100 percent indica or sativa

[Moebius]

Sorry, but this is completely untrue.

There are any number of 100% pure indica strains out there for commercial sale, as well as any number of 100% pure sativas.

Off the top of my head, Afghan #1, Black Domina, Master Kush, Hindu Kush, Maple Leaf indica, and Mazari Shariff are a few pure Afghani indicas that are commercially available that come to mind. William's Wonder is a pure indica, and this was recently re-introduced into seed form by Sickmeds seeds. I think Granddaddy purps is a pure indica too.

As to pure sativas, again there are plenty of them out there (including Durban Poison and other African strains, Neville's haze, Mexican Sativa, etc), though as a matter of practice the pure sativas can't be grown outdoors to completion in most of the USA. They're also not suitable for indoor growing, especially for beginners (they tend to stretch and take a long time to finish).

If you really want a "sativa" you're probably better off with a strong sativa hybrid like Jack Herer, Super Silver Haze, etc, etc.

Sativa and Indica are just names coined in the 18th century.

Throughout the millenia these plants have exchanged genes naturally. Its strange to me that people call them 'Pure' since we all know how easy they cross-pollinate .... The science proves this too.

 

[Ringsixty]

Look for Old Skool Strains. If your looking for 100% of either... Good Luck

 

[Trousers]

I have locust and apple trees, ponderosas and jack pines.
Sometimes I call them trees, sometimes I call them by their name.

 

[Jogro]

On the topic of indica vs sativa, yes, of course all cannabis species including ruderalis and other hemp species are legally considered to be cannabis sativa, and since they can interbreed, they are also genetically/taxonomically the same species.

But as a matter of convention, the hashish-making strains from the subcontinent share certain characteristics (short height, quick flowering time, narcotic-type effect, etc) and are conventionally called "indicas" by the cannabis community.

Saying all indicas are "sativas" is correct from a taxonomic standpoint, but it doesn't really tell the whole story. IE, you can go to the pet store looking for "a dog" or looking for "a poodle". All poodles are dogs. . .the converse isn't true. A poodle and a pekingese may both be dogs, may be able to interbreed, and in fact, share about 99.999% genetic homology, but there are still important distinctions between them.

On landrace strains, first a definition. The term "landrace" refers to a true-breeding strain associated with a particular geographic location, that has adapted to growth in that location over many (typically at least 40, and in some cases, hundreds or even thousands) of generations. Note that in the case of pretty much any medical cannabis "landrace" we're interested in, human selection was involved.

I think its debatable whether or not you can have an "indica" strain that isn't a "landrace", but that's sort of a semantic argument, and really irrelevant. Again, by convention, if a strain is entirely derived from subcontinental plants, or nearly so, its an "indica" for the purposes of most growers.

Now, how desirable is it to grow landrace plants? Lots of people want to do this. . .or THINK they want to, but the fact is, these plants are really NOT optimal for MOST growers.

Again, by definition, landrace strains are adopted to their particular geographic location.

Tropical sativas (eg Thai, Oaxacan, Columbian, etc), are difficult to grow indoors, and impossible to complete outdoors in most of the USA. For most AMERICAN growers, a pure sativa simply isn't a good choice. On the other hand, something like this could be a great choice if you happen to live in the mountains of Columbia, etc! If you happen to live in Northern CA, for example, there are any number of local strains that have been in continuous outdoor growth for decades (eg Salmon Chase Bud, Mendocino purple, etc). Some of these are hybrids, some are "pure" indicas, but at this point, these are effectively "American" landraces, and could be good strains to grow in their respective areas.

On the flip side, many of the pure subcontinental indicas are accustomed to a DRY climate. You certainly can grow these in most of the USA, but some of them may be susceptible to bud rot in the humid American fall, may not be very pest resistant, etc.

The reason why most indoor growers are growing hybrid strains is simply because those sorts of strains are most adapted to indoor growing, a highly unnatural condition. If you're after short height, potency, fast flowering time, rapid growth, etc, typically the hybrid strains DESIGNED to give you those traits are going to do so better than a strain picked out of the jungle in Cambodia, etc.

