Since the 1970s, cannabis has been divided into three sub-species (often confused as different species), C. indica, C. sativa, C. ruderalis, with ruderalis largely being considered ‘wild cannabis,’ not fit for medicinal or recreational uses. A common lay-persons distinction is between marijuana, which is bred for high cannabinoid content, and hemp, which is bred for industrial uses like fiber.
Any of the three subspecies can be bred as a hemp or marijuana plant. John McPartland, a researcher affiliated with GW Pharmaceuticals, presented a study at the 2014 meeting of the International Cannabis Research Society, proposing a new nomenclature for cannabis. The original report on O’Shaughnessy’s contains more information than I can reproduce here, and has a wonderful chart; it is definitely worth your time to read.
It seems Richard Evans Schultes, the man who created the original taxonomy for cannabis in the 1970s, misidentified a C. afghanica plant as a C. indica plant. That one mistake began 40 years of confusion which has only been dispelled by McPartland’s research this year.
McPartland was the first researcher to look at the genetic markers on the three subspecies of cannabis using the plant’s genome to conclusively identify where it originated. He also proved conclusively that they are all the same species, just different subspecies. As it turns out, C. sativa should have been identified as C. indica, because it originated in India (hence indica). C. indica should have been identified as C. afghanica, because it actually originated in Afghanistan. Finally, it seems that C. ruderalis is actually what people mean when they refer to C. sativa.
If that sounds confusing, refer to this handy table, or the original chart.
Cannabis Indica (Formerly Sativa)
Origin: India
Morphology: Taller (>1.5m) than their short and stocky Afghanica cousins, with sparser branches and less dense buds/flowers.
Physiology: Longer flowering time, between nine and fourteen weeks. Minimal frost tolerance with a moderate production of resin.
Chemistry: Much greater THC than CBD and other cannabinoids, this leads to the “head high” many users report.
Psychoactivity: Stimulating.
Cannabis Afghanica (Formerly Indica)
Origin: Central Asia (Afghanistan, Turkestan, Pakistan)
Morphology: Shorter (<1.5m) than Indica strains with dense branches with wider leaves, and much denser buds/flowers
Physiology: Shorter flowering time, as little as seven to nine weeks. Good frost tolerance with high resin production. Afghanica strains can be susceptible to mold due to how dense the buds and branches are.
Chemistry: More variable than Indica strains. THC is often still the predominant cannabinoid but some strains have 1:1 ratios and some may have even higher CBD than THC.
Psychoactivity: Sedating.
Cannabis Sativa (Formerly Ruderalis)
Origin: Usually feral or wild. From Europe or Central Asia.
Morphology: Variable, depending on origin.
Physiology: The flowering time is short and variable, many varieties exhibit autoflowering traits (flowering independently of sun cycles). Moderate frost tolerance with relatively low resin production.
Chemistry: More CBD than THC. Prominent terpenes include caryophyllene and myrcene, giving these strains a floral flavor and scent.
Psychoactivity: Usually lacking.
This new nomenclature should come to replace the old system, because it is grounded in the actual genetics of the plant and is scientifically sound. Despite that, it is likely that this new naming scheme will face resistance from cannabis users and those in the medical cannabis industry who will have become used to decades of convention firmly establishing an inaccurate taxonomy.
This is reminiscent of the Brontosaurus, a dinosaur that never existed but we were all taught in school it was real, or the former 9th planet of Pluto (now a ‘dwarf planet’). Sometimes science gets it wrong and it is up to modern scientists with better methods, like McPartland, to correct our old mistakes.
The difficult part will be getting mass acceptance of his newly proposed taxonomy. What seems likely is that a split may develop between academics and laymen, with academics adopting the new system and laymen continuing to adhere to the old system, at least for a few more years.
Perhaps in time C. afghanica, C. indica, and C. sativa will come into the vogue, but that largely depends on the willingness of the medical cannabis industry to adopt this new system and thus pass it on to the patients and growers. But it seems unlikely that the cannabis industry would wholeheartedly jump on board, given the risk that this new nomenclature could confuse patients who may be used to seeing only “indicas” and “sativas” on the shelf.
Time will tell.
Recent Articles
This is a challenging article and obviously has sparked quite a bit of discussion. I doubt that we'll be changing "Sativa" to "Indica" any time soon but I get the idea. But as opposed to nomenclature, the best way to evaluate cannabis is to see the lab reports https://www.cannabiscare.ca/
Schultes did not define the taxonomy of Cannabis species. He had opinions on Cannabis taxonomy and was a frequent expert witness in pot cases in the 1970s. Defining species boundaries in plants that have been cultivated for millenia is not a simple matter, if it can be done at all. Genetic studies do seem to indicate that Cannabis is one polymorphic species but certainly the chemistry is variable and the different strains, varieties or subspecies, whatever you want to call them, have very different uses. I bred C. sativa with C. ruberalis many years ago and the progeny were a mixed bag of traits.
