Indica-Sativa Trait Inventory

[BagseedSamurai]

Hi everyone!
In an effort to put a better figure to hybrids (such as this made of 60%/40% hybrid examples). I am putting together a scientific inventory of traits known to be "indica dominant" or "sativa dominant". Traits such as leaf structure, floral traist etc will be included and the information will be used as a method of calculating where on the spectrum the plant truly lies.

Can you help me think of traits that the two variations exhibit?

 

[Freedom Fighter]

hmmmm i feel as though i saw this thread elsewhere , if not, very similar.

you specifically are asking difference between indica and sativa?
or do you mean differences between strains?

diff between indi and sativa are very obvious, they are basically opposites... as i'm sure you know...

however, there are always exceptions. some of the huge wild lanky hashplants in the northern himalayas have extremely broad indica leaves, but every other aspect is sativa.
there are pure sativas, that autoflower.
etc
etc
etc
etc

i dont really think i see the point of the list?
you cant just define it by two basic groups, especially when speaking about hybrids.

i could imagine trying to track dominant traits through genetic lines....starting with extensive knowledge of the ancestors-- the landraces used to breed the strain, that was used to make the hybrid etc etc etc, and see what is dominant, dormant etc etc in the extensive family tree.

but honestly, i dont think that is possible unless you create entirely new strains from IBL's and landraces, and a team of people have very extensive knowledge of those ibls and landraces, and extensive knowledge in cannabis breeding....
...i would honeslty LOVE to buy a book in 50 years about how some people joined together to do what i just described, and have all the important documentation etc in the book, charts, etc....

...man, this is some Good weed...

 

[BagseedSamurai]

I am trying to find polar ends of the spectrum. I have the basics (Broad leaves oppose longer thinner leaves;Ripening time shorter as opposed to longer; etc), but if there are some that are maybe not so basic, or even ones that bear mentioning, I would be interested in hearing it. So far, I have yet to see such an inventory pop up in an organized, methodical manner. Having genetic lines written up is only a part of the issue, because almost every seed vendor carries hybrids, true, pure sativas, for example, are much more rare. The point is not to lump them together, but distinguish them amongst the other varieties in an organized, scientific manner.

You may think it impossible, friend, but it is far from it.

 

[Freedom Fighter]

i think you are missing my point. you cant generalize too many qualities into indica or sativa.

the wide leaf, and short flowering time, does not apply to all indicas. and, it applies to some pure sativa.
there are many many examples of pure strains/species having attributes of the opposite species.

hence why you cant make this list, past the very basics.

each landrace is different. every sativa landrace has significant differences compared to any other given landrace sativa..... some of these differences could even be catgegorized as indica traits.

hence the idea is redundant.... or every difference you list will have to say (in order to be acurate/true) "TYPICALLY Indicas have broad leaves, while sativa have thin leaves. USUALLY sativa has longer flowering time than indica." there are exceptions to almost every statement comparing indica vs sativa.

my second point, is that it would make alot more sense (and literally be more accurate) to list the qualities of each landrace/ibl/genepool (in immense detail).... in order to actually understand them in the sense you are thinking.
the point is you have to be extremely specific to categorize something with such huge diversity.... or else it is inaccurate and missing information-- and therefore redundant.

 

[BagseedSamurai]

My time is ill-served debating this. It will happen. Don't worry, when I get it published, I won't say "I told you so".

Does anyone have anything constructive to add?

 

[Rinse]

I think its a good idea, even though Freedom Fighter has a good poi8nt about traits overlapping.

What have you got on the list so far?

 

[Freedom Fighter]

its already been done.... go buy some cannabis books... do some reading thats not internet based. specifically the older literature - they didn't have as much info to work with and the understanding of cannabis was much more basic... so things like this are well documented.

im not trying to shit on your parade, but i sincerely think your concept is redundant... its been done, and now that we know more, there is no point in repeating... because we know that its not as simple as indica vs sativa

and yeah, whats on the list so far?

 

[er·u·dite]

its already been done.... go buy some cannabis books... do some reading thats not internet based. specifically the older literature - they didn't have as much info to work with and the understanding of cannabis was much more basic... so things like this are well documented.

im not trying to shit on your parade, but i sincerely think your concept is redundant... its been done, and now that we know more, there is no point in repeating... because we know that its not as simple as indica vs sativa

quoted for emphasis

 

[BagseedSamurai]

its already been done

Give me exact books that this has been done in.

