Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
Is this an actual genetic variant along the lines of C. indica or sativa, or just a trade name for some isolated end-point of one of the above varieties?
its probably regoinal, but ive never heard of it, but lets say Kafiristan(i) is regional, you would assume middle east or some shit, and then assume indica.
-------------------- CALIFORNIA PROP 215 MEDICINAL CANNABIS PATIENT!!!
There is no such thing as C. Indica, it is C. Sativa Indica. I have heard some wild theories about the number of subspecies this plant exhibits but I take all of them with a grain of salt. Unless it has some wildly unique trait, I would say it was a marketing ploy.
is this a new pronounciation thing? because the difference in indica and sativa is quite obvious...and has a hell of a lot to do with its geographic origin. now, i think afghani should not be seperated, but lumped with indica.........
-------------------- CALIFORNIA PROP 215 MEDICINAL CANNABIS PATIENT!!!
There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Cannabis genus especially because of the difficulty in studying it in the U.S. and other drug intolerant countries. According to the scientific community up into the 70's, there was no such thing as C. Indica. If you look into Jorge Cervantes Marijuana Horticulture, he lists them as C. Sativa var. sativa,C. Sativa var. indica, C. Sativa var. spondanea, and C. Sativa var. afghanica.
When I went to search for the studies that published these results, I found a few more that are quite recent. This is the latest study I could find on the taxonomy of Cannabis: A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae). For those without the patients to read through that, it basically says that through analysis of the chemical nature of the secondary plant compounds, they determined that a two species system (C. Sativa and C. Indica) was likely the truest phylogeny. They also note that there is NOT enough evidence to make C. Sativa Ruderalis it's own species and instead add it to the Sativa species as a subtype. ("Recognition of C. ruderalis is not supported by the chemotaxonomic evidence because no significant differences were found between ruderal accessions from central Asia and eastern Europe. These results are consistent with Vavilov's two-species concept and his interpretation that C. ruderalis is synonymous with C. sativa var. spontanea Vav. (Vavilov, 1926 ; Vavilov and Bukinich, 1929 ).")
Sooooo as far as C. Kafiristani is concerned, I would call it hogwash. There is already enough headaches with the phylogeny of Cannabis that anyone who claims to have found a new species should be very highly suspect.
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Magash, Data 2,829 topic views. 0 members, 1,084 guests and 48 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to 
Edit 
Reply 
PLEASE