This article just blew my mind. I can't keep it straight at all. II will soon be a legally green MM patient..All l know is that Blue Dream does everything I could ever want for nerve pain and spasms in very small amounts, as well as the perfect high if I feel so inclined but its sdo hard to find!. So, what do I need/like? In the old nomenclature I wanted the Sativa-Indica blend like Blue Dream when I could find it. Is this article now saying it is really an aphganica-Indica blend? I hope something like it is available at a medical dispensary in NJ. I was confused before. I'm more confused now.
@lippylulu don't worry yourself. This article shows how we incorrectly named the plants many years ago. There is no intention to actually change their common names to theirmmore correct botanical names. This article is good info only.
I think it makes more since to just lose the name sativa as a family type. The families can just be Indica, Afganica, and Ruderalis. Then Sativa can mean more in your head feeling, citrus flavor, higher thc, low cbd, head bender. That would be a easy way to solve the confusion for the laymen and still get our genealogical names more accurately labeled.
Personally, I don't want the canna-version of the Koch brothers having any say in my weed. GW Pharmaceuticals wants to monopolize the cannabis industry and I want them to be put in check.
They are so familiar and it's hard to distiguish! That's the most fantastic part of living beings! I was wondering if they have some comment parts of genes.......
CD Genomics
Wait a min. Sooooo, there is a 100% indica, a 100% sativa, and a 100% ruderalis. There's no 100% afganica. It is 65% indica and 35% sativa if I've got that in the right order, but you get the point. With that "science" then kush should get it's own class and so on and on and on. I get the whole india = indica. We had that ass backwards. But no. Just no. That's like saying I want to enter my 35% bloodhound/ 65% datsun into the damned dog show and then saying "You don't understand. You dog show ppl have had it wrong the whole time. My dog was always a thoroughbred. I have the science!" B.S.
@jsmnt i think what they are saying is there is no such thing as ruderalis anymore it is now called sativa, and the other two have had their names swapped with one changing its name completely, basicaly if they change the system instead of looking for indica sativa plants you will be looking for afganica/ indica plants with the garbage/wild referred to as sativa instead of ruderalis.
@jsmnt kush would be in the afghanica group. kush refers to the hindu kush mountain range in afghanistan, where it originates.
Why would you want Columbian pot? Its outdoor Sativa? Smoke the BC Kush, much better! http://buyweedonline.ca/order/
Why would you want Columbian pot? Its outdoor Sativa? Smoke the BC Kush, much better! http://buyweedonline.ca/order/
This is all very intersting, but all I want to know is, where can I get the Colmbian pot I used to get in the late 70s and early 80s?
@wash5959 I don't know why you would want something inferior to what is available today but I would say try Colombia...
Huh? Never heard of this... Order Indica and Sativa at http://buyweedonline.ca/in-stock/
Marijuana is actually an ethnophaulism that was introduced to American religious bigots in the early 20'th century as a junior drug to Heroin by the American government through Henry J. Anslinger and has nothing to do with any previously cultivated form of cannabis. It doesn't show up in any medical texts and with respect to the timeline of the discovery of the cannabinoids THC and CBD - it seems that they were discovered right at the same period where Anslinger and Hoover were launching the formal WAR ON DRUGS and the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of CIA) was doing it's own cannabinoid research as to whether hash or any other THC laden derivative could be used as a truth serum.
Perhaps marijuana is a "lay-person's term" and people discontinue their use of it if they are not speaking speaking spanish, however the government and medical establishment, including the media cabals have all agreed with each other to perpetuate the use of a term that is laced with Bigotry, Racism, Xenophobia, and religious dogmatism.
@jsmnt @CannaClatch Mexicans were not the first people to smoke weed. First records of cannabis use are from about 10,000 years ago in Taiwan. China is generally considered the first major country to record using it. Japan next. From there, history tells us that it spread out to India where it became central to their entire culture and to the middle-east where it's acceptance was divided among tribes, classes and religions.
Learn more at https://www.facebook.com/pages/PcuCamp/512348995483462
No man. I didnt mean that they were the first to smoke it for medicine. I see what ur syaing bout the chinese itroducing it first to the americans, because it fits the same time they were working railroad. But the mexicans say the same thing about working for the white man on his cattle ranches/farms around the same time and around the southwest. What i was saying is that the native americans had it before the man ever touchdowned. Sorry dude for some (cough, cough) reason i thought we were talking about bringing it to america. Smh. Duh...
