Announcement

**whitebeard** · 11-23-2018, 01:51 PM

This sounds like a new problem, not a better solution: there’s been genuine confusion among some as to whether or not “hemp” and “cannabis” are the same plant (they are), and this ‘new taxonomy’ extends the pretense. I have read considerable of Dr. Clarke’s work, and see little reason for him to be carried along by this.

still, will review the vid....the actual TOPIC being discussed is “securing rights to cannabis genetics”

**alltatup** · 11-23-2018, 04:58 PM

I disagree, Whitebeard: it makes complete sense to me. And no one said anything about hemp being a different species, so I don't know why you brought that up. All drug plants are in the Cannabis Indica family, and hemp is the fiber subspecies. I really see it as a clarifying taxonomy,

It's just Mr. Clarke, by the way. He has a Bachelor's degree--not that that makes any difference to me. His Marijuana Botany book is one of the best books I've read on cannabis; he's a real scientist. But his newest book published by U CA press goes in depth on this topic, so you might want to take a look at it.

**DrPhoton** · 11-23-2018, 06:35 PM

We are still a long way off from being able to definitively identify specific strains and species. Many efforts so far have tried to classify species by using chemotaxonomy but there has been so much overlap of the data that there has been no conclusive results. One study used observation of cannabis leaf anatomy to place certain strains in mostly indica and mostly sativa groups and then look at the chemical characteristics that were more associated with each group to find specific chemical profiles to use as a marker.

But this all drowns in noise when the environment has such a large influence on these chemical characteristics. As such specific strain classification becomes useless unless the same protocols are used when growing cannabis.

Genetic sequencing is my bet, due to the complexity of cannabinoids and the similarity in chemical profiles, it makes it very difficult to quantify and classify specific differences between species, let alone strains. Theres too much noise.

**whitebeard** · 11-24-2018, 12:37 PM

I don’t want to comment much further in advance of viewing the panel, but cannabis taxonomy has been in a state of confusion for many decades, being based as it is so far on superficial distinctions between cultivars. I am not yet set up to test my theories on the subject, but there seems to me to be overwhelming evidence suggesting that:

a) - there is in fact a single species of cannabis; that this species is highly ‘responsive’ to regimens of cultivation, and

b) - that the two main categories of plant value - medicinal and industrial - are produced primarily via cultivation for an intended outcome and not by specific genetics linked to a specific marker, and that

c) - choosing to eliminate current taxonomy (cannabis sativa, Indica, Ruderalis) by replacing them with arbitrary designations *not* rooted in either proper scientific distinctions may serve some end, but that end is not science IMO. The point of the panel is securing the rights to the genetics of cannabis legally, so I assume it must be political and not scientific. Past efforts to impose political constraints on science have not worked out well, but as I say: these are my thoughts based on the OP.
i am sympathetic to the stated intentions: the matter has been on my mind for a while.

its easy to forget that there is in fact a significant amount of major work yet undone in the quest to understand cannabis. One of these things is studying wild cannabis populations over successive generations. It should not take many years to demonstrate conclusively that cannabis sown thickly does or does not grow after the manner of ‘hemp’ (ie, tall, less branchy, long fibers), or that pith production can or cannot be governed or influenced by cultivation, these seem to me to be basic questions that go to the root of cannabis taxonomy. If I live long enough, I hope to find out conclusively.

Pardon my wandering thoughts, I only get to think about these things thanks to the online community, it seems, as I have no IRL contacts. For a bit of background, I was raised to be both artist and engineer, so I have an annoying tendency to ‘think out loud’. Thanks for bearing with me!

**alltatup** · 11-24-2018, 03:41 PM

whitebeard Yes, they do talk about genetics, but the only politics I noticed on one viewing is that they are adamantly in favor of everyone having access to everything--and, in the process, preserving some of the precious landraces that are getting hybridized out of existence. They fear and loathe the corporatization of cannabis--which can't be captured anyway.

And yes, taxonomy is almost an exercise in futility. As I recall, Clarke was talking about the subspecies of C. Indica , which would include both BLD and NLD (broad- and narrow-leafed drug plants) full of glorious chemical compounds and found only in minimal traces in C. Sativa, or hemp. I gotta go back and watch again, taking notes.

I have a theory: in the last 10,000 years, cannabis has been hybridized over and over: whenever its seeds travelled so that it could be cultivated elsewhere, or when one chemovar began to encroach and pollinate on another chemovar's territory, etc. etc. So much for "purity."

If you've ever watched the Strainhunters' series on youtube, you know that this is what they've found. Check this one on Morocco out at 24 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfK90ITq1iI

So I don't see that panel as promoting a non-scientific nomenclature or anything of the sort: the reason I respect Clarke so much is because he's so scientific--and I can find discussions in his books that are nowhere to be found in Cervantes or Rosenthal, who aren't scientists.

**alltatup** · 11-24-2018, 05:22 PM

Not everyone; I think that Nebula has changed her wording from "perceived increase in potency" to "increase in potency," but I'd have to double-check to be sure about that. I'm referring to ch. 4, Maturation and Harvesting, subsection Cannabinoid Biosynthesis, pp 130-forward.

**alltatup** · 11-25-2018, 06:19 AM

Clarke talking about the revised taxonomy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGEpBayB0n0

This video is where he really makes it clear, and I should have posted it first.

**alltatup** · 11-26-2018, 07:35 AM

DrPhoton

1. Clarke's new book is available online (though I ordered a hard copy). Look up the title Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany and you will find pdf of the book. I don't think the book addresses this issue, but I know that the authors go in depth into the newly proposed taxonomy of sub-species--a subject still dear to my heart.

