CANNABIS CLASSIFICATION METHODS

[therevverend]

but to be fair, that's not what I've said at all

leaflet shape (L/W ratio) and breadth definitely is a differentiating factor between the two main ssp. indica cultigens (Indica versus Sativa)

Not saying leaf shape is irrelevant, just that it shouldn't be the number one key to judging what group a plant belongs to. Cannabis Indica Afghanica has other unique genetic characteristics besides wide leaves. Different cannabinoids, different seed shape, development, nutrition, plant size and shape. It's genetic heritage. If you're saying the primary factor defining Afghanica is wide leaves you'd be wrong, there's plenty of examples, for instance wide leaf hemp. Another example would be wide leaf Afghan plants yielding progeny with thinner leaves that become more and more thin over generations. You end up in a circle leading back to Schultze causing all this bullshit by thinking Afghan cannabis was a different species defined by it's wide leaves which is what created the whole nomenclature mess in the first place. I'm guessing we'll find out (have already found out) cannabinoids, especially CBD and THC content, and the tendency of a strain to produce more CBD or more THC will be more important then leaf width.

Also we have to write this always in italic or else chaos in the scientific world if we don't follow these basic rules?

Do I understand you correctly now? Because I know I lack in the English language being a non-native speaker.

This is botanical classification nomenclature, the sort of stuff you need to know to understand to read and write scientific papers. It's purposefully not in simple colloquial terms because it's the same whatever language you speak. If you're German, Chinese, Russian, or whatever, it's still Cannabis sativa ssp indica var. afghanica. As you can see the world didn't stop spinning and you didn't get lost in confusion when I didn't use italics.

Most English users and growers will continue to use Indica, WLD, or whatever simplified terms the majority of people will understand. I usually use the country or region of origin name, Afghan, Chitral, Thai, or whatever. Then writing out Cannabis ssp. indica var. Afghanica.

There's a difference in language, between the language you know, you think with, the stuff you're able to speak without pausing to think. And the kind they teach you at school, in biology and grammar and the rest. I know what a grizzly is but I have to pause to think of Ursus arctos horribilis, the American brown bear.

Don't want to go too far down the Chomsky alley but stoners will always have their street stoner vocabulary. How closely it synchs with the professors isn't too important but there's benefits to understanding both.

 

[ngakpa]

strawmanning aside, on this point:

Another example would be wide leaf Afghan plants yielding progeny with thinner leaves

most landraces originated as hybrids between landraces

many are hybrids between formal botanical varieties

most of the Pakistani accessions we have appear to be hybrids between var. afghanica and var. indica, and at least two of the Afghan landraces we have appear to be too

add to that, most domesticates from the Himalaya and Hindu Kush are part of crop–weed complexes

in other words, they're intermediate between two formal taxa (wild or weedy Cannabis plants are formally classified as varieties such as var. himalayensis)

that's the most likely explanation for those morphological changes, though phenotypic plasticity and selective pressures may be involved

on your point about fixating on leaflets - sure, agreed, but traditional taxonomic keys require a set of traits, so formal classifications by definition have to involve other factors e.g. cannabinoid ratios, stem flexibility, branch architecture and the other characteristics that Small and McPartland use in their keys

 

[Cvh]

var. sativa in the context of Cannabis is "hemp"

Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa

So Cannabis sativa subsp. Indica var. sativa can't be used because var. sativa references to Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa aka Hemp?

Do I understand this correctly now? Or still not? Thanks.

 

[ngakpa]

So Cannabis sativa subsp. Indica var. sativa can't be used because var. sativa references to Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa aka Hemp?

Do I understand this correctly now? Or still not? Thanks.

taxonomy is a theoretical science and a practical art

there are 101 reasons why your proposal can't and won't happen


people in Britain often call potatoes "spuds"

your suggestion would be like changing the formal name of the potato from Solanum tuberosum to Solanum spud

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

BUMP
I updated the first post a bit...
-SamS

 

[zif]

Sam_Skunkman The numbered chemotype system feels too brittle. As quickly as the rare cannabinoid syntheses are worked into homozygous lines, new hybrid combinations will surely emerge. Seems better to classify by the primary, active/functional/terminal syntheses present.