@CannaClatch This is why I use cannabis to refer to the plant, though I will often use hemp to refer to cannabis bred for industrial uses. I am increasingly dropping this artificial distinction though, as it really is all one species/all one plant. While I once found the marijuana/hemp divide to be useful, as it is what the majority of the public discourse uses, I now feel that it just obscures the reality. At the same time, it is worth recognizing the three sub-species that exist within the species.
Very good points bringing up the racism and xenophobia that was the reason for the creation of the drug war. Many people don't recall that the first prohibition was actually opium, specifically targeted at Chinese immigrants back in the late 1800's.
http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/opiumlaw.html
@CannaClatch What? That makes no sense. Are you talking about the word or the plant? Marihuana or whatever you want to call it has been cultivated in North Am long before the 1900s. Do some reading on it.
@CannaClatch Negative. Mexicans first. Historically documented anyhow. You don't have to do to much research to know the first nations were smoking way before the white man showed up. Hence the peace pipe. Not only for tobacco. However, the first nations didn't keep a historical record. Not a written one anyhow. 2+2=4 though. Look into Dupont's role into hemp vs. nylon. It's always been about the money, I mean the green one way or the other. That was the beginning. Corpirate America.
People were smoking marijuana way before your gov. Classified it as anything...f**k what the gov says blaze at shut up foo!
Mate there has been evidence of cannabis and pipes in pouches placed with the dead in China dating back 27,000 years. Way before Mexico.
@CannaClatch CORECT...some have misunderstood, but CannaClatch was sayin that the term mary jane, aka marihuana, or marijuana, is a derrogotory term that was used for cannabis, and hence the reefer madness that came because the evil negro jazz musicians were smoking marijuana and seeking relations w white women, among other things
I heard Robert Clarke discuss this at his High Times presentation in Amsterdam last year, very cool to see the information getting out now. Although, I thought he said all the cannabis we consume is indica, and there's only broad leaf and thin leaf varieties. He also said "sativa" translates to "useful", which is why it's what we previously thought of as ruderalis, as this article states.
yep that's right, all the drug varieties of cannabis we consume today are actually "Cannabis Afghanica Indica Indica" or "Cannabis Afghanica Indica Sativa." The only true "sativa" in the traditional sense is European hemp, which John McPartland has now shown is actually Ruderalis. European hemp survived the last ice age as a separate population and then was bred only for fibre/seed purposes, so it's "useful" but not a drug variety. Afghan cannabis also survived the ice age but was then bred for spiritual/recreational purposes and is the source of all drug varieties of cannabis we have today.
I think getting it right is a bridge too far when we have half the growers and users saying "strand" instead of "Strain".
"Sativa" means "cultivated" and was used to designate plant species that had been domesticated and cultivated since ancient times. So renaming the feral Ruderalis varieties as "Sativa" doesn't seem to make sense.
@DanaLarsen You're right about the naming conventions around the name "sativa" but there's a lot more to this story than Mitchell was able to fit in one article. In fact, when I was researching for my history Weed the People: From Founding Fiber to Forbidden Fruit (http://www.amazon.com/Weed-People-Founding-Fiber-Forbidden/dp/1938567919), I discovered that the problem of equivocation in naming cannabis has plagued both scientists and laypeople for centuries.
"Sativa" was the name chosen by Linnaeus in 1753 because, as you correctly point out, even back then cannabis had been cultivated for millennia. Linnaeus thought there was one species of cannabis. Then, in 1783, Lamarck disputed that contention and declared that there was a second species of cannabis, Cannabis indica, breaking with Linnaeus' convention and naming the species after the place where it evolved. When Janischewsky identified ruderalis in the early 20th century, he returned to the naming convention Linnaeus established and chose "ruderalis" as the Latin antonym of "sativa."
Then in the 1970s, when Richard Schultes determined that there was only one species of cannabis, he adopted the subspecies names (some scientists still contend that the three aren't subspecies, but actually separate morphological "switches" -- as if the matter weren't already complicated enough) which by then had become most popular: sativa, indica, ruderalis.
Now McPartland is trying to restore the convention of naming subspecies after places, i.e. indica and afghanica. But he apparently didn't even try to throw out the name "sativa," which despite the fact that it no longer fits (both fiber and medical strains have been cultivated since basically the beginning of time), is already so firmly established that such an attempt would be foolhardy.
