Marijuana Botany by Clarke? Worth the Read?
- Thread starter rrog
- Start date
big_daddy
Member
IMO, this book is a must read for those interested in the history of MJ as it pertains to the origins of modern day strains. It is a scientific read, but well worth the time.
I'm about half way through the book right now, and will probably have to re-read it a couple of times to fully grasp everything it contains.
b_d
I'm about half way through the book right now, and will probably have to re-read it a couple of times to fully grasp everything it contains.
b_d
O
OrganicOzarks
It's worth reading. I would also suggest Teaming With Microbes, and Ingram's Field guides for AACT. There are two I believe.
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Actively-Aerated-Compost-ebook/dp/B0037CF1ZW
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Actively-Aerated-Compost-ebook/dp/B0037CF1ZW
I would beware the word combination "marijuanna" and "botany".
A botanist would not say marijuanna, at not in a book title. It's cannabis.
A botanist would not say marijuanna, at not in a book title. It's cannabis.
schwilly
Member
True. Marijuana is a derogatory term. But it has "mystique" and has been heavily stigmatized by society in many ways.
Cannabis may be the correct term but simply isn't as eye-catching to the general public. While I'm sure accuracy is important to the author, he (and the publisher) want an appealing title to sell books.
Robert Connell Clarke is a good writer for this type of work. I have his book, Hahish, it is a great read and his research and knowledge of the history of the plant is among the best, if not the best in the scene.
Been meaning to pick up marijuana botany.
I think it is over many folks heads. If you can wrap your head around it it is very informative. Peace GS
sounds interesting. does he properly explain that we are mistaken when we refer to indica and sativa as separate species?
schwilly
Member
I think the distinction between sub species and species is still a bit of a gray area.
But yes, he supports the more traditional idea that cannabis originated in the hindu kush region and seeds were spread through trade and developed into the regional varieties that are our landraces and sativas today.
Been a while since i read it but i think that was his position.
I may have to get a copy then, sounds like the real deal.
This is what concerns me. It's easy to take some traditional, general plant physiology info and throw it around, then make claims as to "this is why your plant needs to be fed sugar..." or some such. If the audience at large doesn't understand, then perhaps there's some (unintended) BS in the text. That's the risk. It's probably a fantastic book.
Also, I understood that the book gets into specific metabolic processes (Kreb's Cycle) not just the morphology and history of Cannabis. That's what I understand, anyway.
TACOE
Member
skip that book.. though i've never heard of it
i have read "Botany for Gardeners" by Brian Capon.
Excellent read for those of us not well versed in botany and what actually goes on within plants.
it will apply to our ganj.. obviously.
Books specifically on marijuana tend to suck.. stoner authors make shitty books. ;P
i have read "Botany for Gardeners" by Brian Capon.
Excellent read for those of us not well versed in botany and what actually goes on within plants.
it will apply to our ganj.. obviously.
Books specifically on marijuana tend to suck.. stoner authors make shitty books. ;P
I disagree. Sounds like there needs to be a botany for dummies lol. Peace GS
schwilly
Member
Actually, stoners don't tend to write books or really accomplish much of anything.
Cannabis enthusiasts, like those of us here
, get shit done.
beh, I am a stoner and I get things done.
I just use calendars so I remember to do things.
I just use calendars so I remember to do things.
Great book.
I enjoyed the part about establishing "cannabis preserves" to save strains for future generations myself. Sounds like my kind of habitat.
I'm do not remember if he got into the specifics of genus Cannabis. He does however, reefer to it as such. (Some things in life are hard to resist. My appoligizes.)
I have this trinket for anyone intrested in specifics.
"The Genus Cannabis: Taxonomy and Biochemistry
Scientists who were the first to study the genus Cannabis clearly discerned different species.The father of plant taxonomy, Linnaeus, officially designated the Cannabis genus in 1753 when he founded the binomial system of botanical nomenclature still used today [4].Linnaeus added the "sativa" appellation (literally, "sown" or "cultivated," i.e., used in agriculture), indicating the utilitarian nature of the plant. Since his time numerous attempts have been made for a coherent taxonomy of Cannabis."
http://naihc.org/hemp_information/content/hemp.mj.html
Today many of us recognize 4 species of Family Cannabaceae Genus Cannabis sativa L. (syn Cannabis indica Lam.)
These species are: Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, and Hemp.
I'm do not remember if he got into the specifics of genus Cannabis. He does however, reefer to it as such. (Some things in life are hard to resist. My appoligizes.)
I have this trinket for anyone intrested in specifics.
"The Genus Cannabis: Taxonomy and Biochemistry
Scientists who were the first to study the genus Cannabis clearly discerned different species.The father of plant taxonomy, Linnaeus, officially designated the Cannabis genus in 1753 when he founded the binomial system of botanical nomenclature still used today [4].Linnaeus added the "sativa" appellation (literally, "sown" or "cultivated," i.e., used in agriculture), indicating the utilitarian nature of the plant. Since his time numerous attempts have been made for a coherent taxonomy of Cannabis."
http://naihc.org/hemp_information/content/hemp.mj.html
Today many of us recognize 4 species of Family Cannabaceae Genus Cannabis sativa L. (syn Cannabis indica Lam.)
These species are: Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, and Hemp.