Not looking forward to needing a table to remember what cannabinoids Type XLII plants produce!

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Sam_Skunkman The numbered chemotype system feels too brittle. As quickly as the rare cannabinoid syntheses are worked into homozygous lines, new hybrid combinations will surely emerge. Seems better to classify by the primary, active/functional/terminal syntheses present.

Not looking forward to needing a table to remember what cannabinoids Type XLII plants produce!

If you need 25 Types to explain what chemotype of Cannabis the plants, then you need 25, what can I say? Anything less is just not as descriptive is it?
It is like remembering all 125 Cannabinoids you need a list, same with the 150 Terpenes, you need a list to remember them all, or I do.
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Not saying leaf shape is irrelevant, just that it shouldn't be the number one key to judging what group a plant belongs to. Cannabis Indica Afghanica has other unique genetic characteristics besides wide leaves. Different cannabinoids, different seed shape, development, nutrition, plant size and shape. It's genetic heritage. If you're saying the primary factor defining Afghanica is wide leaves you'd be wrong, there's plenty of examples, for instance wide leaf hemp. Another example would be wide leaf Afghan plants yielding progeny with thinner leaves that become more and more thin over generations. You end up in a circle leading back to Schultze causing all this bullshit by thinking Afghan cannabis was a different species defined by it's wide leaves which is what created the whole nomenclature mess in the first place. I'm guessing we'll find out (have already found out) cannabinoids, especially CBD and THC content, and the tendency of a strain to produce more CBD or more THC will be more important then leaf width.



This is botanical classification nomenclature, the sort of stuff you need to know to understand to read and write scientific papers. It's purposefully not in simple colloquial terms because it's the same whatever language you speak. If you're German, Chinese, Russian, or whatever, it's still Cannabis sativa ssp indica var. afghanica. As you can see the world didn't stop spinning and you didn't get lost in confusion when I didn't use italics.

Most English users and growers will continue to use Indica, WLD, or whatever simplified terms the majority of people will understand. I usually use the country or region of origin name, Afghan, Chitral, Thai, or whatever. Then writing out Cannabis ssp. indica var. Afghanica.

There's a difference in language, between the language you know, you think with, the stuff you're able to speak without pausing to think. And the kind they teach you at school, in biology and grammar and the rest. I know what a grizzly is but I have to pause to think of Ursus arctos horribilis, the American brown bear.

Don't want to go too far down the Chomsky alley but stoners will always have their street stoner vocabulary. How closely it synchs with the professors isn't too important but there's benefits to understanding both.

Check out Identification of Phenotypic Characteristics in Three Chemotype Categories in the Genus Cannabis:
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/v...il&utm_term=0_47f6c7c552-70b2ae2af2-365750754
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Not saying leaf shape is irrelevant, just that it shouldn't be the number one key to judging what group a plant belongs to. Cannabis Indica Afghanica has other unique genetic characteristics besides wide leaves. Different cannabinoids, different seed shape, development, nutrition, plant size and shape. It's genetic heritage. If you're saying the primary factor defining Afghanica is wide leaves you'd be wrong, there's plenty of examples, for instance wide leaf hemp. Another example would be wide leaf Afghan plants yielding progeny with thinner leaves that become more and more thin over generations. You end up in a circle leading back to Schultze causing all this bullshit by thinking Afghan cannabis was a different species defined by it's wide leaves which is what created the whole nomenclature mess in the first place. I'm guessing we'll find out (have already found out) cannabinoids, especially CBD and THC content, and the tendency of a strain to produce more CBD or more THC will be more important then leaf width.