 

[Jogro]

Sativa and Indica are just names coined in the 18th century.

That doesn't, by itself, invalidate their utility.

Admittedly, the terms "indica" and "sativa" are somewhat questionable from a genetics standpoint, and they're often used incorrectly, but its self-evident, I think that they continue to be used anyway, because they're useful for conveying a broad picture of certain traits.

Throughout the millenia these plants have exchanged genes naturally. Its strange to me that people call them 'Pure' since we all know how easy they cross-pollinate .... The science proves this too.

They've exchanged genes both naturally and unnaturally.

I think the only reasonable application of the term "pure" here is to refer to landrace strains in unhybridized form.

Again, can you have a "pure" indica that is NOT a subcontinental landrace (or at least a locally adapted direct descendant of one)?

Arguably you cannot, though for practical purposes, if you have a strain derived from crosses of several different subcontinental indicas, its probably still fair to call it an "indica".

In terms of percentages, that's sort of a can of worms. I'd say that even if the designation of a particular hybrid as 75% indica/25% sativa is genetically sound, it may not be all that helpful in the real world, because plants with that genetic background can have an extremely wide variety of phenotypes across a very broad spectrum. But as a sort of "first rough estimate" of what kind of traits a given plant might express, the percentage measurement can give some useful information *IF* its used appropriately, and taken with the appropriate grain of salt.

 

[Moebius]

Sativa and Indica are just names coined in the 18th century.

That doesn't, by itself, invalidate their utility.

I'm not saying it does but mention it to point out the distinction is a relatively modern one. ... Although relatively modern the terms were coined long before Darwin was born and before DNA was conceived .... I agree the terms still have semantic use but question the genetic distinction.

(You seem to state the same in this quote)>

Admittedly, the terms "indica" and "sativa" are somewhat questionable from a genetics standpoint, and they're often used incorrectly, but its self-evident, I think that they continue to be used anyway, because they're useful for conveying a broad picture of certain traits.

.......................

I think the only reasonable application of the term "pure" here is to refer to landrace strains in unhybridized form.

My point is that at some stage theyve all been hybridized. Maybe this is where we disagree?

In terms of percentages, that's sort of a can of worms. I'd say that even if the designation of a particular hybrid as 75% indica/25% sativa is genetically sound, it may not be all that helpful in the real world, because plants with that genetic background can have an extremely wide variety of phenotypes across a very broad spectrum. But as a sort of "first rough estimate" of what kind of traits a given plant might express, the percentage measurement can give some useful information *IF* its used appropriately, and taken with the appropriate grain of salt.

Can-o-worms ... but the percentage values mean nothing here. ... My earlier point was % DOES mean something. If people want to be lazy and continue using this logic to describe lineage, well that up to them, but its not for me.

So yes, A BIG pinch of salt.

 

[Moebius]

Earlier in this thread somebody described a strain they grew as 90% to 95% Sativa.

Why not 89% or 96%?

No, I just don't see it like this at all.

edit:
If I use the term 'pi' ... people know its 3.14159 .. ad infinitum

If I use the term 'squared' people will know what that means too.

Why the ambiguity with % ?

Seed companies are just using this for marketing purposes. IMO. ridiculous.

 

[Moebius]

I think psychologically people like round numbers.

100% sounds really good. ... put 97% on something and it won't sell as much as the 100%.

People also like the 50/50 ratio ... its easy for the human mind to appreciate. Like wise the 75% 25% ratio.

Nature however doesnt work like this. I think a more intelligent approach can be used. Thank fully some breeders are enclosing a fuller description with their seeds and many are being honest in stating that they just don't know the lineage.

 

[Jogro]

I agree the terms, [sativa/indica] still have semantic use but question the genetic distinction.

Its a phenotypic distinction, not a genotypic one.

My point is that at some stage theyve all been hybridized. Maybe this is where we disagree?

