Quote spurr:
Yea that is the old taxonomy from Carl Linnaeus from over a hundred years ago, and it's not considered correct anymore. That is what I wrote about in my big post. Right now, current genetic evidence shows at least 3 species with both drug bio-types, what we know as indica and sativa are both under C.indica. What we know as indica is C.indica Afghanica and we know as sativa is C.indica indica. Ruderlias is under both C.sativa and C.ruderalis.
The reason I prefer using WLDB (wide leaflet drug bio-type) for indica (e.g. C.indica Afghanica) and NLDB (narrow leaflet drug bio-type) for sativa (e.g. C.indica indica) is it avoids confusion of the incorrect terms we use (indica like NL#5 and sativa like Haze) with cannabis taxonomy.
The use of C.sativa L. (aka C.sativa subsp.) is no longer considered correct.
Here is a short quote from my big post:
"However, current analytical (e.g. DNA and RNA) studies, thanks in large part to the work of Karl W. Hillig [1][2] provide strong evidence to at least 3 species. Of which both drug bio-types (what we know as indica and sativa) fall under C.indica and non-drug bio-types fall under C.sativa and C.ruderalis. I for one use the work taxonomic of Karl W. Hillig, thus I like to call sativa drug bio-types "narrow leaflet drug bio-types" (aka "C.indica indica") and indica "wide leaflet drug bio-types" (aka "C.indica Afghanica")."
End quote.
As far as I know we are not allowed to produce Cannabis Sativa in this country, exept for reasons other then drug production and even this causes trouble for the law when small amounts of thc are beeing found in fiber, oil, or edible seed producing plants that are by substance name outlawed under some narcotics act..
But now it looks that names have changed.
Cannabis Sativa aparently is no longer, so does this mean that our laws should be rewritten?
According to the new namings, we would only not be allowed to grow some type of ruderalis(cannabis sativa) now.
Yea that is the old taxonomy from Carl Linnaeus from over a hundred years ago, and it's not considered correct anymore. That is what I wrote about in my big post. Right now, current genetic evidence shows at least 3 species with both drug bio-types, what we know as indica and sativa are both under C.indica. What we know as indica is C.indica Afghanica and we know as sativa is C.indica indica. Ruderlias is under both C.sativa and C.ruderalis.
The reason I prefer using WLDB (wide leaflet drug bio-type) for indica (e.g. C.indica Afghanica) and NLDB (narrow leaflet drug bio-type) for sativa (e.g. C.indica indica) is it avoids confusion of the incorrect terms we use (indica like NL#5 and sativa like Haze) with cannabis taxonomy.
The use of C.sativa L. (aka C.sativa subsp.) is no longer considered correct.
Here is a short quote from my big post:
"However, current analytical (e.g. DNA and RNA) studies, thanks in large part to the work of Karl W. Hillig [1][2] provide strong evidence to at least 3 species. Of which both drug bio-types (what we know as indica and sativa) fall under C.indica and non-drug bio-types fall under C.sativa and C.ruderalis. I for one use the work taxonomic of Karl W. Hillig, thus I like to call sativa drug bio-types "narrow leaflet drug bio-types" (aka "C.indica indica") and indica "wide leaflet drug bio-types" (aka "C.indica Afghanica")."
End quote.
As far as I know we are not allowed to produce Cannabis Sativa in this country, exept for reasons other then drug production and even this causes trouble for the law when small amounts of thc are beeing found in fiber, oil, or edible seed producing plants that are by substance name outlawed under some narcotics act..
But now it looks that names have changed.
Cannabis Sativa aparently is no longer, so does this mean that our laws should be rewritten?
According to the new namings, we would only not be allowed to grow some type of ruderalis(cannabis sativa) now.