This is botanical classification nomenclature, the sort of stuff you need to know to understand to read and write scientific papers. It's purposefully not in simple colloquial terms because it's the same whatever language you speak. If you're German, Chinese, Russian, or whatever, it's still Cannabis sativa ssp indica var. afghanica. As you can see the world didn't stop spinning and you didn't get lost in confusion when I didn't use italics.

Most English users and growers will continue to use Indica, WLD, or whatever simplified terms the majority of people will understand. I usually use the country or region of origin name, Afghan, Chitral, Thai, or whatever. Then writing out Cannabis ssp. indica var. Afghanica.

There's a difference in language, between the language you know, you think with, the stuff you're able to speak without pausing to think. And the kind they teach you at school, in biology and grammar and the rest. I know what a grizzly is but I have to pause to think of Ursus arctos horribilis, the American brown bear.

Don't want to go too far down the Chomsky alley but stoners will always have their street stoner vocabulary. How closely it synchs with the professors isn't too important but there's benefits to understanding both.

Look at the paper above this post Rev.
-SamS

 

[GMT]

Sam, I'm not knocking you, but I have to ask a straight question here. Is this for science, botany or as I suspect legislature support? These distinctions seem primarily of use to governments looking to classify licence applications.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Sam, I'm not knocking you, but I have to ask a straight question here. Is this for science, botany or as I suspect legislature support? These distinctions seem primarily of use to governments looking to classify licence applications.

It is for my own satisfaction as when I see present classification methods they are sorely lacking.
-SamS

 

[zif]

If you need 25 Types to explain what chemotype of Cannabis the plants, then you need 25, what can I say? Anything less is just not as descriptive is it?
It is like remembering all 125 Cannabinoids you need a list, same with the 150 Terpenes, you need a list to remember them all, or I do.
-SamS

Totally - but the flat numbering doesn’t improve our understanding. Especially because the combinations are important, we need a periodic table of types. Something to organize existing combinations and make predictions about future possibilities.

It”d be really cool to build in information about (possibly) mutually exclusive chemistries, too.

On a more down to earth level, once (and if) we have 4:1 THCP:THCV plants, everywhere you might refer to them as Type 42 plants, you’d be better served by calling them THCP:THCV plants.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Totally - but the flat numbering doesn’t improve our understanding. Especially because the combinations are important, we need a periodic table of types. Something to organize existing combinations and make predictions about future possibilities.

It”d be really cool to build in information about (possibly) mutually exclusive chemistries, too.

On a more down to earth level, once (and if) we have 4:1 THCP:THCV plants, everywhere you might refer to them as Type 42 plants, you’d be better served by calling them THCP:THCV plants.

You may have something but to be honest there are no THCP:THCV plants all the varieties with THCP or with THCB are in very very low %'s for the Cannabinoids with P or B at least today. Make an example of your Cannabinoid Periodic table so we can see how it works then add terpenes super classes if you can. The PHYTOFACTS by NAPRO does some of this it is used by SC Labs and described here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcV4kqm-lo
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_312223731
-SamS

 

[bsgospel]

we need a periodic table of types. Something to organize existing combinations and make predictions about future possibilities.

We absolutely need this. You wanna work on it w/ me? Every demarcation I've seen is tedious as hell. I was talking to Dr. Vergara about it and there's seemingly no way around it but I think there must be better ways.


PhytoFacts may be the best so far, link above this post.
-SamS

 

[zif]

You may have something but to be honest there are no THCP:THCV plants all the varieties with THCP or with THCB are in very very low %'s for the Cannabinoids with P or B at least today. Make an example of your Cannabinoid Periodic table so we can see how it works then add terpenes super classes if you can. The PHYTOFACTS by NAPRO does some of this it is used by SC Labs and described here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcV4kqm-lo
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_312223731
-SamS

Phytofacts are truly great. I love that you can see a sample’s profile instantly once you know the format.

I don’t have an example, yet - it’s a tough nut.