I don't believe its technically accurate to claim that strains like Mazari Sharif (indica) or Santa Marta (sativa), each of which are true-breeding landraces with lineages that can literally be traced back for several centuries, are "hybridized". Yes, if you traced their history back far enough, ultimately these lines come from crosses of plants with different traits, but as long established true breeding strains, in what sense are they hybrids? Certainly not with each other. If "purebred" strains like that are "hybrids" then EVERY strain or species is a "hybrid" and the term lacks meaning.

Its probably fairest to say that all the modern cannabis strains share common ancestors, and that from a genetic standpoint, not only is every strain related, but the overwhelming majority of their DNA is similar.

Of course there has been natural exchange of DNA, and (probably a lot more significant from the medical plant evolution standpoint) man-made exchange. Not only can ceeds and pollen migrate (to some extent) with climate and weather, but human beings have moved around the globe fairly widely and brought cannabis genetics with them.

Again, the terms "sativa" and "indica" refer more to the traits the plants express than differences in genetics. Each represents a sort of idealized phenotypic "package", that's all.

Can-o-worms ... but the percentage values mean nothing here. ... My earlier point was % DOES mean something. If people want to be lazy and continue using this logic to describe lineage, well that up to them, but its not for me. So yes, A BIG pinch of salt.

Well again, its certainly possible (at least in cases where the lineages are clear) to assign specific percentages of genetics to hybrid plants.

EG: This one is 25% Afghan, 25% Oaxcan highland, and 50% Thai. So that's a 25/75% indica/sativa mix.

But in many if not the vast majority of cases, of hybrids bred from other hybrids, the ACTUAL genetic percentages are really unknown.

The question, to the extent that there is one, is what do these numbers really mean? The answer depends on who is using them and how.

As a "quick and dirty" way of describing a plants flowering time, growth pattern, and perhaps cannabinoid ratio, I think these ratios CAN be useful, again, so long as they are understood in context. If someone tells you a plant is 100% indica or sativa, I think that conveys some fairly useful information, assuming the statement is true.

If someone tells you a plant is 75-85% sativa, that also tells you something. First of all, the very fact that the genetics are portrayed that way indicates that the genetic lineage probably is NOT known exactly. Stipulating that those numbers may well NOT be true from a purely genetic standpoint, the point of using them would be to compare the given plant to the "idealized" sativa phenotype, and in that sense they'd be helpful.

For example, without knowing anything about this hypothetical plant, I'd assume that it would have a flowering time of about 12 weeks, be kind of tall, potentially have a somewhat fruity smell, thin leaf profiles, and an "up" type psychoactive effect. If that assumption is, in fact, correct, then I received quite a bit of information from a relatively truncated description.

Of course the BEST description would explicitly detail the flowering time, aroma, cannabinoid ratio, etc, but that doesn't make the shorthand worthless, if used correctly.

 

[Trousers]

That doesn't mean those terms should not be used.
Why the round numbers? Why not? When they price the seeds, those are not usually round numbers.

It is just a way to talk about how different varieties are crossed.
Abandoning words like indica and sativa and percentages limits the discussion.

I have sampled some cannabis sativa that was allegedly from Thailand. I have sampled some cannabis sativa that was from Afghanistan.
I liked Blueberry before I knew its origins. When I was told it was mostly Afghani with some Thai in it, that made sense to me. I don't see what is wrong with saying it was 80% Afghani and 20% Thai. If you have a problem with that, why not take it up with DJ Short?

If you ask Amelia Bedelia for some cannabis sativa, she might give you some ruderalis.
Why not ask her for some Northern Lights cannabis sativa?

 

[Moebius]

Thanks for your comments on this Jogro.

 

[sworth]

And thanks to you, Moebius, as well.

A bloody good harvest from this thread...

 

[Jogro]

Thanks for your comments on this Jogro.

You're welcome. Here are my functional/colloquial definitions of the two main medical cannabis subtypes:

"Indica": A variety of medical cannabis sativa exhibiting traits typically associated with subcontinental (ie India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc) landrace strains. Classic indica strains typically exhibit short stature, bushy growth, broad leaf fingers, rapid maturation (eg 7-10 weeks flowering time), spicy/hash like scent, and narcotic-like medical effect.

