[coneconington]

Thankyou for the info ornamental, HINT 2 is some interesting stuff!

[Sam_Skunkman]

Originally Posted by coneconington

Iv been working pretty hard on improving my knowledge of chemistry for 4 years now (2nd year pharmaceutical chem.), I think my grades show I'm progressing well. The only thing I shouldn't have written was 'cannabis chemistry', since the original post iv done a bit of reading and turns out I know very little on the specifics of cannabinoids. So il rephrase, "I have a fair bit of knowledge in chemistry and some botany. Someone please help improve my knowledge of cannabis in a polite and understanding manner."

No problem I think you are pretty clear now. I am a bit rude, that is well known, but I do not suffer fools silently, it was your statement that "Over the years iv learnt, what I would say, is a fair bit about cannabis chemistry and botany. " That made me do it.
It was just not true at all.
Sure I asked stupid questions I still do, but I try to avoid saying I know what I am talking about if I don't. That is actually a stupid statement if not true, not a stupid question.

Iv got pdfs on my old desktop referring to thca as thcv, hence the question.
As I said, iv been a member for however many years and only made 2 posts, even if on reflection it was an obvious (some would say stupid) question I thought I'd socialise on the site I'm on so often. Thank you for the answer, but you really didn't need to be rude. Have you never asked a stupid question while you were still learning? how would we learn without stupid questions.

Yes the Hint 2 is good stuff, the work for this was begun in my lab and I started the project. I think that we, our team, showed the world how the Cannabinoids were inherited, and I am proud of the work. THC was only discovered 50 years ago and we now know how it is inherited in the plant. Pretty cool.
-SamS.

[Donn]

As long as it's OK to be critical, may I point out that this site's terminology popup for "THCV" says "tetrahydrocannabiverol"?

People who want to follow up with a search will get a lot more interesting information if they look "tetrahydrocannabivarin". I guess either is valid, and of course there isn't much point in having the popup in the first place as you'd do just as well to search for THCV, but someone must like these popups (that you get if you hover over an italicized term.)

[Sam_Skunkman]

I just ignore the popups but I think that tetrahydrocannabivarin is correct.
-SamS

[Chimera]

The GW/Etienne propyl cannabinoid Apr/Ape single locus model is incorrect, I'm quite sure of that. (More to come).

DA is 'knocked -out' in most populations, probably an inadvertent - propyl knockout selection recognized for it's lack of psychoactivity and an was teased out of the progenitor by an unintentional selection pressure by humans that were selecting for increased psycho-activity, since THCV/THCVA appears to be an inverse agonist @ CB1. You read it here first - time stamped for clarity.

I've never seen THCV/THVCA represented as THCA- if anyone did publish that it's wrong - propyl cannabs have 3 carbon side-chains while the more common OA derived pentyl's have 5 carbon tails, different chemical structures, different molecular weights, different routes of synthesis, different chemical affinities and receptor binding potentials.

You can peak on Sam for being rude, or you can recognize that this entire field is filled with wannabes that all have an opinion and most are wrong or have an incomplete understanding, and we see them telling you all how it is and espousing their ill-informed opionions on the daily. I don't know what it is about cannabis, but some how it repeatedly attracts those that couldn't make it elsewhere, yet know enough to fool the quasi-informed into idolatry. Trust me I spent the last few listening to folks discussing techniques and analytical methods for which most of have never run a single sample, trying to correct folks who have run thousands of samples and actually have experience. Bring your own data or shut up, and learn from those actually doing the work. It's one thing to play armchair quarterback because you read a bunch of papers, it's another thing entirely to have done the work and see the results and interpret how your own results may conflict with current models.

Too much talk in this business, not enough do. I say talk less, do more.

-Chimera

[Sam_Skunkman]

x

Originally Posted by Chimera

The GW/Etienne propyl cannabinoid Apr/Ape single locus model is incorrect, I'm quite sure of that. (More to come).

Cool, I am happy if the model can be corrected, and if you can do it great, I will be happy to read your corrections and I believe you may have a better model, you understand Cannabis well enough to say this, I look forward to the more to come.... Is it your work or others?
-SamS

DA is 'knocked -out' in most populations, probably an inadvertent - propyl knockout selection recognized for it's lack of psychoactivity and an was teased out of the progenitor by an unintentional selection pressure by humans that were selecting for increased psycho-activity, since THCV/THCVA appears to be an inverse agonist @ CB1. You read it here first - time stamped for clarity.

I've never seen THCV/THVCA represented as THCA- if anyone did publish that it's wrong - propyl cannabs have 3 carbon side-chains while the more common OA derived pentyl's have 5 carbon tails, different chemical structures, different molecular weights, different routes of synthesis, different chemical affinities and receptor binding potentials.

You can peak on Sam for being rude, or you can recognize that this entire field is filled with wannabes that all have an opinion and most are wrong or have an incomplete understanding, and we see them telling you all how it is and espousing their ill-informed opionions on the daily. I don't know what it is about cannabis, but some how it repeatedly attracts those that couldn't make it elsewhere, yet know enough to fool the quasi-informed into idolatry.

Ain't that the truth?

Trust me I spent the last few listening to folks discussing techniques and analytical methods for which most of have never run a single sample, trying to correct folks who have run thousands of samples and actually have experience. Bring your own data or shut up, and learn from those actually doing the work. It's one thing to play armchair quarterback because you read a bunch of papers, it's another thing entirely to have done the work and see the results and interpret how your own results may conflict with current models.

I agree.

Too much talk in this business, not enough do. I say talk less, do more.

-Chimera

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by Chimera

The GW/Etienne propyl cannabinoid Apr/Ape single locus model is incorrect, I'm quite sure of that. (More to come).
...
-Chimera

Aren't there a few older publications which proposed a 2 loci model?
I remember that the lastest publication/-s on the subject aren't a 100% identical with the GW model but what exactly it was, I can't tell because the weather is too hot right now and I have difficulties doing anything else than sweating...
I don't think that THCV (or rather the allele/-s for the respective enzyme) was 'bred away' (intentionally or not) because THCV is also rare in hemp and multipurpose varieties. But this is just an extrapolation from CBD.

Regarding THCV: Tetrahydrocannabivarin and tetrahydrocannabivarol are two of the many synonymes for THCV, though tetrahydrocannabiverol isn't one.

Good question: Who makes those popups and how do we tell him if we find an error?

[Donn]

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

Good question: Who makes those popups and how do we tell him if we find an error?

There's a lot of junk in there. For example, any occurrence of "wild" is italicized so that in case you wanted to know, you can find it out that it means "weedy, escaped, naturalized or indigenous." (?) Anywhere else, italics carry emphasis, so automatic italicization of wild is unintentionally comical. If this feature just went away, I bet no one would miss it.

[Mikell]

Originally Posted by Donn

If this feature just went away, I bet no one would miss it.

[Daub Marley]

All information in forums is suspect. It's a great way to generally discuss a subject and get other viewpoints even if those other views are purely based on an empirical and/or non-scientific foundation. I have noticed the disparity of knowledge between the everyday poster here and someone in the general population with a scientifically focused education. It's obvious and prevalent enough that I find myself acting like an expert even though I am not. It's easy to overstep your expertise when a question is openly asked to all. You are going to get a range of expertise and credibility with your answers. It's up to you to mine them for something useful, but if your intention is to acquire verified peer-reviewed data then you've come to the wrong place. A forum is more of a tool for discussion than a trove of solid data. It really hinders the progression of knowledge and exploration when anyone regardless of their expertise belittles another member for their perceived lack of knowledge. Get off your high-horse before the impending rush of real experts that have been self selectively barred from this industry knock you off.