Sativa, Indica Possibly Useless Terms?

its not just for breeders and connoisseurs (hard word to spell, had to look at how you spelled it 3 times.
your missing the point, instead of saying everything is a cross between 2 species it would be easier to say sativa and indica are phenotypes more than they are species of cannabis. the fact that there isnt a pure strain of either sativa or indica that only grows in the one distinct grouping leaves me to bbelieve that it doesnt exist// it could be possible that they were changed over the years due to why they were grown in the first place.
before it became illegal, cannabis played a large role in textiles. most feilds of cannabis were not grown for the bud whatsoever, and i think thats where all the sativa indica problems satrt off. we expect everything to be grown the best it can for bud production when for 200 years its been grown for the exact opposite reason. of course there is going to be smaller buds with less bushy heavy branches, becasue that doesnt go well for someone trying to grow hemp.

the terms sativa and indica would make alot more sense if they were used to describe only the high you get , and not the plant structure, which can change due to any number of reasons.

Sativa and Indica are very useful terms, they classify two completely different types of marijuana species. A lot of plants being created now are a hybrid of both, very rarely do you see pure indica and or pure sativa strains, but they are out there. It makes it very easy in determining a plants outcome when knowing if its sativa or indica dominant. Ruderlis is popular among the marijuana family also, thats what created auto flowers. Also as far as getting high, Sativa and Indica strains offer COMPLETELY different high's, as well as different buds. Many sativa strains have much more fluffy, airy bud as opposed to indica having a much more dense, tight bud.

but my point is they are only named so because of how they were origainly found, sativas being tall and spindly becasue they are being cultivated for other reasons and indica being stout becasue they wernt being cultivated so they had free range. because of this any plant thats tall and thin leaves should be a sativa,
but i can take a pure indica and breed it to be tall and spindly with narrow leaves, it could look 100% sativa but is still an indica. so whats the point of calling it an indica. or i could take a pure sativa and grow it to be short and branchy with huge buds.
by labeling something a sativa or indica based on its looks we are keeping ourselves in the dark from what could end up being even better strains.

MJstudent said:

its not just for breeders and connoisseurs (hard word to spell, had to look at how you spelled it 3 times.
your missing the point, instead of saying everything is a cross between 2 species it would be easier to say sativa and indica are phenotypes more than they are species of cannabis. the fact that there isnt a pure strain of either sativa or indica that only grows in the one distinct grouping leaves me to bbelieve that it doesnt exist// it could be possible that they were changed over the years due to why they were grown in the first place.
before it became illegal, cannabis played a large role in textiles. most feilds of cannabis were not grown for the bud whatsoever, and i think thats where all the sativa indica problems satrt off. we expect everything to be grown the best it can for bud production when for 200 years its been grown for the exact opposite reason. of course there is going to be smaller buds with less bushy heavy branches, becasue that doesnt go well for someone trying to grow hemp.

the terms sativa and indica would make alot more sense if they were used to describe only the high you get , and not the plant structure, which can change due to any number of reasons.

Click to expand...

No.
You're missing the point.

Just because they named it for it's looks however many years ago, doesn't mean ANY of them should still look that way.

We are lucky that it has been kept so pure, after being scattered across the globe.

MJstudent said:

by labeling something a sativa or indica based on its looks we are keeping ourselves in the dark from what could end up being even better strains.

Click to expand...

That's where you are confused.

We aren't "Labeling them"

They have already been labeled, and we are keeping the tradition alive

And we aren't keeping ourselves in the dark.

People aren't breeding just Sativas with just Sativas...They are still mixing...

Like Autoflower is a recent development I think...
And that was done while we have species differentiation...

And do you mean we could make a whole new species?

Because we can't.
It would just be a strain.

No matter how much you crossbreed, it's going to be Indica, or Sativa...

But you can take a Sativa, and Crossbreed it into an Indica and vice-versa, if it has the right ancestry, and you find the right phenotypes...

so what should we be calling them then?

Dope. cn
..

cannabineer said:

Dope. cn
..

Click to expand...

skinny leaf dope....n fat leaf dope

stonerman said:

Sativa and Indica are very useful terms, they classify two completely different types of marijuana species. A lot of plants being created now are a hybrid of both, very rarely do you see pure indica and or pure sativa strains, but they are out there. It makes it very easy in determining a plants outcome when knowing if its sativa or indica dominant. Ruderlis is popular among the marijuana family also, thats what created auto flowers. Also as far as getting high, Sativa and Indica strains offer COMPLETELY different high's, as well as different buds. Many sativa strains have much more fluffy, airy bud as opposed to indica having a much more dense, tight bud.

Click to expand...

disagree, I don't think much evidence backs this up either. THC is THC and CBD is CBD, whether its from an indica or sativa, the chemical in your brain is similar. There are different flavors for all buds, even within the same genetics there are variations.

But THC is THC from an Indica or a Sativa.

Dizzle Frost said:

skinny leaf dope....n fat leaf dope

Click to expand...

haha

im saying they should be called cannabis because thats what they are. they are only sativa or indica because that what it looks like AT THE TIME until it changes again and then its something else. so why even label it one or the other, its just phenos.
its a great way to describe a plant but for now but we shouldnt say its good enough for ever, it should be looked into to find out what exactly the diferences are.
a study done last summer just proved that marijuana and hemp were at one time the same plant, if it took us that long to figure that out, we have pleanty to learn about the origins and historty of cannabis.
im not sure if i believe what im preaching but debates only bring more knowledge and ideas to the table.