"Sativa": A variety of medical cannabis sativa exhibiting traits typically associated with tropical (eg Mexican, Columbian, Thai, Jamaican, African) landrace strains. Sativa strains are known for tall stature, open/branching growth, narrow leaf fingers, gradual flower maturation (eg 12-20+ weeks flowering time), floral/fruity scent, and cerebral/psychoactive medical effect.

Note that I said "variety" not "strain", since some of the so-called commercial "strains" are unstabilized hybrids that aren't really strains. Restricting this definition to "medical" varieties excludes hemp varieties (though these typically fall into the "sativa" definition above). Incidentally, the term "hemp" typically refers to cultivars bred to produce fiber and seeds, though some people use the term to refer to any wild strain, including ruderalis.

If you look at it THIS way, with a description of "75% indica" referring to its phenotype (ie which traits it expresses) rather than its precise genetic lineage, then the description becomes a bit more valuable, I think.

Now, as a though experiment, lets say I took an Afghan landrace strain and crossed it with a Thai landrace strain to create a 50-50% indica/sativa F1 hybrid generation. Then I crossed two 50-50 F1s to create an F2, did selection, crossed the selected F2s to create an F3, selected from the F3s then crossed them, and repeated these crosses until I ended my breeding project with a completely stable and effectively homogeneous inbred F10 generation.

What percentage indica/sativa genetics are these F10s?

50-50 since the original parents were an indica and a sativa, right? WRONG.

The correct answer is "impossible to determine".

The reason is that after the F1 generation, the genetic traits will tend to assort randomly in the offspring (not entirely, but that's a whole other discussion). What genetic percentage these stable F10s share with either parent depends almost entirely on how I did the selections!

If I were generating enough offspring to do true large-scale selections, and consistently selecting specifically for indica-like traits keeping only the indica-traits and discarding any sativa-like ones, I could have an F10 that was (in theory) greater than 99% indica, effectively indistinguishable from the original indica parent. Conversely, if I were selecting for sativa-like traits, the F10 could be 99% sativa. And again, depending on how I did the selection, I could have plants anywhere in between along the spectrum.

The point is, that even knowing the specific genetic lineage of a particular plant doesn't necessarily *by itself* tell you whether its an "indica" or not. You still have to see what it looks like, and that's why, I think, its better to think of these things as phenotypes (ie how a given plant conforms to the ideal conception of an "indica" or "sativa") rather than strict genetic measures.

Yes, ultimately the phenotypes and the genetics do correlate, but in practice you can't "measure" the genotypes (or at least not today), where as you can see the phenotypes.

 

[Jogro]

Earlier in this thread somebody described a strain they grew as 90% to 95% Sativa. Why not 89% or 96%?

No, I just don't see it like this at all.

If I use the term 'pi' ... people know its 3.14159 .. ad infinitum Why the ambiguity with % ?

Seed companies are just using this for marketing purposes. IMO. ridiculous.

Well, obviously all ad copy is specifically for marketing purposes, so from that sense I can't disagree. But I don't think giving these percentages is necessarily "ridiculous"; again it depends on how its done.

The answer of why the ambiguity is simply that the TRUE genetic percentages of any truly "worked" strain are probably unknown; see my last post for an explanation of why this can be, even with legitimate good-faith breeding from well-defined genetic sources.

Saying something is "85-90%" sativa is just a shorthand way of describing the growth characteristics of a certain line, that's all. Yes, that number is an estimate, but if its an accurate one, I think it can be helpful.

I think psychologically people like round numbers. 100% sounds really good. ... put 97% on something and it won't sell as much as the 100%.

People also like the 50/50 ratio ... its easy for the human mind to appreciate. Like wise the 75% 25% ratio.

Nature however doesnt work like this.

Well, in fact, it at least some cases, yes it does.

