# Scientists Find Weve Been Wrong About The Terms, Indica and Sativa



## burnin1 (Jun 26, 2015)

From thenationalmarijuananews

*Scientists Find Weve Been Wrong About The Terms, Indica and Sativa*


June 25, 2015 









Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis  the classifications for the different types of marijuana were originally classified in the 1970s. Now scientists are taking another look at the classification of the plants, and it seems that we may have been wrong about how we refer to these plants.

The Leaf Online Reports:
Since the 1970s, cannabis has been divided into three sub-species (often confused as different species), _C. indica_, _C. sativa_, _C. ruderalis_, with ruderalis largely being considered wild cannabis, not fit for medicinal or recreational uses. A common lay-persons distinction is between marijuana, which is bred for high cannabinoid content, and hemp, which is bred for industrial uses like fiber.
Any of the three subspecies can be bred as a hemp or marijuana plant. John McPartland, a researcher affiliated with GW Pharmaceuticals, presented a study at the 2014 meeting of the International Cannabis Research Society, proposing a new nomenclature for cannabis. The original report on OShaughnessys contains more information than I can reproduce here, and has a wonderful chart; it is definitely worth your time to read.
It seems Richard Evans Schultes, the man who created the original taxonomy for cannabis in the 1970s, misidentified a_C. afghanica_ plant as a _C. indica _plant. That one mistake began 40 years of confusion which has only been dispelled by McPartlands research this year.
McPartland was the first researcher to look at the genetic markers on the three subspecies of cannabis using the plants genome to conclusively identify where it originated. He also proved conclusively that they are all the same species, just different subspecies. As it turns out, _C. sativa _should have been identified as _C. indica_, because it originated in India (hence _indica_). _C. indica_ should have been identified as _C. afghanica_, because it actually originated in Afghanistan. Finally, it seems that _C. ruderalis_ is actually what people mean when they refer to _C. sativa_.
If that sounds confusing, refer to this handy table, or the original chart.
*Cannabis Indica (Formerly Sativa)*
*Origin: *India
*Morphology: *Taller (>1.5m) than their short and stocky Afghanica cousins, with sparser branches and less dense buds/flowers.
*Physiology:* Longer flowering time, between nine and fourteen weeks. Minimal frost tolerance with a moderate production of resin.
*Chemistry:* Much greater THC than CBD and other cannabinoids, this leads to the head high many users report.
*Psychoactivity: *Stimulating.
*Cannabis Afghanica (Formerly Indica)*
*Origin:* Central Asia (Afghanistan, Turkestan, Pakistan)
*Morphology:* Shorter (<1.5m) than Indica strains with dense branches with wider leaves, and much denser buds/flowers
*Physiology:* Shorter flowering time, as little as seven to nine weeks. Good frost tolerance with high resin production. Afghanica strains can be susceptible to mold due to how dense the buds and branches are.
*Chemistry:* More variable than Indica strains. THC is often still the predominant cannabinoid but some strains have 1:1 ratios and some may have even higher CBD than THC.
*Psychoactivity: *Sedating.
*Cannabis Sativa (Formerly Ruderalis)*
*Origin:* Usually feral or wild. From Europe or Central Asia.
*Morphology:* Variable, depending on origin.
*Physiology:* The flowering time is short and variable, many varieties exhibit autoflowering traits (flowering independently of sun cycles). Moderate frost tolerance with relatively low resin production.
*Chemistry:* More CBD than THC. Prominent terpenes include caryophyllene and myrcene, giving these strains a floral flavor and scent.
*Psychoactivity: *Usually lacking.
This new nomenclature *should* come to replace the old system, because it is grounded in the actual genetics of the plant and is scientifically sound. Despite that, it is likely that this new naming scheme will face resistance from cannabis users and those in the medical cannabis industry who will have become used to decades of convention firmly establishing an inaccurate taxonomy.
This is reminiscent of the Brontosaurus, a dinosaur that never existed but we were all taught in school it was real, or the former 9th planet of Pluto (now a dwarf planet). Sometimes science gets it wrong and it is up to modern scientists with better methods, like McPartland, to correct our old mistakes.
The difficult part will be getting mass acceptance of his newly proposed taxonomy. What seems likely is that a split may develop between academics and laymen, with academics adopting the new system and laymen continuing to adhere to the old system, at least for a few more years.
Perhaps in time _C. afghanica_, _C. indica_, and _C. sativa_ will come into the vogue, but that largely depends on the willingness of the medical cannabis industry to adopt this new system and thus pass it on to the patients and growers. But it seems unlikely that the cannabis industry would wholeheartedly jump on board, given the risk that this new nomenclature could confuse patients who may be used to seeing only indicas and sativas on the shelf.
Time will tell.

An ambitious call to standardize the names used by non-scientists in reference to _Cannabis_ plants to create an accurate vernacular nomenclature was made by Dr. John McPartland at the 2014 meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society and will be published in OShaughnessys upcoming print edition. McPartlands ICRS paper, co-authored by Dr. Geoffrey Guy, used DNA barcodes to determine whether or not _Cannabis indica_ and_Cannabis sativa_ are separate species. The answer was not._C. indica _and_ C. sativa_ are subspecies separate varieties of one _Cannabis_species.
McPartland traced the confusion that prevails today among plant breeders and the pot-loving masses to the 1970s, when a _C. afghanica_ plant collected by botanist Richard Evans Schultes was incorrectly identified as _C. indica._

_http://thenationalmarijuananews.com/2015/06/29020/_


----------



## Rosebud (Jun 26, 2015)

Well that is rediculously confusing.


----------



## Grower13 (Jun 26, 2015)

:stoned:


----------



## umbra (Jun 26, 2015)

Its not confusing if you have a patent for a C indica plant and then get every plant defined as such, you control the industry. I wouldn't believe anything from these people. They are the Monsanto of medicine. All of their research is totally biased.


----------



## yarddog (Jun 26, 2015)

Unfortunately, umbra has a high chance at being correct.


----------



## Kraven (Jun 26, 2015)

hmmm the FBI warning never stopped me from copying the movies I liked, or the NFL for me recording their shows, I'm an outlaw and always will be an outlaw. Getting a patent on indica sounds ridiculous, which means it's possible.


----------



## burnin1 (Jun 26, 2015)

:confused2:


----------



## yarddog (Jun 26, 2015)

With big government getting handjobs from big corporate, anything is possible.


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Jun 27, 2015)

LOL--how incredibly stupid and unimportant.  "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."  The definition of a word is in itself defined by the way that people use that word.  No matter if the original intent was to name things differently  it has now been defined as indica is the short squat bushier faster flowering plants.  Doesn't this seem to be 2 _glaring_ mistakes on a scientific piece--the name of both species wrong?  Come on now..... 

Google


----------



## umbra (Jun 27, 2015)

Shultes has an impeccable reputation as an Ethno Botanist, just try and get into 1 of his classes at Harvard. His published work speaks for itself.


----------



## yarddog (Jun 27, 2015)

Who is to say the guy was wrong?  Maybe we got lawyers bending the truth now in order win money for corporations


----------



## umbra (Jun 27, 2015)

If you look up cannabis laws, marijuana is defined as cannabis sativa...so if everything  is cannabis indica, there are no laws against it.


----------



## yarddog (Jun 27, 2015)

Yes,  umbra you just found a loophole for Prohibition!!!


----------