 

[zif]

We absolutely need this. You wanna work on it w/ me? Every demarcation I've seen is tedious as hell. I was talking to Dr. Vergara about it and there's seemingly no way around it but I think there must be better ways.


PhytoFacts may be the best so far, link above this post.
-SamS

Yes! Oddly slammed from every direction at the moment, but it must be done. =)

 

[djonkoman]

Check out Identification of Phenotypic Characteristics in Three Chemotype Categories in the Genus Cannabis:
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/vi...2af2-365750754
-SamS

I think it's interesting to read for seeing which morphological traits they looked at and how they were measured etc, but the conclusion that leaf shape says something about chemotype is pretty iffy I think.
in the paper they just look at 21 commercially available cultivars(listed in table 1).
they do use some nice fancy statistics to find correlations, but underneath all that statistics there isn't any logic why those correlations are relevant/make sense.

for example if I just think about the plants I've been growing the past few years they don't fit the correlations from that paper at all. I grow outdoor, so botrytis resistance is important. all the plants I've grown the past few years have been thc-dominant. I also have a particular line where the leaves are always pale green(a cbd trait according to this paper), and also my darker plants are never as darkgreen as pics of more afghan-influenced(I guess) indoor plants I often see online. and I've also grown plenty of thc dominant plants with not so compact inflorescences.

and with that the fact that all cannabis can breed with eachother, and thc-cbd ratio is a pretty simple trait genetically, I just don't really see any logical reason why these morphological traits would be meaningfull indicators for chemotype.
so it seems to me that the results of this paper are way too colored by the limited selection of varieties they included in their analysis, and they jumped right into the statistics without first considering if it made sense to do a statistical analysis in the first place. I bet that if they increased the number of varieties and included some more diverse ones(like thc-dominant outdoor strains for example, some more extreme landraces that are not so commercially interesting, etc) those nice statistical correlations they found will break down.

it's still nice to look at what kind of correlations they found within their sample, but especially that concluding sentence at the end of the discussion,

In summary, the identified suites of phenotypic signatures in this work can be used to determine chemotypes on live plants before or as a supplement to chemical and genetic analysis.

is not something I would agree with as a conclusion from the paper.

(also interesting, checked the authors, and the first author is affiliated with a 'department of biomedical engineering'. now I'm not dismissing it simply because of this, but it does raise questions for me if the authors are writing outside their own field. i.e. I would trust it more if the first author would be afiliated to some horticulture department instead of biomedical engineering)


regarding the classification method the thread is about I don't have much to add though, but just to add something more ontopic too:
one thought of something that might work so there won't simply be a huge, hard to remember list from type 1 to type 50 I think would be to order the categorisation by where in the biochemical pathway the difference is determined.
like thc and cbd are split ways in the same part of the pathway: cbg can either become thc, or cbd. so the type 1, 2 and 3 make sense to me(although maybe I'd like it more with for example type 1 and type 2 for thc and cbd, but then type 1,5 for intermediate, so it's more clear it's a plant carrying one of both synthase, not a unique third synthase).

then a cbg chemotype is caused by the absence of both thc and cbd, the pathway stops at an earlier point. not sure what name or number or whatever makes sense for that(type 0? ), but it's at a different level/step then the thc/cbd split.

with the varin-versions I think, if I remember it right, that it's the precursor which changes(cbgv instead of cbg). so for example you still have the same thc-synthase, but instead of regular cbg you feed it cbgv, and you get thcv.
so there I think that suggestion of type 1v, type 2v, etc also makes good sense. the number of the type is then the synthase(thc or cbd, and possibly cbc could be added here too since it's at the same step), and the other part, the letter, a variation in the end product with that same synthase doing the job.
and if cbg would then be type 0 instead of type 4, it's also immediatly clear it's lacking the enzyme at the thc/cbd step. 0v could then be again the varin version, etc.

 

[troutman]

Why isn't NLD and WLD seen as a separate species?

If they can interbreed, they are not separate species.