Specifically, Mendellian genetics specify 50-50 and 75-25% phenotypic ratios of common traits in offspring of early generation normal crosses.

For example, if you were to cross a dominant green pea (GG) with a recessive yellow pea (gg) all the offspring will be green hybrids (Gg).

Cross two of the F1 offspring, and THEIR offspring, the F2, will have a classic 1:2:1 genotypic ratio of GG:Gg:gg, with a 3:1 (or 75%-25%) phenotypic ratio of green/yellow color. Now, not every trait/phenotype exactly follows this simple Mendelian formula for a variety of reasons, but enough of them do, that the phenomenon is fairly widespread in nature. Many genetic diseases in humans (like sickle cell anemia, for example) do follow this simple 3:1 ratio, where if each parent is a "carrier" the chance of any individual child having the disease is exactly 25%.

In terms of cannabis, obviously "sativa" and "indica" don't refer to one trait, but rather to a whole basket of traits, each one of which is controlled by multiple interacting genes, and not just one. So "Mendel's peas" don't apply here.

Still, if you're crossing a Highland Thai mom with an Afghani Mountain dad, its perfectly fair and genetically accurate to call the F1 offspring a 50-50% indica/sativa cross. Given that at least some commercially available strains actually are or historically were F1 crosses between indica and sativa landraces, a 50-50% descriptor in those cases would be appropriate. In a case like that, saying the plants are 50-50% indica/sativa is effectively synonymous with saying they're F1 hybrids.

If you were to backcross your 50-50% offspring with either parent, now you've got a 75-25% genetic mix. Because of genetic assortment and complexity, you may well see more than 2 different phenotypes in a 3:1 ratio, but the general principles still apply.

 

[Moebius]

Rasta lends its name to a third type of cannabis

• 20 September 2005
• Magazine issue 2517

AS POLICE and dope smokers know, there are two types of cannabis. Cannabis sativa sativa is mainly used to make hemp, while the indica subspecies is prized for its tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, which produces the "high". But now Australian researchers have discovered a third type of cannabis, called rasta.

Simon Gilmore of the Canberra Institute of Technology catagorised 196 sample plants according to the DNA in their mitochondria and chloroplasts. The samples included plants grown for drugs and hemp as well as wild varieties from Europe, Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica.
The results showed three distinct "races" of cannabis. In central Asia the THC-rich indica predominated, while in western Europe sativa was more common. In India, south-east Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica the rasta variant predominated. It looks similar to the sativa subspecies, but generally contains higher levels of THC.
Since the study was of DNA rather than a formal ...
To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.


Sorry for the half article, I dont have a New Scientist subscription. If you want to know more please research and post findings here as Im just too tired atm.

 

[Jogro]

>>Flying Dutchman say their pure thai sativa strain is a pure sativa land race from Thailand



Yeah? and I'm the King of Siam.

This is silly.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a Thai land-race strain, or are you saying that you don't believe Flying Dutchman when they claim that's what they are selling?

I have no idea what's in Flying Dutchman's packs, but I can tell you absolutely there are strains of native Thai landrace cannabis, and that they are classic "sativas" with long finger like leaves, and interminable flowering times. I've actually tried growing this. . .not a good choice for indoor growing by the inexperienced.

Even in Human paternity tests, results are given as a statistical probability and not a definitive % value.

The two are synonymous.

Applied correctly, modern RFLP DNA based testing can establish paternity (or lack thereof) with greater than 99.99% certainty.

The missing fraction of a percent is mostly about practical limitations associated with cost-effective testing, rather than any genetic trickery.

With modern technology, you could design a test to establish paternity to virtually any degree of certainty you liked (even 100%), its just that the higher the level of certainty you demand, the more cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive the test needs to be. So the benchmark of 99.99%+ represents a realistic compromise between absolute accuracy, cost, turnaround time, and legal necessity.

