At what temperature would a 70/30 sativa start exhibiting indica effects?

[friedrich]

Why the fuck do they call them beaker bongs when scientific beakers are flat? It’s flask-style

However what you refer to as beaker, in my mind does always have the flat bottom... The way you described flasks in the third option though, makes me think you were actually talking about a round bottom flask style bong??

Yes, I'll admit to being bugged by beaker bong bnomenclature as well… sufficiently to explain here. Apologies for the silly pedantry; I've been enjoying my new Alpha Underdog rather a lot, and bong shopping, after having broken my old one.

A beaker, as anyone who has taken a chemistry class may recall, is a straight-sided cylindrical vessel:

Whereas flasks have a narrower neck and wider body, usually conical or rounded:

Therefore what's called a "beaker" bong should more appropriately be designated a "flask", and a straight tube a "beaker".

 

[Cannabiker]

Dynavap temp. I don't know why those seem to bring the stupification, but I think it's the conduction aspect adding higher heat, especially if you're pushing for one-hit extraction.

And for the poll, neither. Give me a whip.

 

[bhasma]

A beaker has a beak for pouring, so both bongs are really flasks.

You can seal a flask but not a beaker with a bung (because of the beak) and you can bung a bung in a bong so it can't be a beaker.

 

[Grass Yes]

I use an Arizer XQ2 with a DDave adapter

As you get to know this vape you might identify some of your misconceptions. If you try other vapes, I'd suspect you'd see that temperature is a very small part of the factors that change your experience.

 

[DrömmenOmFrihet]

AK-47 was one of the best strains more than 20 years ago, and I doubt that it's strength (over 20% THC) has increased since then.

Hybridisation makes classification more challenging (and threatens the original varieties with extinction) but if the best Cabernet and the best Chardonnay is a Rosé then the names have lost their meaning.

My local dispensary has only had a landrace indica twice in the last six months, which is a shame.

 

[bhasma]

My local dispensary has only had a landrace indica twice in the last six months, which is a shame.

Is the "landrace indica" Cannabis sativa subsp. indica var. indica or var. kafiristanica? And when the meaning of "beak-er" is so easily lost what hope is there for "indica" and "sativa"?

There are various characteristics that distinguish the varieties of Cannabis (general habit, leaflet proportions, seed size and colour, THC content) but the main thing that has kept them separated, other than geographic isolation, is flowering time.

 

[Curious Gorilla]

I believe the Technical Term for Glassware that filters gases through liquids and a percolator is a Gas Washing Bottle , unless it only refers to specific designs such as the Dreschels Gas Washing Bottle......

the main thing that has kept them separated, other than geographic isolation, is flowering time.

This is partly what contributes to variation in cannabinoids and terpenes ..... flowering time as it affects tricome maturation and geographic location which effects available nutrients and and amount and possibly frequencies of sunlight recieved of light recieved.
Pests and other adverse conditions will also have an effect.
I think all these things would lead to natural variation in genetic developement over time ?
Or is it the case Ruderalis vs IndiTiva the only 2 ? Is Ruderalis 'the same' too ?
The desire to dismiss past terms used in science seems an attemp art advertising or propoganda depending on how You look at it.
''Lets rebrand Cannabis.. Sativa and Indica are soooo old school, we need newer names to appeal to the new market and allow MacCannabis to pump out varieties that are all identical, low quality and improve our profits though economy of scale, and require as little human input to grow and process as possible. If the Cash Cows complain, we can always Add Flavouring'' CEO and President of Bend Em Over and Pick Their Pockets While You Do IT Cannabis Co..

 

[bhasma]

From the plants I have grown there are basically two distinct forms: early flowering with a hash-like aroma and the physical characteristics associated with Cannabis indica, and late flowering with various floral and fruity aromas and the characteristics of Cannabis sativa. Hybrids are of course intermediate, and now that geography means nothing and day-length is manipulated the existence of all original varieties is threatened. Linnaeus excluded Asian plants in his description of Cannabis sativa, and the original C. sativa was not intoxicating, while C. indica was well known to be psychoactive. What we know as "Sativa" and "Indica" are subpopulations of C. sativa subsp. indica, and "Ruderalis" represents a diverse assortment of plants, including C. sativa subsp. sativa and some recent hybrids. Janischevsky (1924) erected C. ruderalis, describing a moderately tall plant, usually 0.7–1.1 m but up to 2.1 m, more branched than domesticated plants, with wild-type seed characteristics (small seeds with a protuberant, tapered base with a prominent abscission zone, and a persistent perianth covering the seed). But Vavilov (1922) had already coined the name C. sativa var. spontanea, which is synonymous. Vavilov’s taxon has priority as a variety, and Janischevsky’s taxon has priority as a species, and Soviet botanists in the 1930s set a (misleading) precedence by choosing C. ruderalis over C. sativa var. spontanea. Current thinking has only one species with two subspecies and four varieties:
C. sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa
C. sativa subsp. sativa var. spontanea
C. sativa subsp. indica var. indica
C. sativa subsp. indica var. kafiristanica

