Did man create cannabis?

MJPassion said:

Sativa is a term that simply means cultivated. It is NOT a type of cannabis by any stretch of the word. All cannabis grown by man is sativa.
Indica is name that denotes a region that Cannabis Sativa was collected from.

Click to expand...

Sam_Skunkman said:

For your information all Sativa is hemp, either WLH or NLH.
All drug varieties are Indica, either WLD, or NLD,
What you refer to (Sativa) is actually Indica, NLD.
Read Cannabis Evolution and Ethnobotany by Robert C Clarke. Or the earlier works by Karl Hillig.-SamS

Click to expand...

Dropped Cat said:

Came across this post the other day and was interested in your reply:




I don't usually get into these debates, but am curious of the evolution of
not only our beloved plant, but also its accurate description.

Click to expand...

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Sativum said:

Sativa, Sativus, and Sativum are Latin botanical adjectives meaning cultivated, used to designate certain seed-grown domestic crops.

Sativa (ending in -a) is the feminine form of the adjective, but masculine (-us) and neuter (-um) endings are also used to agree with the gender of the nouns they modify. For example, the masculine Crocus sativus and neuter Pisum sativum.

Click to expand...

DocTim420 said:

So with that in mind--

How the First Plant Came to Be

A genetic analysis reveals the ancient, complex--and symbiotic--roots of photosynthesis in plants

Earth is the planet of the plants—and it all can be traced back to one green cell. The world's lush profusion of photosynthesizers—from towering redwoods to ubiquitous diatoms—owe their existence to a tiny alga eons ago that swallowed a cyanobacteria and turned it into an internal solar power plant.

By studying the genetics of a glaucophyte—one of a group of just 13 unique microscopic freshwater blue-green algae, sometimes called "living fossils"—an international consortium of scientists led by molecular bioscientist Dana Price of Rutgers University, has elucidated the evolutionary history of plants. The glaucophyte Cyanophora paradoxa still retains a less domesticated version of this original cyanobacteria than most other plants.

According to the analysis of C. paradoxa's genome of roughly 70 million base pairs, this capture must have occurred only once because most modern plants share the genes that make the merger of photosynthesizer and larger host cell possible. That union required cooperation not just from the original host and the formerly free-ranging photosynthesizer but also, apparently, from a bacterial parasite. Chlamydia-like cells, such as Legionella (which includes the species that causes Legionnaire's disease), provided the genes that enable the ferrying of food from domesticated cyanobacteria, now known as plastids, or chloroplasts, to the host cell.

"These three entities forged the nascent organelle, and the process was aided by multiple horizontal gene transfers as well from other bacteria," explains biologist Debashish Bhattacharya of Rutgers University, whose lab led the work published in Science on February 17. "Gene recruitment [was] likely ongoing" before the new way of life prospered and the hardened cell walls of most plants came into being.

In fact, such a confluence of events is so rare that evolutionary biologists have found only one other example: the photosynthetic amoeba Paulinella domesticated cyanobacteria roughly 60 million years ago. "The amoeba plastid is still a 'work in progress' in evolutionary terms," Bhattacharya notes. "We are now analyzing the genome sequence from Paulinella to gain some answers" as to how these events occur.

The work provides the strongest support yet for the hypothesis of late biologist Lynn Margulis, who first proposed in the 1960s to widespread criticism the theory that all modern plant cells derived from such a symbiotic union, notes biologist Frederick Spiegel of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who was not involved in the work. That thinking suggests that all plants are actually chimeras—hybrid creatures cobbled together from the genetic bits of this ancestral union, including the enabling parasitic bacteria.

The remaining question is why this complex union took place roughly 1.6 billion years ago. One suggestion is that local conditions may have made it more beneficial for predators of cyanobacteria to stop eating and start absorbing, due to a scarcity of prey and an abundance of sunlight. "When the food runs out but sunlight is abundant, then photosynthesis works better" to support an organism, Bhattacharya notes. And from that forced union a supergroup of extremely successful organisms—the plants—sprang.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-first-plant-evolved/

So what caused the "confluence of events"?