 

[Jogro]

Rasta lends its name to a third type of cannabis

• 20 September 2005
• Magazine issue 2517

AS POLICE and dope smokers know, there are two types of cannabis. Cannabis sativa sativa is mainly used to make hemp, while the indica subspecies is prized for its tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, which produces the "high". But now Australian researchers have discovered a third type of cannabis, called rasta.

Simon Gilmore of the Canberra Institute of Technology catagorised 196 sample plants according to the DNA in their mitochondria and chloroplasts. The samples included plants grown for drugs and hemp as well as wild varieties from Europe, Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica.
The results showed three distinct "races" of cannabis. In central Asia the THC-rich indica predominated, while in western Europe sativa was more common. In India, south-east Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica the rasta variant predominated. It looks similar to the sativa subspecies, but generally contains higher levels of THC.
Since the study was of DNA rather than a formal ...
To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.


Sorry for the half article, I dont have a New Scientist subscription. If you want to know more please research and post findings here as Im just too tired atm.

I have some issue with this.

First of all any "dope smoker" worth his salt knows there are three commonly recognized types of cannabis including ruderalis, since they all know about autoflowering strains (which did exist for commercial sale when that article was written in 2005).

I think its axiomatic that these researchers in Australia didn't suddenly discover a hithero unknown strain of cannabis that was growing in Jamaica!

They've just introduced a new DNA-based classification scheme for strains that were already in existence and well-known.

Assuming its objective and reproducible, doing the classification on a molecular level like that probably really is the best way, though that sort of classification is really in its infancy, and probably of limited value to the average schmoe who is still going to be picking strains based on externally observable phenotype. For future breeders, though, this sort of analysis may be invaluable in doing selections and creating new strains by cherry-picking traits on a molecular level.

 

[Moebius]

This is silly.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a Thai land-race strain, or are you saying that you don't believe Flying Dutchman when they claim that's what they are selling?

I have no idea what's in Flying Dutchman's packs, but I can tell you absolutely there are strains of native Thai landrace cannabis, and that they are classic "sativas" with long finger like leaves, and interminable flowering times. I've actually tried growing this. . .not a good choice for indoor growing by the inexperienced.

My point is that anyone can claim anything. Calling something 'Pure' does not make it so.

Hence the "I am the king of Siam" comment.

But your right it was silly, humour often is.

 

[Moebius]

I have some issue with this.

First of all any "dope smoker" worth his salt knows there are three commonly recognized types of cannabis including ruderalis, since they all know about autoflowering strains (which did exist for commercial sale when that article was written in 2005).

I think its axiomatic that these researchers in Australia didn't suddenly discover a hithero unknown strain of cannabis that was growing in Jamaica!

They've just introduced a new DNA-based classification scheme for strains that were already in existence and well-known.

Assuming its objective and reproducible, doing the classification on a molecular level like that probably really is the best way, though that sort of classification is really in its infancy, and probably of limited value to the average schmoe who is still going to be picking strains based on externally observable phenotype. For future breeders, though, this sort of analysis may be invaluable in doing selections and creating new strains by cherry-picking traits on a molecular level.

LOL ... Maybe the people at New Scientist are not "dope smokers".

'I think its axiomatic that these researchers in Australia didn't suddenly discover a hithero unknown strain of cannabis that was growing in Jamaica!'

Why axiomatic? Not for me it isn't. These scientist are claiming otherwise. I'll wait to read more before I make up my mind either way. I literally just came across the half article tonight and I thought others might be interested.

edit:
I know many smokers who were unaware even what Sativa and Indica are, let alone Ruderalis. Until I tell them that is. But when I read that I laughed too.

 

[Moebius]

>>>>Rasta Cannabis

The article though does seem to contradict my assertion that the strains were not distinct.

I'll read more before I comment further.

edit:

The scientists decided to call it "Rasta" taking the pee or what. ... I wonder if 'Attitude' has it yet. LOL

As far as marketing goes, whatever the real truth, I guarantee it would be a seller.

edit2:

Quick google came up with this strain, its still a reg hybrid but looks tasty. http://www.cannabis-seeds.co.uk/heroseedsfeminized/zombirasta.html