In the end, he may have only contributed further to the confusion. This problem has been around for a long time!
You sounded half smart until you said that Brontosaurus was in Jurassic Park. You even post a clip which you can clearly hear them call it a Brachiosaurus. There a thousands of dinosaurs that look like a Brontosaurus they are called Sauropods. Please check your facts before you post them matter of factly.
@KiraHugattack You clearly missed my point if you thought I was claiming Brontosaurus existed because it was in Jurassic Park. If you read that whole paragraph or followed the links it would be obvious that the point being made was this situation with cannabis is just like Brontosaurus, we thought it existed and it doesn't. My mistake, it was a Brachiosaurus in Jurassic Park. Doesn't change the fact that science was wrong for one hundred years about Brontosaurus and for the past forty about cannabis. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I'll fix that error in the post.
@KiraHugattack PS there are more like dozens of dinosaurs that look like Brontosaurus and the Apatosaurus was the actual dinosaur that was mis-represented as a Brontosaurus years ago. There are only about 500 known species of dinosaur in general, and perhaps twice that many yet to be discovered (based off current best estimates).
Almost every cultivar being grown in the US and Europe is a hybrid, There are practically no true strains except a few wild ones in southern Asia and Australia. Even the mid-west ditch weed that escaped from industrial hemp farms are hybrid. This discussion is meaningless.
@mendobruce Because they are nearly all hybrids this conversation is meaningful. We thought we knew what they were hybrids of but we as a community of cannabis users have been mistaken because one researcher got it wrong years ago. Now we have modern genetic techniques to be sure the origins of the plants and thus what sub-species they are. By knowing what the landrace/pure strains are then you can figure out your hybrids easier.
If indicas (the old sativas) are high-THC, low-CBD strains, then why are high-CBD strains like Harlequin considered sativa (under the old nomenclature) and indica (under the new)? The
@Toke Signals I have seen CBD-rich strains that are sativa-dominant hybrids, indica dominant hybrids, and 50/50s. I cannot recall ever seeing a pure sativa or indica that was CBD-rich but it doesn't mean it can't happen. These claims being made about indicas and sativas are the kind of blanket statements scientists are famous for and ignore more recent changes in breeding that include breeding the CBD levels back to where they used to be before hippies in the 60's/70's breed out CBD since it didn't get you high. More research is really needed to be sure of any of these claims, and that research is lacking due to the federal government's embargo on research.
http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2015/01/colorado-joins-california-funding-cannabis-research/
@AnthonyHemsley Whoops, it is my responsibility as editor to catch dead links and I missed this one.
I'm working on finding a better link. Stay tuned...
@weed_the_people @AnthonyHemsley The original post by O'Shaughnessy's is password protected, I assume that was their decision but I am not sure as to why. I have had an advanced print issue of this article for four months and never expected it to be passworded when it finally went online. I posted the original link out of respect to O'Shaughnessy's as the original breakers of the story. If you can find one without a password please link it but I included all the information to the best of my abilities.
How old is this clueless kid? There's only one cannabis and it's all the same species. My "Sativa" is higher is THC than almost any "Indica" out there.
@marchale You're right there is only one cannabis species. It actually says that in the very first sentence. Well done friend ;)
@marchale I'll let the author speak for himself regarding his age, but as the site's editor I will point out that he clarified that there is only one species of cannabis in the first sentence of the article.
They are not true sub-species. They merely have been acclimated to differing environments. It's all a ruse. I've read all the information that you have and after decades of experience, I disagree with it.
@MitchellColbert @marchale One more question. Why are my "Sativas" testing out at 22-25%, while most "Indicas" or "Afghanicas" top out at about 21%.
Why am i yielding 20-30% more dewaxed, cleaned shatter from my "Sativas" than most anyone else is from their "Indicas"?
Just curious?
@marchale I'm not a scientist or cannabis breeder, I am a journalist and probably not the best person to ask that, especially when you start asking about super-melts. I personally do not use super-melt concentrates and have never made one, definitely not the right person to ask about your shatter. I can pass on some of these concerns in my next interviews, as I do plan to write a piece on BHOs, but for now I have no good answers for you.
@MitchellColbert Thank you for being honest about the first question. My numbers are correct. They are done by the premiere testing com pay in Colorado.
You should leave the writing to people with experience in the field. A mere reporter who conducts a little bit of research does not cut it for this type of piece. You need hands-on experience to discuss these matters. Not a journalism degree. Otherwise, you come off looking like someone who has done nothing except scour the internet for articles, and has never gotten your hands dirty in a pot of soil.
@marchale I am 27 years old and am writing an article on the research done by scientists likely older than you and definitely older than myself. I also do not see what age has to do with the matter since what I wrote and what has been discovered is fact, not opinion. There is only one species of cannabis but it has three sub-species, with decades of literature to back up that claim. Google it if you don't believe me.
I also would be curious if you are accurately reporting THC test numbers or if you are claiming your THCa residuals as THC... Without actually seeing your results it is hard to say. Depending on where you are getting it tested you may not be getting the right information.
@marchale @MitchellColbert I have quite a bit of experience in the field, studying the medicinal properties of the plant, as well as the politics. Most of my direct experience comes from working on campaigns to legalize cannabis. I have also gotten my hands dirty helping with grows and trimming, though I haven't had the pleasure to grow myself. As a renter who moves around a lot growing is not feasible and not all landlords are okay with on-site growing.
I'm sorry you are unsatisfied with the article I wrote; you can't please them all. The facts remain the same, and they are as reported. Best of luck to you with your growing and wax making.
[…] re-classified. Here is the article that I read it in, with links to the original study in it. Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis – Did We Get It All Wrong? So, how confusing do you think this will be haha Okay so they are not new names, and it does […]
[…] Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis – Did We Get It All Wrong? Since the 1970s, cannabis has been divided into three sub-species (often confused as different species), C. indica, C. sativa, C. ruderalis, with ruderalis largely being considered ‘wild cannabis,’ not fit for medicinal or recreational uses. […]
[…] http://theleafonline.com/c/science/2015/01/indica-sativa-ruderalis-get-wrong/ […]
[…] nothing new about bad cannabis science, but now in the days of rapid cannabis policy reform it often seems that […]
[…] nothing new about bad cannabis science, but now in the days of cannabis policy reform it often seems that new […]
[…] nothing new about bad cannabis science, but now in the days of cannabis policy reform it often seems that new […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here: theleafonline.com/c/science/2015/01/indica-sativa-ruderalis-get-wrong/ […]
[…] According to Dinafem, OG Kush is “75 percent indica and 25 percent sativa,” this would make OG Kush a pretty heavy indica, which many users would expect to give them a relaxing effect. Despite this, many OG Kush fans report that it produces sativa-like uplifting effects, which could certainly be true given the pure sativa Thai genetics crossed into the Lemon Thai Kush that is potentially a parent of OG Kush. Much of the discrepancy over whether or not OG Kush is an indica or a sativa may come from recent research which shows that we don’t really know what is a sativa, what actually is an indica and if those are even the terms we should be using. […]
[…] According to Dinafem, OG Kush is “75 percent indica and 25 percent sativa,” this would make OG Kush a pretty heavy indica, which many users would expect to give them a relaxing effect. Despite this, many OG Kush fans report that it produces sativa-like uplifting effects, which could certainly be true given the pure sativa Thai genetics crossed into the Lemon Thai Kush that is potentially a parent of OG Kush. Much of the discrepancy over whether or not OG Kush is an indica or a sativa may come from recent research which shows that we don’t really know what is a sativa, what actually is an indica and if those are even the terms we should be using. […]
[…] According to Dinafem, OG Kush is “75 percent indica and 25 percent sativa,” this would make OG Kush a pretty heavy indica, which many users would expect to give them a relaxing effect. Despite this, many OG Kush fans report that it produces sativa-like uplifting effects, which could certainly be true given the pure sativa Thai genetics crossed into the Lemon Thai Kush that is potentially a parent of OG Kush. Much of the discrepancy over whether or not OG Kush is an indica or a sativa may come from recent research which shows that we don’t really know what is a sativa, what actually is an indica and if those are even the terms we should be using. […]
[…] CONTINUE READING… […]
[…] What you will find almost everywhere, is that the cannabis plant comes in three species; sativa, indica, and the lesser known ruderalis. Even still there is confusion and debate about this. […]
[…] of the International Cannabis Research Society, research John McPartland with GW Pharmaceuticals announced the results of his study of genetic markers on the three subspecies of cannabis: C. sativa, C. […]
[…] of the International Cannabis Research Society, research John McPartland with GW Pharmaceuticals announced the results of his study of genetic markers on the three subspecies of cannabis: C. sativa, […]
[…] of the International Cannabis Research Society, research John McPartland with GW Pharmaceuticals announced the results of his study of genetic markers on the three subspecies of cannabis: C. sativa, C. […]
[…] – This reference differs from the official nomenclature. According to The Leaf Online, researchers screwed up in the 70’s and named the plants the wrong names. Interesting story […]