What's new
By:
GrowWeedEasy.com
You're browsing as a guest. Sign up to join the conversation, share your grows, and get help from thousands of fellow growers — it's free and takes less than a minute.

Revised taxonomy of Cannabis

alltatup

alltatup

New member
Robert C. Clarke, DJ Short, and others in Seattle at the Hempfest talking about the new taxonomy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsSwMNOTyqA

Have you been hearing about this? The "Chemotaxonomy" is changing: Cannabis Sativa refers to hemp plants without significant cannabinoids, and Cannabis Indica refers to all THC-strong plants. So some Indicas are now referred to as Narrow Leaf Drug varieties and Broad Leaf Drug varieties.
 
Last edited:
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”
 
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.
 
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.
 
If you watch the video, you'll learn that you'll find chemical varieties in a single chemovar depending on how and where it's grown.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Where does clarke suggest that cannabinoid biosynthesis occurs during curing ? I would like to read that. Everything i have read suggests otherwise.
 
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.
 
In that section he is talking about cannabinoid biosynthesis during floral maturation while the plant is still living, not decarboxylation.

Further on the book he mentions curing in finite detail where he talks about the speculation of curing with respect to cannabinoid ripening (decarboxylation). But this has yet to be proven and so far only has shown to be disproven, as the levels do not significantly increase. When we use heat, we are applying this decarb process manually, so it all ends up with the same result. I think drying impacts the overall effect through more efficient burning. Dry weed us easier to burn and smoke than wet weed. But also more efficient ingestion, as the smoke is less harsh.

There may be other factors such terpene development, but thats independent of cannabinoids.
 
Photon, you're correct about that part of the chapter; my bad. At the very end of the chapter, he suggests that biosynthesis continues for a while after harvest--i.e., the apple analogy.

You wrote decaroxylation, but I think you meant curing.

And please: let's keep this discussion focused on the topic of taxonomy. If you want to start your own thread on biosynthesis or PM me, feel free to. I really don't like it when the discussion gets side-tracked. Open a new topic.
 
Last edited:
Yea thats not biosynthesis hes talking about, thats decarboxylation. Biosynthesis of cannabinoids only happens when the plant is still photosynthesizing.

Curing is a part decarboxylation, he mentions this right after the apple analogy. He does mention biosynthesis in passing, but only as speculation. Research so far suggests that there is little to no biosynthesis after harvest. THC levels do not rise. But they do very very slowly decarboxylate, but at a insignificant rate.

ATU, this is what nested comments are for, we can have off topic discussions here. Its not derailing anything. :)
 
I don't agree. Biosynthesis continues after harvest as does the transformation of the terpenes, in addition to the other processes going on as moisture is slowly released.
 
Theres no evidence to support that hypothesis. Everything suggests otherwise. All measurements show no clear indication that biosynthesis occurs.

In order for biosynthesis to occur there needs to be energy, which is depleted within hours after harvest. The stored resources that cannabis has is mostly transitory starch. Which is very short lived and is usually depelted in half a day.
 
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.
 
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😁
 
Morning S. Even Nebula says it's more potent with a proper dry an cure.
I don't trust the so-called scientists in everything they say, I also am very familiar with gas chromatigraphs, we used them to test what kind of gas an what percent, that we drilled out of the hole. Like methane, butane, an a lot more.
We constantly had to called technicians out to recalibrater, the machines, but they didn't stay accurate very long.
I did Geology work in the oilfields over 40years, but im no pro at anything either, but I try not to sound like a pro either, like some. To many Chiefs, and not enough Warriors, imo.
Have a great day, S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top