An interesting comparison of the terpene profiles in 17 different chemovars. I’ll break it down later for better readability.
Source
Variations in Terpene Profiles of Different Strains of Cannabis sativa L
S. Casano, G. Grassi, V. Martini and M. Michelozzi (2011)
Variations in terpene profiles of different strains of Cannabis sativa L. Acta Horticulturae 925:115-121
[...]
The current study investigated the variability in terpene profiles of Cannabis strains and explored the utility of monoterpenes in the distinction between ‘mostly sativa’ and ‘mostly indica’ biotypes.
[...]
Table 1. Terpene profiles of different ‘mostly indica’ and ‘mostly sativa’ strains of Cannabis sativa L.
ND = not detected
Fig. 1. Comparison of terpene profiles in ‘mostly indica’ (black histograms) and in ‘mostly sativa’ (white histograms) strains of Cannabis sativa L. Break on Y-axis is 0.7-0.8. Numbers on X-axis refer to individual compounds: 1=α-pinene, 2=unk1, 3=unk2, 4=camphene, 5=β-pinene, 6=sabinene, 7=Δ-3-carene, 8=α-phellandrene, 9=β-myrcene, 10=α-terpinene, 11=limonene, 12=1.8 cineole, 13=γ-terpinene, 14=cis-β-ocimene, 15=trans-β-ocimene, 16=α-terpinolene, 17=unk3, 18=unk4, 19=β-caryophyllene, 20=unk5, 21=unk6, 22=unk7, 23=unk8, 24=unk9, 25=unk10, 26=unk11, 27=unk12 and 28=unk13.
Results and discussion
The relative content of terpenoids is strongly inherited while total yield per weight of tissue is more subjected to environmental factors. Expression of composition on a tissue basis (mg/g) is used for quality control and standardization of Cannabis cultivars, as well as for chemosystematic studies (Fischedick et al., 2010), but the relative content (%) of terpenoids is more often used for chemosystematic studies.
The average relative contents of dominant compounds detected in the aroma volatiles of all the strains were: β-myrcene (46.1±2.6%), α-pinene (14.0±1.5%), α-terpinolene (10.2±1.8%), limonene (7.3±1.3%), trans-β-ocimene (6.6±0.7%), β-pinene (6.1±0.4%), α-terpinene (3.6±1.0%), β-caryophyllene (1.2±0.2%), 1.8 cineole (1.1±0.2%), α-phellandrene (0.7±0.1%) and Δ-3-carene (0.6±0.1%). The average relative contents of camphene, unk1, cis-β-ocimene, unk5, unk8, unk7, unk13, sabinene, γ-terpinene, unk3, unk4, unk6, unk10, unk2, unk9, unk11 and unk12 were lower than 0.5%.
Results of Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA between different strains (d.f.=15, N=99) showed significant changes in relative contents of all the compounds: α-pinene (X2=71.6, P<0.001), unk1 (X2=71.5, P<0.001), unk2 (X2=43.6, P<0.001), camphene (X2=67.2, P<0.001), β-pinene (X2=53.2, P<0.001), sabinene (X2=72.5, P<0.001), Δ-3-carene (X2=69.4, P<0.001), α-phellandrene (X2=59.6, P<0.001), β-myrcene (X2=47.7, P<0.001), α-terpinene (X2=36.3, P<0.01), limonene (X2=77.1, P<0.001), 1.8 cineole (X2=67.5, P<0.001), γ-terpinene (X2=30.9, P<0.01), cis-β-ocimene (X2=79.5, P<0.001), trans-β- ocimene (X2=82.1, P<0.001), α-terpinolene (X2=78.7, P<0.001), unk3 (X2=37.6, P<0.001), unk4 (X2=33.7, P<0.01), β-caryophyllene (X2=55.7, P<0.001), unk5 (X2=65.6, P<0.001), unk6 (X2=74.4, P<0.001), unk7 (X2=50.1, P<0.001), unk8 (X2=64.7, P<0.001), unk9 (X2=63.2, P<0.001), unk10 (X2=61.1, P<0.001), unk11 (X2=80.1, P<0.001), unk12 (X2=61.8, P<0.001) and unk13 (X2=52.8, P<0.001).
