Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis – Did We Get It All Wrong?

spontcumb

Well-Known Member
Greetings!!!!!
I stumbled upon this article a few minutes ago. I thought some of you might be interested in this. This comes from "The Leaf" online. It appears that John McPartland, a researcher affiliated with GW Pharmaceuticals, is proposing a new taxonomy for Cannabis.

Here's the link to the story: http://theleafonline.com/c/science/2015/01/indica-sativa-ruderalis-get-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. 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."

"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."
Rock On! Peace!
 

undercoverfbi

Well-Known Member
I'm digging the new name for an indica

I'll correct the ditzy bud tending female whenever I restock.

Not like it'll matter to them as many shops have seemingly improper species label

"This super lemon haze is a wonderful indica"
 

icysurfer

Member
They who wonder why love potion 2 doesn't help cancer pain. A sativa. They are obviously clueless.

Sent from my XT1031 using Rollitup mobile app
 
Top