What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

A classification of endangered high-THC cannabis (Cannabis sativa subsp. indica) dome

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
A classification of endangered high-THC cannabis (Cannabis sativa subsp. indica) domesticates and their wild relatives
https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/46700/element/5/31/

Abstract
Two kinds of drug-type Cannabis gained layman’s terms in the 1980s. “Sativa” had origins in South Asia (India), with early historical dissemination to Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Americas. “Indica” had origins in Central Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkestan). We have assigned unambiguous taxonomic names to these varieties, after examining morphological characters in 1100 herbarium specimens, and analyzing phytochemical and genetic data from the literature in a meta-analysis. “Sativa” and “Indica” are recognized as C. sativa subsp. indica var. indica and C. sativa subsp. indica var. afghanica, respectively. Their wild-growing relatives are C. sativa subsp. indica var. himalayensis (in South Asia), and C. sativa subsp. indica var. asperrima (in Central Asia). Natural selection initiated divergence, driven by climatic conditions in South and Central Asia. Subsequent domestication drove further phytochemical divergence. South and Central Asian domesticates can be distinguished by tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol content (THC/CBD ratios, ≥7 or <7, respectively), terpenoid profiles (absence or presence of sesquiterpene alcohols), and a suite of morphological characters. The two domesticates have undergone widespread introgressive hybridization in the past 50 years. This has obliterated differences between hybridized “Sativa” and “Indica” currently available. “Strains” alleged to represent “Sativa” and “Indica” are usually based on THC/CBD ratios of plants with undocumented hybrid backgrounds (with so-called “Indicas” often delimited simply on possession of more CBD than “Sativas”). The classification presented here circumscribes and names four taxa of Cannabis that represent critically endangered reservoirs of germplasm from which modern cannabinoid strains originated, and which are in urgent need of conservation.
 

Roms

.bzh
Veteran
picture.php


It seems that this study did not analyse a true "indica" lol ; that is < 2m with very large pistils, very broad leaves and with an intense range of terpenes from vegetables to fruits! :D

So despite the great efforts for a better understanding i find that this study complicates instead of simplifying! The classification idea is also to go back to the source and not the reverse. So still a lot of work on the table for next researches that we can advise to be focus on the rare true dwarf "indica ancestor" specimen that can be found. And about the understanding variation in morphology and density of the trichomes and their different properties from oily to sticky. Peace
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
@Roms

You've pasted a table of the two domesticates, var. afghanica and indica

Their wild-growing putative ancestral populations are var. asperrima and himalayensis, respectively

If you want to criticize their proposed "ancestral Indica", it's the taxonomic key for the var. asperrima taxon you should be looking at

And the true Indica with broad leaflets is the var. afghanica
 

Roms

.bzh
Veteran
Their wild-growing putative ancestral populations are var. asperrima and himalayensis, respectively

"asperrima" mmmh in my opinion it's not a well chosen word when you know what it means and when you know what the cannabis represents!

If you want to criticize their proposed "ancestral Indica", it's the taxonomic key for the var. asperrima taxon you should be looking at
That's the whole of the error! The "ancestor indica" is supposedly domesticated! The cannabis became "indica" and dwarf due to very high altitude and it is the human old antediluvian migrations that allowed this mutation and survival. I don't think that the cannabis alone and "sativa" from the valley can survive multiple generations and be able to transform and mutate without the human help! The origin could be himalayensis yes but also kafiristanican, anyway have to study the micro climatic conditions there around 3500m. Again i think that the true birth place of the indica is in the Hindu kush, Nuristan. Would there be such rare fertile and micro climate places in the Himalaya? BLD there?

And the true Indica with broad leaflets is the var. afghanica
A pure non sense, afghanica is mostly giant so hybridized with "sativa".

:tiphat:
 

ahortator

Well-known member
Veteran
Thanks for the interesting article!

I don't know if this can be more or less closely related with the subjet. But I would like to add more fuel to the fire.