β-myrcene was detected in high % in all the strains, with strain 17 having the highest relative content (80.1±7.3%) and strain 8 having the lowest relative content (16.1±3.4%) (Table 1). β-myrcene was the dominant terpene in almost all the strains, with the exceptions of strains 6, 7, 8 and 12. α-terpinolene was detected in high % in some ‘mostly sativa’ strains (7, 8, 9, 10 and 12), with strains 7 and 8 having α-terpinolene as the dominant terpene (respectively 41.8±7.2% and 37.3±3.5%), while it was not detected or it was detected in traces in ‘mostly indica’ strains and in some ‘mostly sativa’ strains (5, 6 and 11). α-pinene and β-pinene were detected in all the strains and their relative contents were commonly lower than 10%. α-pinene was detected in higher relative contents (up to 10%) in some strains (3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16), with strains 6 and 12 having α- pinene as the dominant terpene (respectively 46.3±5.7% and 24.2±15.6%). β-pinene was detected in higher relative contents (up to 10%) in strains 3 (12.6±1.6%) and 6 (13.2±0.8%). Limonene was detected in low % or traces in some ‘mostly indica’ strains (3, 14, 15 and 16) and in ‘mostly sativa’ strains, while it was detected in much higher % (up to 10%) in some ‘mostly indica’ strains (2, 4, 13 and 17), with these strains having limonene as second most abundant terpenoid. Trans-β-ocimene was not detected or it was detected in low % in one ‘mostly sativa’ strains (6) and in ‘mostly indica’ strains, while in some ‘mostly sativa’ strains (5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) it was detected in much higher % (up to 5%), with strains 5 and 11 having trans-β-ocimene as second most abundant terpenoid (respectively 18.7±1.9% and 16.8±2.2%). α-terpinene was detected in low % or traces in almost all the strains, with strain 4 having a much higher relative content (18.0±8.0%). The sesquiterpene β-caryophyllene was detected in all the strains and its relative content was commonly lower than 2%, with some strains (2, 9, 13 and 17) having relative contents up to 2%. 1.8 cineole was detected in low % (up to 2%) in some ‘mostly sativa’ strains (7, 8, 9, 10 and 12), while it was detected in lower % or traces in ‘mostly indica’ strains and in some ‘mostly sativa’ strains (5, 6 and 11). Δ-3-carene and α-phellandrene were detected in low % (up to 1%) in some ‘mostly sativa’ strains (7, 8, 9, 10 and 12), while they were not detected in ‘mostly indica’ strains and in some ‘mostly sativa’ strains (5, 6 and 11).
Mann-Whitney U test between ‘mostly sativa’ strains and ‘mostly indica’ strains (d.f.=1, N=99) showed significant changes in relative contents of several compounds except for α-pinene, unk2, β-pinene, α-terpinene, γ-terpinene, β-caryophyllene, unk7, unk12 and unk13 (Fig. 1). Relative contents of camphene (X2=22.7, P<0.001), β-myrcene (X2=23.1, P<0.001), limonene (X2=27.8, P<0.001), unk3 (X2=15.4, P<0.001), unk6 (X2=29.9, P<0.001) and unk11 (X2=42.3, P<0.001) were significantly higher in ‘mostly indica’ strains than in ‘mostly sativa’ strains (Fig. 1). Plants derived from ‘mostly sativa’ strains showed significantly higher relative proportions of unk1 (X2=33.4, P<0.001), sabinene (X2=24.9, P<0.001), Δ-3-carene (X2=39.6, P<0.001), α-phellandrene (X2=31.97, P<0.001), 1.8 cineole (X2=19.2, P<0.001), cis-β-ocimene (X2=48.6, P<0.001), trans-β- ocimene (X2=52.6, P<0.001), α-terpinolene (X2=13.2, P<0.001), unk4 (X2=15.3, P<0.001), unk5 (X2=29.6, P<0.001), unk8 (X2=24.3, P<0.001), unk9 (X2=7.5, P<0.01) and unk10 (X2=9.5, P<0.01) than plants derived from ‘mostly indica’ strains (Fig. 1).
Although Hillig (2004) stated that differences on terpenoids in Cannabis are of limited use for taxonomic discrimination at the species level, with sesquiterpenes generally more useful than monoterpenes, we found that several monoterpenes markers can be powerful tools for discerning between ‘mostly sativa’ and ‘mostly indica’ biotypes (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Our results are also supported by results recently obtained by Fischedick et al. (2010) showing that monoterpenes are able to distinguish cultivars with similar sesquiterpenes and cannabinoids levels.
Conclusions
The main differences between terpene profiles of the evaluated strains belonging to the two principal biotypes were that ‘mostly indica’ strains were characterized by dominancy of β-myrcene, present in high relative contents, with limonene or α-pinene as second most abundant terpenoid, while ‘mostly sativa’ strains were characterized by more complex terpene profiles, with some strains having α-terpinolene or α-pinene as dominant terpenoid, and some strains having β-myrcene as dominant terpenoid with α-terpinolene or trans-β-ocimene as second most abundant terpenoid.
This wide variability in terpene composition can provide a potential tool for the characterization of Cannabis biotypes, and warrant further researches in order to evaluate the drug’s medical value and, at the same time, to select less susceptible chemotypes to the attack of herbivores and diseases. More detailed studies on the variability in monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes are needed. Breeding for specific terpenoids in plants is a fascinating research topic; in fact, the various biological activities of these compounds make the analysis of terpenoids a valuable tool for improving a considerable number of traits in pharmaceutical and industrial cultivars of Cannabis.
Terpenoids analysis, combined with cannabinoids and flavonoids analyses, are essential for the metabolic fingerprinting of pharmaceutical cultivars. Pharmaceutical cultivars of the two principal biotypes may exhibit distinctive medicinal properties due to significant differences in relative contents of terpenoids, thus the synergy between the various secondary metabolites must be investigated in deeper details in the future in order to better elucidate the phytocomplex of Cannabis and to allow selection of chemotypes with specific medical effects.
In my head it’s as simple as “You were evolved to heal. The more joyful you can become, the greater your chances of reaching homeostasis.” It really is about mind body. Any thought to the contrary ignores the total picture. Single-molecule medicine has perverted the healing stream. Sometimes it feels like we may be at the end of that maddening run of decades, and then they introduce yet another newer molecule and the game starts all over again.
Glad to meet you. 
It’s always a good day when another cannabis warrior steps up to learn more of the wonder of the ECS and how we can help support it with cannabis. 
This was dated Feb 8, 2019. They’re stepping up the propaganda game. 