 

[bhasma]

Lamarck (1785) coined Cannabis indica for plants from India, Southeast Asia, and South Africa. His species differed from C. sativa by differences in the stalks, branching, leaflets and flowers, with C. sativa being mainly fibre plants and C. indica being psychoactive with a strong odour. "The principal effect of this plant consists of going to the head, disrupting the brain, where it produces a sort of drunkenness that makes one forget one's sorrows, and produces a strong gaiety."

Analysis of THC/CBD ratios revealed three chemovars.
Type I: THC >0.3%, CBD <0.5%
Type II: THC >0.3%, CBD >0.5%
Type III: THC <0.3%, CBD >0.5%
Type I includes drug-type plants, mostly with provenance from countries below the 30th parallel (30° N runs through Morocco, Iran, northern India, and southern China; 30° S runs through South Africa, South America, and Australia). Type III chemovars are fibre plants, mostly with provenance north of 30° N. And Type II chemovars are a mix of drug and fibre plants (perhaps hybrids).

Seeds from Afghanistan were taken to America in the early 1970s and gave rise to the common idea of the "indica" variety. And from the type specimens it seems that "indica" is closer to the Afghani variety kafiristanica, and so-called "sativa" is actually pure indica.

 

[DrömmenOmFrihet]

Lamarck (1785) coined Cannabis indica for plants from India, Southeast Asia, and South Africa. His species differed from C. sativa by differences in the stalks, branching, leaflets and flowers, with C. sativa being mainly fibre plants and C. indica being psychoactive with a strong odour. "The principal effect of this plant consists of going to the head, disrupting the brain, where it produces a sort of drunkenness that makes one forget one's sorrows, and produces a strong gaiety."

Analysis of THC/CBD ratios revealed three chemovars.
Type I: THC >0.3%, CBD <0.5%
Type II: THC >0.3%, CBD >0.5%
Type III: THC <0.3%, CBD >0.5%
Type I includes drug-type plants, mostly with provenance from countries below the 30th parallel (30° N runs through Morocco, Iran, northern India, and southern China; 30° S runs through South Africa, South America, and Australia). Type III chemovars are fibre plants, mostly with provenance north of 30° N. And Type II chemovars are a mix of drug and fibre plants (perhaps hybrids).

Seeds from Afghanistan were taken to America in the early 1970s and gave rise to the common idea of the "indica" variety. And from the type specimens it seems that "indica" is closer to the Afghani variety kafiristanica, and so-called "sativa" is actually pure indica.

Wow, this shit's contusing

 

[bhasma]

Wow, this shit's confusing

It's actually quite straightforward when you forget almost everything you thought you knew about Indica and Sativa. From a botanical perspective the title of this thread is very confusing.

One of the main reasons for the recent perception of three or more species of Cannabis is legal wrangling. Laws against Cannabis originally prohibited C. sativa, so defence lawyers would (successfully) argue that the seized plant material was not actually C. sativa. But current botanical and legal thinking treats all varieties as one species.

 

[bhasma]

There are real differences between what is known as Indica and Sativa, and basically Indica is Himalayan Cannabis var. indica and Sativa is var. indica from elsewhere (both high in THC), and true var. sativa is grown for fibre (and CBD). That's how I understand it.

 

[Curious Gorilla]

Lamarck (1785) coined Cannabis indica for plants from India, Southeast Asia, and South Africa.

Never Heard of Lamark before, interesting Man, when/if i ever finish reading medical studies and papers I dont understand , a growing list, thanks to You, I might try find his autobiography.
Darwins stuff (not that i know more than common knowledge of Him) makes more sense combined with some of Lamarks thinking, which may not be completely right but looks like it has important additions to the understanding of Evolution, from my brief look.

Makes it easier to see the difference the basic differences between the individual types.

https://www.cannabisplace.com.au/learn/hemp-vs-marijuana.