How ancient viruses got cannabis high
Ancient viruses contributed to the evolution of hemp and marijuana

THC and CBD, bioactive substances produced by cannabis and sought by medical patients and recreational users, sprung to life thanks to ancient colonization of the plant's genome by viruses, researchers have found.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...oysPnfljItaTqiS5GUdzLfwBR2eyABomOhJJ7qkRSh4Qo

What a mess importing Mexican Gold to Afghanistan in 1972. And nowadays most commercial crops in Mexico are contaminated with Afghan genetics. It is as sad as crazy!

In past centuries, landraces of South Asian heritage were grown over a much wider geographical range around the world than Central Asian landraces. The latter did not come to the attention of western Cannabis breeders until the early 1970s. Since then, breeders have haphazardly hybridized Central Asian and South Asian landraces, and largely obliterated their phenotypic differences (Clarke and Merlin 2013; Small 2017). Already 35 years ago, unhybridized landraces had become difficult to obtain in the USA and Europe (Clarke 1987). Hybrids of “Sativa” and “Indica” have proved overwhelmingly popular. “Indica” genes are useful for increasing cannabinoid yields, accelerating the maturity of outdoor plants at high latitudes, and reducing the height of plants so they are more easily concealed outdoors and more easily grown indoors. In the burgeoning CBD market, “Indica” genes (often from plants mislabeled “Ruderalis”) have increased the proportion of CBD relative to THC in plant products.

Alarmingly, Central and South Asian landraces have been corrupted by the introduction of foreign germplasm into their centers of diversity. Beisler (2006) boasted of importing “Mexican Gold” into Afghanistan around 1972. Casano (2005) noted that Afghani landraces were “disappearing” due to hybridization with other drug-type plants. Conversely, Central Asian landraces were introduced into South Asian centers of diversity in the 1970s – into Nepal (Cherniak 1982), Jamaica (Lamb 2010), and Thailand (Clarke and Merlin 2016). By 1980, Afghani landraces were imported into southern Kashmir, cultivated for sieved hashīsh, and escapes grew near crop fields (Clarke 1998). Also in the 1980s, Central Asian genetics were introduced into South Africa (Peterson 2009) and Morocco (Clarke and Merlin 2016). Sharma (1988) wrote about “hybrid Cannabis” growing in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, and he implicated “foreign nationals.”

Central and South Asian landraces face extinction through introgressive hybridization. Wiegand (1935) first described this phenomenon in plants. Introgression refers to the infiltration of genes between taxa through the bridge of F1 hybrids. Fertile offspring from these crosses may display hybrid vigor (enhanced fitness), and replace one or both parental populations (Ellstrand 2003). Recent phylogenetic studies of populations allegedly representing “Indica” and “Sativa” show little or no genetic differences, because these studies primarily analyzed hybrid “strains” (Sawler et al. 2015; Dufresnes et al. 2017; Schwabe and McGlaughlin 2018). These results conflict with studies of landraces collected in the 1970s–1990s, which showed much clearer genetic differences (Hillig 2005a; Gilmore et al. 2007).

...

Worldwide introgressive hybridization of “Indica” and “Sativa” threatens the agrobiodiversity of C. sativa. Seen pessimistically, the varieties described here are components of a vanishing world, and classifying them is like an exercise in renaming dinosaurs. Optimistically, the formal recognition of indigenous Central and South Asian varieties will provide them with unambiguous names, and may help prevent their extinction.
 

Storm Shadow

Well-known member
Veteran
Take a look at my Iranian thread if you wanna some pure landrace Indicas ... mad variation and tons of hermies ... its awesome
 

musigny23

Well-known member
What a mess importing Mexican Gold to Afghanistan in 1972. And nowadays most commercial crops in Mexico are contaminated with Afghan genetics. It is as sad as crazy!

I remember in 1988 when suddenly a huge amount of Mexican "indica" hit the market in California. "Indica" and "indica" dominated hybrids had come to completely dominate the cannabis scene in CA during the 80s and apparently somebody decided that's what Mexican farmers should be growing too. The early loads were almost indistinguishable from CA homegrown but soon the quality declined. Within a year that wave passed but the damage certainly was done. So it's been at least since then that Mexico has been contaminated.
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
The "ancestor indica" is supposedly domesticated!

nope...

ancestral Indicas aren't "supposedly domesticated"

a crucial point of the study is that the fundamental traits of the wild-type populations, var. asperrima and var. himalayensis, are creations of nature (natural selection) not humans

the authors have identified naturally created divergence between wild-type Indicas and Sativas



On the Indica versus Sativa story, a quick summary is as follows:

At least 32,600 years ago, true wild subsp. indica ancestral populations diverged into two distinct groups, driven by climatic conditions in South and Central Asia. Respectively, these were var. himalayensis and var. asperrima. Adaptation then caused their habitat isolation, creating a reproductive barrier.

Subsequent domestication (i.e., selection by humans) drove their further divergence into Indicas (var. afghanica) and Sativas (var. indica).

The terms Indica and Sativa can be used accurately to refer to some original Asian domesticates, but not to describe modern hybrid slop. Though note that many landraces are hybrids between these two formal botanical varieties.


A pure non sense, afghanica is mostly giant so hybridized with "sativa".

:tiphat:

Nope....

I've seen lots of misuse of the name on forums, not just by you

The original taxon "f. afghanica" was proposed by Vavilov - it's a short plant with oblanceolate leaflets

f. afghanica was identical to his wild-type var. kafiristanica, in every respect except its seeds showed domestication traits

f. afghanica is shown on the right below



Small & McPartland have used this plant as the type specimen for their wild-type (putative ancestral) Indica, which they've named var. asperrima, in accordance with the rules of taxonomy

giant Afghans like the Mazar-i-Sharif I collected in 2007 are most likely hybrids between var. afghanica (Indica) and var. indica (Sativa) landraces
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
tons of hermies

afaik, it's unlikely Iranian landraces have been under artifical selective pressure for truly monoecious plants (true hermies)

(unlike true var. indica, i.e. ganja landraces, which probably have because of people unknowingly using seeds from stray hermie pollen - in other words, seeds from bud, not direct from farmers)

so what you're seeing with "tons of hermies" isn't a sign of authenticity so much as a sign that the plants are experiencing stress from unfamiliar conditions

perhaps high nutes, light regimes, being pot-bound etc. - the usual things that might cause landraces to freak out indoors

outside straight into the earth, not pots, they're far less likely to do this
 

Roms

.bzh
Veteran
Here's the kind of true "ancestor indica" which i refer ; grown in South Afghanistan.

picture.php



Far from the giant and most common Afghanican specimens, worked and breeded by North Farmers.


picture.php
 

Roms

.bzh
Veteran
Some details of Tom Hills' X18 pue Pakistan, probably the most related thing to the "ancestor indica" ;

(All about high max altitude origin with less atmospheric pressure and ultra violet intensity which dwarfs vegetation).

picture.php
picture.php

picture.php

picture.php
 

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran
the short plants and X18 aren't "ancestral Indicas", they're just Indicas (aka var. afghanica)


common sense says if you're going to use the term "ancestral" it may as well have some useful meaning, so up till now in this thread it's been used to refer to the true wild ancestors of domesticates


also, the reason the plants in that field are so short is that they're underwatered and in poor soil - it's phenotypic plasticity

and fwiw the tall Mazar-i-Sharif landrace is just one of the many cultigens grown in the north of Afghanistan, some of which are pure Indicas, some aren't
 

troutman

Seed Whore
Genetics is responsible for ultimate size. But the environment plays a large part in allowing those genetic expressions to occur.
I used to wonder for a while why so many Afghani plants are tall when grown using modern techniques. Yet they can be very
short when grown in Middle Eastern fields by the old farmers. I know from experience that the amount of water, nutrients,
solar exposure and the quantity good soil makes the difference.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top