Click to expand...

MJPassion said:

Idk where you got that post from Sam S but unfortunately that post he made is wrong.



Sam S. nor R.C.C. can change the definition of a term to suit their needs. (They can but then they instantly insert misinformation & misinformation create trust issues.) If the book he's referring to states what his post does then it makes me wonder how much other bull shit has been spread by these so called pioneers?

And it makes me think I may have wasted precious resources obtaining that book!

Click to expand...

Cannabis (/ˈkænəbɪs/) is a genus of flowering plant in the family Cannabaceae. The number of species within the genus is disputed. Three species may be recognized, Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis; C. ruderalis may be included within C. sativa; or all three may be treated as subspecies of a single species, C. sativa.[2][3][4][1] The genus is indigenous to central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.[5]

Click to expand...

Columbo said:

I don't think things are as clear as you make them out to be. Using the single species theory shouldn't all Cannabis cultivated by man or otherwise(feral/wild), cultivated for fibre, seed oil, or drug uses be called C.sativa? Much like Clarke, SamS and Hillig propose?

Seems a little pretentious (and more importantly off topic) to be debating such matters as scientific nomenclature on a Cannabis forum designed for the lay person imo

Peace

Click to expand...

MJPassion said:

There's no debate!
Sativa wether related to cannabis or not has the same meaning.

It really is that simple!

Sativa is a latin term.
The term existed before cannabis was categorized for scientific purposes.
The term simply means cultivated.

Do you eat oats? I love 'em.
Avina sativa for breakfast anyone?

Attempting to halt the spread of misinformation is pretentious eh?

These forums are for spreading knowledge.
They're NOT only for the lay person. If that were the case the info here would be as bad as High Times Magazine.

Click to expand...

Columbo said:

...What would you propose we call un-cultivated Cannabis?

Click to expand...

Taxonomic Hierarchy

Kingdom: Plantae – plantes, Planta, Vegetal, plants
Subkingdom: Viridiplantae
Infrakingdom: Streptophyta – land plants
Superdivision: Embryophyta
Division: Tracheophyta – vascular plants, tracheophytes
Subdivision: Spermatophytina – spermatophytes, seed plants, phanérogames
Class: Magnoliopsida
Superorder: Rosanae
Order: Rosales
Family: Cannabaceae – hemp
Genus: Cannabis L. – hemp
Species: Cannabis sativa L. – hemp, grass, hashish, Mary Jane, pot, marijuana

Direct Children:
Subspecies: Cannabis sativa ssp. indica (Lam.) E. Small & Cronquist – hemp, grass, hashish, Mary Jane, pot, marijuana
Subspecies: Cannabis sativa ssp. sativa L. – hemp, grass, hashish, Mary Jane, pot, marijuana

Variety: Cannabis sativa var. sativa L. – marijuana
Variety: Cannabis sativa var. spontanea Vavilov – marijuana

Click to expand...

Columbo said:

I don't get it, it's just a name, a label, what does it matter if it doesn't reasonate with it's original latin meaning? What we call sativa here on the boards is different to what scientists refer to as C.Sativa Sub. Sativa (aka hemp) which in turn is different to the original latin meaning. No big deal imo.

What would you propose we call un-cultivated Cannabis?

Click to expand...

Bud Green Sr. said:

Man did not create cannabis.
But we certainly nurtured it.

I am almost certain there were cannabis merchants in Abraham's day.. They would have traded it for wine, grain, cattle and silver.
Of course, there was no internet 4000 years ago, so you had to do the old-fashioned networking to find your local dealer...

Click to expand...

weedaholic721 said:

Copy and paste the full title into the search bar at sci-hub.cc, it will then download the pdf

Click to expand...

MJPassion said:

IT'S NOT A FUCKING PROPOSAL!
WHY CAN'T YOU USE A FUCKING DICTIONARY?

There is no argument until some ass hole like you makes one!

I'm here to learn & spread TRUTHS about my fave plant...
Not make up a bunch of bullshit misinformation!

Click to expand...