Some Scientific Bongs, or more like dab rigs maybe..........Gas Washing Bottles.

 

[bhasma]

Lamarck's evolutionary theory was discredited by Darwin, but his taxonomy was good, and much of the confusion over Cannabis sativa Linnaeus (1753) and Cannabis indica Lamarck (1785) stems from later botanists preferring one genius over the other. And C. ruderalis Janischevsky (1924) is only wild or escaped C. sativa.

Photographs of the type specimens of C. sativa L., C. indica Lam., and C. indica var. kafiristanica Vavilov (1926), and the original descriptions of all species and varieties are provided in the review I posted earlier. But Janischevsky’s type specimen of C. sativa var. ruderalis cannot be found and may be lost.

 

[Curious Gorilla]

Missed the link, will read it later. Images From the article you linked.

C.Sativa on the left...C.Indica on the right.-----------

------C.Sativa above, C.Indica Below.

From what I know of Epi-Genetics, and its very little, physical atributes may not be possible to be changed through epi-genetics, Lamarks Giraffe neck is a funny example of this.
However, Skills and Psycological Traits might be able to be passed down through genetic inheritance?
For instance , a parent who spent a life time learning and practicing a Musical instrument, but whos children have an innate ability from a Young age?
Epi Genetics is being looked at in Psycology as a possibility the enviroment can effect Your DNA, although i do not know how closely this relates to Lemarks Work.
It may be possible its relavant in botany but may not relate well to ''the Psycology of Plants''..........
If the ability of Ruderalis to Auto Flower is a developemental one, if it did not happen over a quick enough time period would the developing genetic line not die out? Although survival of the fittest has to also play a role ,The larger Part in most if not all situations?
Also , is it not possible for Solar events releasing higher levels of various high energey particles (tadiation) or alternativley , low Solar wind allowing more Cosmic Rays , ionising radiation (Gamma?) and rare high energy particles to reach the earths surface, affecting small mutations in DNA?
Could The increase in background radiation from Hiroshima and any similar event also induce variations in mutation or speed of change ???

 

[bhasma]

In the diagram it's sativa ABOVE and indica BELOW. And epigenetic inheritance IS close to Lamarck's idea. And you SHOULD read the review because most of what I've been saying is taken from it!

 

[Curious Gorilla]

@bhasma
wont get a chance to read it till later , looking foward to it.
Forgot to add that information underneath the diagram, Seemed self explanatory, but see where it looked confusing, edited it in.

 

[bhasma]

The origins of day-length neutral (autoflowering) strains are uncertain, and since the original specimen of C. ruderalis is lost it's very hard to say. It is suggested that autoflowering was beneficial for plants growing at high latitudes, but I would have thought that an equatorial plant would be most likely to have no day-length preference, simply flowering whenever it is ready with no change in day-length naturally experienced. Some wild, weedy varieties (e.g. C. sativa var. spontanea, which includes "ruderalis") are perhaps also likely to flower as soon as possible.

 

[bhasma]

Makes it easier to see the difference the basic differences between the individual types.

https://www.cannabisplace.com.au/learn/hemp-vs-marijuana.

Some Scientific Bongs, or more like dab rigs maybe..........Gas Washing Bottles.

The often repeated illustrations are taken from Anderson (1980) who believed that there are three species: Cannabis sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis. The typical height of the plants are given as: C. sativa 2.4m, indica 1.2m, and ruderalis 0.6m. And two forms of C. sativa are recognised, with large or small seeds. And he didn't consider chemistry or the details of seed morphology.

Janischevsky originally described C. ruderalis as plants from 0.7 to 1.1m and occasionally 2.1m tall, with a strongly branched habit, and five to seven leaflets. And seed morphology was used to distinguish it from other varieties.

The illustration shows Cannabis sativa, but following the monospecific arrangement of Short & Cronquist (1976) it is not clear whether it represents C. sativa var. sativa or C. sativa var. indica. The Cannabis indica is likely C. sativa subsp. indica. And the supposed Cannabis ruderalis could be anything, but likely C. sativa var. spontanea.

The understanding of Cannabis has been compromised by geographic perspectives, academic allegiances, disregard for original descriptions, the legal system, bro science, and advertising.