Oh, and good job on your false assumptions of what I am trying to do.

But seriously. Where has this been done?

 

[Freedom Fighter]

i'm not going to partake in some retarded internet flame battle. stop being offended. (lol)
if you are to near sighted / impatient to realize that everything i have said COULD be taken in a positive manner and infact used to your advantage/ expand your intellectual understanding of cannabis..... then i dont know what to tell you bro.

http://books.google.com/books?id=O7AoY6ljSygC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false

buy a fuckin book man.... never again will i hand copy quotations for a pointless argument.... that being said:

There has been much controversy about whether there exiswts one species of cannabis with different varieties (described as monotypic) or several distinct species (polytypic). in 1783, the famous French naturalist jean-baptiste Lamarck suggested that the hemp plant found in europe was sifficiently different from that growing in India for them to be seperate species. he reclassified them, retaining Linnaeus' *Cannabis sativa for the European plant and naming the Indian *Cannabis indica after its country of origina. Then , in 1924, a Russian botanist called Janischewski,studying wild cannabis growing in the Volga River system of wester Siberia and central Asia, recognized this as a third species which he named *Cannabis ruderalis.
Consequently, the polytypic side of the argument has mainly come to be accepted, although, even now there still linger doubts because the cannabis plant, being very ready to botanically adapt to it's environment, has been found capable of botanically 'adjusting' itself. it has been discovered that the seeds take from, say, a European Cannabis sativa plant and cultivated in India come to display some of the characterisitics of the Cannabis indica plant in just a few generations -- and vice versa.
of the three species, C. satic is the most widespread. A gangling, open branched plan, it can grow to 6 meters in heigh, where as C. indica grows only about 1 metere and is conical in shape with dense branching. C. ruderalis reaches only three quarters of a metere at best with few if any branches.


if you keep reading, the descriptions of the three species and their details are a bit ridiculous.... some of his facts are very broad generalizations, even though he expresses the point about huge variability among the act.

find some books on the subject that were written/published before the mid/late 80's and you will find example after example of the very broad and stereotypical descriptions that CLEARLY you and anyone else can think of exceptions to their "defining qualities"

and if i happen to think of it, i will find some of my fathers old books from the 70's .... maybe even scan some shit...

 

[BagseedSamurai]

What I was trying to say is that you do not understand what I am trying to do so your arguments, though they may be valid in some other venue, are as good as thin air. You think I am doing one thing and you are dead set that I am, but my goals are different. Not to mention you say what I am doing is "impossible" and also say that it's been done. What is this "it" that you think I am trying to do?

Assuming I know jack squat about the plant is pretty offensive in its own right. I mean, you basically called me stupid, or at the very least, ignorant whether due to or in part of your "trying to help", you don't expect those kinds of things to be taken in a friendly manner, do you? Surely you don't walk up to someone on a street and call them an idiot, and expect them to buy you lunch. Especially when you expound on it in such a breathy fashion. Not to mention the fact that you have basically killed this thread. Not only did you take over and derail, but you did it arguing a point that you don't even understand. Making assumptions and taking over a thread when you obviously don't understand the OP's intentions is pretty foolish. And going on and on about it? C'mon. If the argument is so pointless, then quiet those typing fingers, let constructive posts in and refer to my signature. By that, I mean the quote, not the link.

Thanks again.

 

[BagseedSamurai]

The plan (in slightly greater detail).

Write up a coherent inventory of polar traits specific to the variations within the species. The data gleaned from this inventory; and a series of "surveys" derived from will be used in a series of calculations (thanks, quantitative methods class!) to determine where, on an axis, a specific plant is located.

The reason for this is mainly due to the odd and often guesswork percentages given to strains in whole or in part due to their lineage. So far, much of the data on traits has been remarked on, but in my stint of studying the plant, I do not think I have seen a quantitative inventory actually done in such a way.

So.. I have the basic traits down. If anyone could remark on their own experiences with plants exhibiting dominant traits of the varieties (Sativa, Ruderalis, indica), it would be helpful.