I've decided that the brief interval of time needed to decide hat the hermie must die is one nannersecond. cn

MJstudent said:

haha

im saying they should be called cannabis because thats what they are. they are only sativa or indica because that what it looks like AT THE TIME until it changes again and then its something else. so why even label it one or the other, its just phenos.
its a great way to describe a plant but for now but we shouldnt say its good enough for ever, it should be looked into to find out what exactly the diferences are.
a study done last summer just proved that marijuana and hemp were at one time the same plant, if it took us that long to figure that out, we have pleanty to learn about the origins and historty of cannabis.
im not sure if i believe what im preaching but debates only bring more knowledge and ideas to the table.

Click to expand...

In states where weed is illegal, I treat it all the same.
I don't believe people when they tell me a strain. They're making it up, how the fuck should they know what it is, after it's been through 6 people?

MJstudent said:

yes but characteristics that were created through breeding progams and therefore could possibly be reversed meaning you could grow 3 foot sativas that are finsihed in less than 2 months or 25 foot indicas .. see what im getting at it releases all pre conseived boundaries of so called indicas and sativas and makes them all cannabis with diferent phenos and terpenes creting diferent looks and highs to the plants

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the reason these varieties are what they are, th ere is some human involvement but tropical sativas are tall because of the climate. Indicas are short and dense because of the climate as well (arid). It makes good sense to me. Humans haven't been actively breeding Cannabis for that long (maybe there are some exceptions, but around the world this holds true, even now many folks just let the crops seed themselves which is essentially mother nature doing it's thing, the process somewhat accelerated by human culling of weak plants (which would die anyway, ie: moldy etc) ).

MJstudent said:

but thats my point. they are only german because you put them in germany. if you took 2 germans put them in a completley diferent Ppart of the world, in a diferent growing medium with diferent nutes diferent amount of lights and diferent temps over time, with thoughtful breeding practices you could have a plant that could look like an asian but grow like an african but smoke like an indian all in the time frame that it takes to grow a white guy.

Click to expand...

Ok, but that time period is like 100k years.

By your theory people and monkeys are useless terms because over a long enough time period monkeys can potentially turn into people.

just becuse we came up with the terms indica and sativa we feel we need to fit all types of cannabis into these 2 catergories.

Click to expand...

You could say the same about strawberries and watermelons. Is it really useless to have a distinction between strawberries and watermelons?

We came up with the terms indica and sativa for the same reasons. They describe two distinctly different types of cannabis. And yes, it is important to have those terms because they describe two different things. They are not less different because put in a different environment and given 100k years they might not be different. By your logic we should only have two words to describe living things. Plants and animals. Everything else is a meaningless distinction. But personally I want those labels so I can make sure I'm petting a house cat and not a wild tiger. When I smoke bud to go to bed I want to make sure I'm smoking a indica and not a sativa.

but we invented to terms and now we are trying to hammer a square block into a round hole with every diferent strain we come across saying its 20% this and 45% that. so how do we know that we are suposed to catergorzie these 2 types of marijuana based on plant size and shape when seed to seed plants will never grow the same, and can be manipulated far easier than most plants.

Click to expand...

Because those terms are useless in describing the effects of the cannabis you're about to ingest.

REMEBER:THIS IS JUST A THEORY I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF ABOUT ANY OF THIS AND JUST FIND IT INTERESTING.

Click to expand...

Well what you appear to be describing is evolution. And there is plenty of scientific proof of it. But I don't think it happens as quickly as you think it happens. If you take a south American sativa and grow it in India, breading it only into itself, it isn't going to turn into an indica after a few grows. That wouldn't even happen in your great great great grandchildren's lifetime. And even if it does adapt to it's environment over thousands of years, it's not necessarily going to make the same adaptions indicas made. Evolution doesn't work that way as far as we know.

Finshaggy said:

Just call it all weed, and you won't have a problem...

It's really just for breeders...Or connoisseurs that really can tell the difference in taste and everything.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Sativas are extremely unpleasant for me to smoke. They do have different effects. Sativas make me worry about shit to much and indicas relax me.

I'm not sure how long it would take nature to turn an indica into a sativa, but I'm sure it could happen eventually. Take a crop from the desert in Afghanistan and seed it all over the jungle free from other cannabis plants, the plants that survive will be the stretchy ones for sure. I do wonder how the UV index effects the THC profiles of these plants as well. Might turn sativas into a pretty sleepy high, but then again the conditions that make sativas what they are may also call for other cannabinoid production to have that smae kind of success in a pretty harsh environment (and competitive if you're a plant).

This was in one of the quotes in Dan Kone's post
"when seed to seed plants will never grow the same, and can be manipulated far easier than most plants."

But you are very mistaken.
If crossbred enough, and it becomes "stable".
Seed to seed, the plant CAN grow EXACTLY the same, in terms of phenotype. It won't let me unbold that last part.

OGEvilgenius said:

I'm not sure how long it would take nature to turn an indica into a sativa, but I'm sure it could happen eventually. Take a crop from the desert in Afghanistan and seed it all over the jungle free from other cannabis plants, the plants that survive will be the stretchy ones for sure. I do wonder how the UV index effects the THC profiles of these plants as well. Might turn sativas into a pretty sleepy high, but then again the conditions that make sativas what they are may also call for other cannabinoid production to have that smae kind of success in a pretty harsh environment (and competitive if you're a plant).

Click to expand...

Yeah.
Indica's have Sativa's in their genes,
Just recessively.
You CAN get it back out though