2.Conversion of CBG during curing: http://www.marijuanaresources.com/ma...ention-detail/

3. Colorado Pot Guide: https://www.coloradopotguide.com/col...o-it-properly/
I wrote to them asking them for the sources used in the article, because I couldn't contact the author. Her website was gone. We shall see if they respond.

4. https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/... This is from THC farmer and I took a lot of my own notes from this page.

None of these pages include sources, so I continue to scour the internet for academic articles that address the issue. I tend to conclude that, with so many folks affirming not only a smoother smoke but also a more powerful smoke after curing, that all of the metabolic processes occuring after harvest conspire to make the bud stronger--not simply to increase THC, but to mellow and mature the terpenes which we already know are an important component of the type of effects the bud has.

Now, I have one favor to ask of you:

Please provide me with the link to any scientific article you have the confirms that potency is not increased by proper curing.

**Potted** · 11-26-2018, 08:02 AM

I am no scientist but agree that the smoke gets smother and more potent the longer it’s cured, sort of like cureing tobacco. If you walk into a good smoke shop that has a room with humidity control, just like the humidity packs we put in our jars it not only keeps moisture at a constant by doing this it increase the mellowness and IMO in turn makes the bud stronger. I have no scientific data to prove my opinion just my experience and my weed😁

**DrPhoton** · 11-26-2018, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by alltatup View Post

DrPhoton

1. Clarke's new book is available online (though I ordered a hard copy). Look up the title Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany and you will find pdf of the book. I don't think the book addresses this issue, but I know that the authors go in depth into the newly proposed taxonomy of sub-species--a subject still dear to my heart.

2.Conversion of CBG during curing: http://www.marijuanaresources.com/ma...ention-detail/

3. Colorado Pot Guide: https://www.coloradopotguide.com/col...o-it-properly/
I wrote to them asking them for the sources used in the article, because I couldn't contact the author. Her website was gone. We shall see if they respond.

4. https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/... This is from THC farmer and I took a lot of my own notes from this page.

None of these pages include sources, so I continue to scour the internet for academic articles that address the issue. I tend to conclude that, with so many folks affirming not only a smoother smoke but also a more powerful smoke after curing, that all of the metabolic processes occuring after harvest conspire to make the bud stronger--not simply to increase THC, but to mellow and mature the terpenes which we already know are an important component of the type of effects the bud has.

Now, I have one favor to ask of you:

Please provide me with the link to any scientific article you have the confirms that potency is not increased by proper curing.

Nothing of value in any of those articles. Just anecdotal.

Im not arguing over the aspect of percieved potency with curing, only what reasoning is used to make the conclusions. I think there is a definite perceived difference. But the reason likely resides outside that of cannabinoids.

The research on long term stability of cannabinoids has been ongoing since the early 70s. This was of big interest for forensic examination with siezed products. These studies were able to find clear relationships between thc and cbn, to ascertain the age of products being tested. This is not possible without the clear degradation of thc to cbn.

Stability of cannabinoids in stored plant material. Carlton.E Turner 1973.

CBN and D9 THC concentration ratio as an indicator of the age of stored marijuana samples. S.A Ross 1999.

Long term stability of cannabis resin and cannabis extracts. Christian Lindhols 2010.

These are probably the three main articles of interest. The 1973 and 1999 papers show conclusive evidence of the degradation process of stored cannabis. The 1999 is the often cited paper with articles relating to cannabis storage.

The other paper of interest is the one by christian in 2010, where the major cannabinoids were measured with long term storage of cannabis. Of which CBG was found to be stable over this time perioid, except for those exposed to light (supports the theory on photosynthesis). Without the conversion of CBG, there can not be any biosynthesis and or increase in "potential THC".

There are many more studies that are cited within these papers which follow the same lines of conclusions with respect to THC degradation. The conclusion on biosynthesis can be made by looking at the CBG results in these research papers.

**desertdan** · 11-26-2018, 09:37 PM

I find Dr. Photon discussion of anecdotal evidence vs proof to be profound. I have tried jar curing for last 3 years and have found it to be a myth. 50 years smoking and 30 years growing the experience I have had confirms all what Photon discusses. My experience is anecdotal evidence not scientific proof.

**alltatup** · 11-27-2018, 05:07 AM

And your articles are likewise useless to me. I didn't ask about the degradation of cannabis, photon: I asked for an article proving that potency does not increase during the cure. I didn't ask about storage. I conclude that since you didn't have that information, you took the discussion in another direction.

I get the impression that you can't admit it when you don't have the evidence to back up your claim; that's intellectual dishonesty--an inability to be honest with yourself about the limits of your knowledge.

You lead discussions down rabbit holes. You obfuscate, muddy the water, and derail discussions. I am going to block you, because I choose not to go through this with you again. You aren't here for friendly discussion and exchange. You're here to win.

**DrPhoton** · 11-27-2018, 06:10 AM

I was not the one who made the claim on cannabinoid biosynthesis after harvest, you were. I simply stated that all current evidence suggests otherwise. Your reference to R clarke fell through so you then offered us to see your "research" but they were unfortunately not acceptable. They were just people writing their thoughts. Then you ask me to provide some research for you.

My research is valid unless you want to discuss otherwise, thats why we are here. To find the answers. The processes for curing is very similar to the protocols of storage. Just because its not classified as curing does not mean its not applicable.

Im always happy to continue the discussions, if your not wanting to continue thats fine.

**starramus** · 11-27-2018, 06:37 AM

"a subject still dear to my heart."

“Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits -- and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!”

― Omar Khayyam

Announcement

Revised taxonomy of Cannabis

Revised taxonomy of Cannabis

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment