- Thread starter
- #1,261
Reading Sy’s post earlier, over at his escape hatch, about genetics and genetic history and the journeys into this world made me think about some Real Seed Co blogs I read earlier this year so I thought I’d share some here.
I may have posted it then, can’t remember - no harm in repeating .
This blog post is basically the reason I started to use the terminology sativa-type and indica-type a while back. It’s long, I’ll just drop some excerpts here and if anyone wants to look further.
Another excerpt - they’re out of context, as mere snippets, but still hold some interest I think (they pique mine in any case).
You’ll notice his NOTE at the top saying that the week after he wrote the blog, a paper presenting new taxonomic description of cannabis was published by some eminent botanists... published April 3rd 2020 and entitled A classification of endangered high-THC cannabis (Cannabis sativa subsp. indica) domesticates and their wild relatives, it is available for download here.
I read most of it back then and have forgotten more than half of it I’m sure. It’s good stuff if you’re so inclined.
Grow well!
I may have posted it then, can’t remember - no harm in repeating .
This blog post is basically the reason I started to use the terminology sativa-type and indica-type a while back. It’s long, I’ll just drop some excerpts here and if anyone wants to look further.
Quoted from “On Indicas and Afganicas”ON INDICAS & AFGHANICAS
[NOTE: A week or so before I posted this to the blog, John McPartland and Ernest Small’s new taxonomy for Cannabis was published, so although much here is still pertinent to understanding the ‘species controversy’, some is also redundant.
…sativa… indica… ruderalis… afghanica… americana… chinensis… gigantea…
Those are just a few of the names proposed for species—yes, species—of Cannabis.
But the prevailing consensus among botanists, universities, authoritative floras, botanical gardens, and national and international legislation is that Cannabis is a monospecific genus. In other words, most experts agree that the genus Cannabis is comprised of one highly varied species, C. sativa L.
Proponents of multispecies classifications fight on—most popularly, Mark Merlin and Robert Clarke, who have proposed a classification based on just four studies by Karl Hillig. No central authority or academy presides over the discipline of taxonomy. Indeed, it’s both a practical art and a theoretical science. But it’s the “lumpers” who continue to prevail over the “splitters” in the Cannabis species debate.
As Ettiene DeMeijer puts it: “A monospecific concept… has implicitly been adopted in virtually all, nontaxonomic, publications on Cannabis… The current pattern of Cannabisdiversity is primarily due to intentional actions of humans and reflects a long, intense, and divergent process of domestication which has blurred any natural evolutionary pattern of diversity. It is even questionable if truly wild Cannabis still exists.”
Questionable is an understatement. No truly wild populations of Cannabis have ever been identified, and it’s unlikely any will be. “No persuasive evidence has been documented that there are truly wild populations of C. sativa (pristine genetically, never having been altered by human selection, and having natural distributions)”, writes Ernest Small, adding that “wild-growing plants of Cannabis sativa, insofar as has been determined, are either escapes from domesticated forms or the results of thousands of years of widespread genetic exchange with domesticated plants, making it virtually impossible to determine if unaltered primeval or ancestral populations still exist. Moreover, because the species has been spread and modified by humans for millennia, there does not seem to be a reliable means of accurately determining its original geographical range [though see McPartland] or even whether a plant collected in nature represents a primeval wild type or has been influenced by domestication.”
In other words, Cannabis is a cultigen, in the sense of a crop for which there is no known wild ancestor. There are hundreds of other examples, including the avocado, aubergine, onion, and peanut. In its broadest sense, the term cultigen refers to a plant that’s resulted from artificial selection. Fundamentally, our plant is a creation of humankind—a domesticate.
Another excerpt - they’re out of context, as mere snippets, but still hold some interest I think (they pique mine in any case).
Quoted from “On Indicas and Afganicas”Where Hillig’s studies have value is in identifying genetic relationships. But it’s essential to grasp that with a creature of domestication such as Cannabis, conclusions concerning heredity are not straightforwardly transferable to taxonomy. Hillig (2005a,b) has applied multivariate statistical similarities of allozyme frequency to differentiate European fibre plants from the three eastern domesticated groups, namely the two marijuana cultigens (Indicas and Sativas) and Chinese fibre plants. Weaker support for this divergence was provided by terpene chemistry (Hillig 2004a) and cannabinoid chemistry (Hillig and Mahlberg 2004), and the evidence was clearer for cultivated accessions than for ruderals. Hillig assigned European fibre plants to C. sativa and the three eastern groups to C. indica. This combined within C. indica the two marijuana groups and Chinese hemp. Hillig’s data indicate an ancient trend of genetic differentiation between the plants of western Eurasia (and consequently Europe) and those of eastern Eurasia. European hemp appears to have undergone a genetic bottleneck when being selected from eastern populations. McPartland examined pollen data which could support this, suggesting widespread Cannabis cultivation was introduced to eastern Europe by the Scythians in the late Bronze and early Iron Ages.
But Ernest Small comments as follows:
“…by evolutionary standards, this trend seems very minor, since not a single reliable character has been found to distinguish the western (European) and eastern kinds collectively, nor has a combination of morphological characters been suggested that could serve to separate them reliably, as is necessary in conventional plant taxonomic identification keys. Recent DNA evidence does indicate that at the molecular level, combined genetic loci may be usable to discriminate European hemp strains, Indica type plants, and Sativa type plants (Lynch et al. 2015; Sawler et al. 2015). The situation is perhaps analogous to human blood group geography, thought to have resulted from a combination of random drift and selection for disease resistance (Anstee 2010), and certainly not warranting formal taxonomic recognition. The information is, however, useful for tracing genetic relationships and identifying strains and cultivars.”
You’ll notice his NOTE at the top saying that the week after he wrote the blog, a paper presenting new taxonomic description of cannabis was published by some eminent botanists... published April 3rd 2020 and entitled A classification of endangered high-THC cannabis (Cannabis sativa subsp. indica) domesticates and their wild relatives, it is available for download here.
I read most of it back then and have forgotten more than half of it I’m sure. It’s good stuff if you’re so inclined.
Grow well!