 

[MumblyJumJum]

"If anyone could remark on their own experiences with plants exhibiting dominant traits of the varieties (Sativa, Ruderalis, indica),"

I think what you say here gets at the issue FreedomFighter might be pointing to. Sativa, Ruderalis, Indica are terms that people have come up with to describe the exceptionally wide range of variation within the cannabis gene pool, an attempt to bring human order to nature's overwhelming complexity. It's not as if the entirety of cannabis strains can be reduced to a set ratio of indica, sativa, ruderalis, afghani, etc. Indeed, if my memory of the cannabis article on Wikipedia serves, the way potheads such as ourselves use indica/sativa is different from the way botanists use the terms (I believe the scientific community considers all non-drug cultivars as sativa and drug cultivars as indica regardless of leaf shape, flowering time). I think the idea of looking at specific landraces, strains that are relatively stable and adapted to specific environments would be a more effective way of conceptualizing this project. As some of the examples people have given here show, the sativa-indica spectrum is really a heuristic, not something that maps exactly onto genetic reality.

 

[Raco]

Young plants

Colombian male and afghan female

Afghan male and Colombian female

 

[BagseedSamurai]

"If anyone could remark on their own experiences with plants exhibiting dominant traits of the varieties (Sativa, Ruderalis, indica),"

I think what you say here gets at the issue FreedomFighter might be pointing to. Sativa, Ruderalis, Indica are terms that people have come up with to describe the exceptionally wide range of variation within the cannabis gene pool, an attempt to bring human order to nature's overwhelming complexity. It's not as if the entirety of cannabis strains can be reduced to a set ratio of indica, sativa, ruderalis, afghani, etc. Indeed, if my memory of the cannabis article on Wikipedia serves, the way potheads such as ourselves use indica/sativa is different from the way botanists use the terms (I believe the scientific community considers all non-drug cultivars as sativa and drug cultivars as indica regardless of leaf shape, flowering time). I think the idea of looking at specific landraces, strains that are relatively stable and adapted to specific environments would be a more effective way of conceptualizing this project. As some of the examples people have given here show, the sativa-indica spectrum is really a heuristic, not something that maps exactly onto genetic reality.

My aim is to point out the genetic reality within the names given them. I understand that genetically, the varieties are too similar and most science will explain that the main, if not the only species acknowledged is Cannabis sativa. So within sativa, there exist different genotypic mutation. The differences may be minor, but they still deserve to be mapped.

 

[BagseedSamurai]

Raco: Would you mind if I used those? They are great for comparison. How old are they? Are they landrace?

 

[Freedom Fighter]

i continue to type in this thread, because i feel if you dont understand me, i am not expressing myself properly.
obviously, other people understand what i'm saying, and a few even agree.

my point, is there is more in common between indica and sativa than meets the eye.... perhaps even more in common than there is differences.

by trying to graph this.... your graph will be very very basic (if you are to be accurate and list ONLY traits that are truly indi or truly sativa)
then we just get a list of plants that say " well its indica, but that one is sativa" ,,, which you can do by Usually just looking at the plants with your eyes.... you can't get any detailed information using the naked eye.

however, i will say;

Your idea COULD be useful, but the data would need to be finite botanical details and differences, even on the cellular level, where the two species are ACTUALLY different, not just in visible observations that are variable and inconsistent.
i made the assumption that you are not a botanist with lab equipment, so i assumed you would be listing the qualities only visible to the naked eye.
are my assumptions correct?


Im not calling you an idiot . chill out.

i killed/hijacked your thread? if anyone is intelligent/educated enough to have something to say on this Particular subject, why would my posts deter them?
obviously they would either agree or disagree , either way they can still state their opinion....

-FF

 

[BagseedSamurai]

Your assumptions are wrong, as they have been since this whole thing started. I'd rather not continue this argument, considering you really don't seem to have any motivation to help, just to argue your point until you are "understood."

I'm seriously not interested in arguing, or explaining why or how your arguing derailed this thread.

Hell, if you have anything constructive to say that doesn't involve you being fallaciously assumptive, it might be worth the read.

By the way, the book you linked to had nothing anywhere near what I plan on doing. It did have some good information, so I suppose I should thank you.

 

[Freedom Fighter]

ok..... so how are my assupmtions wrong?

what EXACTLY are you trying to do? maybe explain it one more time for me, and everyone else, because obviously theres a lack of communication.

 

[3dDream]

Can the shape of a leaf tell me about the high of a plant? If not I don't see what is gained? Also plants have epigenetics. Traits can show up depending on the growing conditions.