouping.

Until they can independently source a cut of strain x, be damn sure it's cut x and do that 10000 times their database is useless.

Not to forget mentioning that they're using decade old methodologies in a field that evolves quarterly.

If you wanna spend your afternoon stoned as fuck exploring phylos, more power to ya but you're not learning anything from it. It's totally a novelty right now.
 
quiescent said:
There's tons of issues with what phylos says is in a familial group. Either strains that are definitely related are excluded or strains that are at best very distant relatives, likely unrelated, are in the same grouping.

Until they can independently source a cut of strain x, be damn sure it's cut x and do that 10000 times their database is useless.

Not to forget mentioning that they're using decade old methodologies in a field that evolves quarterly.

If you wanna spend your afternoon stoned as fuck exploring phylos, more power to ya but you're not learning anything from it. It's totally a novelty right now.
Click to expand...

i sure as shit dont give a fuck enough to spend more than 5 minutes lol.. has no bearing on my existence, literally none and I couldnt care less if I tried
 
blowincherrypie said:
i sure as shit dont give a fuck enough to spend more than 5 minutes lol.. has no bearing on my existence, literally none and I couldnt care less if I tried
Click to expand...
Lol, I hear ya. Was just saying that it's interesting to use. Not saying that people should write it off entirely, I dunno how many industry folks have any faith in it. It'd be interesting to hear someone like Kevin Jodrey talk about it, from his perspective.

I think that the phylos guys would be better off making it private and redoing it correctly from the foundational levels, figuring out what parts of marijuana strain lore don't match up and doing a written piece on their project's findings with data (free to be analyzed by independent researchers) to back up their conclusions.

I can't spend much time fucking with phylos either, it's not intuitive for people that don't understand how its displaying the information and it doesn't get much more friendly once you do either lol.
 
quiescent said:
Lol, I hear ya. Was just saying that it's interesting to use. Not saying that people should write it off entirely, I dunno how many industry folks have any faith in it. It'd be interesting to hear someone like Kevin Jodrey talk about it, from his perspective.

I think that the phylos guys would be better off making it private and redoing it correctly from the foundational levels, figuring out what parts of marijuana strain lore don't match up and doing a written piece on their project's findings with data (free to be analyzed by independent researchers) to back up their conclusions.

I can't spend much time fucking with phylos either, it's not intuitive for people that don't understand how its displaying the information and it doesn't get much more friendly once you do either lol.
Click to expand...

Just being honest.. I dont know the science behind it, and havent taken the time to read up on it, so I only have a real face value opinion/understanding so I cant really say much more about it lol, I know a lot of you guys know a lot more about this shit than I do so I think that's my cue to fade into the sunset right?

I did notice that Jodrey was on their testimonials.. and also submitted one of those "OG" "TK" "Headband" cuts fwiw. I would also be interested to hear more about his experience/perspective.
 
blowincherrypie said:
Just being honest.. I dont know the science behind it, and havent taken the time to read up on it, so I only have a real face value opinion/understanding so I cant really say much more about it lol, I know a lot of you guys know a lot more about this shit than I do so I think that's my cue to fade into the sunset right?

I did notice that Jodrey was on their testimonials.. and also submitted one of those "OG" "TK" "Headband" cuts fwiw. I would also be interested to hear more about his experience/perspective.
Click to expand...
Same here, haven't really sat down to figure out what being in the same sphere means for the strains.
Could being in the same sphere be similar to the Haplogroupings used to determine a common ancestor in human genetics? For instance, my human Y chromosome haplogroup is R1a1, these subclads can be further refined to a very small group of people that are basically long lost cousins.
 
Bakersfield said:
Same here, haven't really sat down to figure out what being in the same sphere means for the strains.
Could being in the same sphere be similar to the Haplogroupings used to determine a common ancestor in human genetics? For instance, my human Y chromosome haplogroup is R1a1, these subclads can be further refined to a very small group of people that are basically long lost cousins.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of stuff that I'm talking about when I say I don't think it's ready to use as a source of information. If you've had headband you'd know you absolutely could not compare it to triangle just based on the "headband feeling".

If something is distantly related it'd be interesting to know HOW distantly.

If something is in a strain's sphere that's unexpected it would be awesome to know WHERE the relationship comes in.

If something is expected to be related based on marijuana lore but doesn't show up in the sphere knowing WHY they determined it to be so, either data available to be analyzed by a 3rd party or definitively mapping where either came from. Like why chem d and chem91 aren't related at all even though they supposedly came from the same plants and obviously share some traits.

I'm not a geneticist or anything like that. I'm sure plenty of people have an equal or greater understanding of the what, how and why that could make me change my mind but phylos hasn't done anything to make that possible.

I think that in a few years the phylos team will have better technology and access to genetics for them to make the most of their idea or someone else will come in and make it happen.

Still would be cool to have someone like Kevin talk about it or having a member of the phylos team go on something like the pot cast and talk about their project and address some questions/concerns from the community.
 
quiescent said:
This is the kind of stuff that I'm talking about when I say I don't think it's ready to use as a source of information. If you've had headband you'd know you absolutely could not compare it to triangle just based on the "headband feeling".

If something is distantly related it'd be interesting to know HOW distantly.

If something is in a strain's sphere that's unexpected it would be awesome to know WHERE the relationship comes in.

If something is expected to be related based on marijuana lore but doesn't show up in the sphere knowing WHY they determined it to be so, either data available to be analyzed by a 3rd party or definitively mapping where either came from. Like why chem d and chem91 aren't related at all even though they supposedly came from the same plants and obviously share some traits.

I'm not a geneticist or anything like that. I'm sure plenty of people have an equal or greater understanding of the what, how and why that could make me change my mind but phylos hasn't done anything to make that possible.

I think that in a few years the phylos team will have better technology and access to genetics for them to make the most of their idea or someone else will come in and make it happen.

Still would be cool to have someone like Kevin talk about it or having a member of the phylos team go on something like the pot cast and talk about their project and address some questions/concerns from the community.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong here, but I dont think they are saying headband is triangle.. They are saying the cut that someone sent in as headband share 99% of their dna, acording to their testing, as the cut csi sent in as TK.

https://medium.com/phylos/clone-groups-in-the-phylos-galaxy-ad54ce8a7e1f

but I know literally nothing about their testing.. so what exactly sharing 99% of their dna means, I couldnt say lol

edit: fuckin curiosity got the best of me and I wanted some answers to our questions so I broke down and googled lol
 
Last edited:
I know that it was sent in as headband, my point is that A) whoever sent that in is an idiot and B) anyone can send in anything and phylos will tell you that someone is a moron... just muddies the waters imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top