 

[bhasma]

Here is a good review of the classification of Cannabis published in Genome earlier this year:
https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/gen-2023-0005

 

[bhasma]

Here is a good review of the classification of Cannabis published in Genome earlier this year:
https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/gen-2023-0005

Hillig (2005) studied allozyme variations at 17 genomic loci, finding two distinct species, which he identified using the C. sativa and C. indica nomenclature, with the suggestion of a possible third species, C. ruderalis, although none of the previous taxonomic theories properly described the underlying relationships in the genus, and a classification divided into three species was proposed, with seven putative taxa involved:
C. sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa
C. sativa subsp. sativa var. spontanea
C. sativa subsp. indica var. kafiristanica
C. indica Lamarck
C. indica sensu Anderson
C. chinensis
C. ruderalis

https://www.researchgate.net/public...idence_for_Speciation_in_Cannabis_Cannabaceae

Clarke & Merlin (2013) proposed a model based on a combination of morphological characteristics, molecular markers and chemotypes. They distinguished narrow-leaf drug, broad-leaf drug, and narrow-leaf hemp plants, and suggested that the drug-type Cannabis currently used should be reclassified under the single species C. indica.

Subsequent whole genome sequencing has failed to find consistent differences between the three supposed species, and a single polymorphic species is generally accepted. In evolutionary terms the diversity of Cannabis is quite recent, with all varieties still able to interbreed, and the major factor in their divergence is human selection for characteristics such as fibre and psychoactivity.

The conventional taxonomy of Cannabis is challenging due to wind-pollination, the heterozygous nature of the plants, current growing practices, and incomplete domestication paired with poorly tracked breeding pedigrees. The taxonomy of Cannabis is a divisive matter, and precise taxonomic information is crucial, and in its absence we risk the loss of genetic diversity as historic landraces may not be identified and preserved.

 

[Dankvinci]

You'll probably hear a lot about how sativa/indica is proper debunked and it's the terpene profile that really matters. Also Higher temps / CBN conversion lean heavy

if I'm vaping with a vaporizer I can adjust the temp, I'll vape around 365F in the day time, and bump it up to a little past 400F if I want to bring on the cannabinoids that influence sleep.

 

[bhasma]

So how to distinguish the varieties of this polymorphic species? For our purposes the prime characteristic is chemotype (THC vs CBD), and leaflet shape (broad vs narrow) seems to be important, and in India I've been told that bhang has big seeds and ganja has small seeds. Each of these characters is apparently diagnostic of two basic types, but there is no consistent alignment and their combinations suggest up to eight variations. Taxonomists have called CBD plants subspecies sativa and THC plants subspecies indica. And THC plants are commonly divided as variety "sativa" with narrow leaflets and variety "indica" with broad leaflets. And both sativa and indica seem to have forms with large or small seeds. Hybridisation has blurred all of these boundaries, and pure female clones now rarely produce seeds. Leaf shape and habit can change quite easily, as shown by the Australian Duckfoot and Bastard Cannabis forms that grow wild in some areas, both of which presumably escaped from early hemp crops. ABC is so weird that the term C. australis has been proposed, and I've stumbled upon Duckfoot plants that I only recognised as Cannabis by their smell. Perhaps THC/CBD ratios and terpene profiles are all that we need to know, but actual measurements are only available for commercial strains. Try it and see is a good rule of thumb. And hopefully genome sequencing of all varieties and cultivars will eventually reveal their true evolution and relationships.

 

[jbm]

So how to distinguish the varieties of this polymorphic species? For our purposes the prime characteristic is chemotype (THC vs CBD), and leaflet shape (broad vs narrow) seems to be important, and in India I've been told that bhang has big seeds and ganja has small seeds. Each of these characters is apparently diagnostic of two basic types, but there is no consistent alignment and their combinations suggest up to eight variations. Taxonomists have called CBD plants subspecies sativa and THC plants subspecies indica. And THC plants are commonly divided as variety "sativa" with narrow leaflets and variety "indica" with broad leaflets. And both sativa and indica seem to have forms with large or small seeds. Hybridisation has blurred all of these boundaries, and pure female clones now rarely produce seeds. Leaf shape and habit can change quite easily, as shown by the Australian Duckfoot and Bastard Cannabis forms that grow wild in some areas, both of which presumably escaped from early hemp crops. ABC is so weird that the term C. australis has been proposed, and I've stumbled upon Duckfoot plants that I only recognised as Cannabis by their smell. Perhaps THC/CBD ratios and terpene profiles are all that we need to know, but actual measurements are only available for commercial strains. Try it and see is a good rule of thumb. And hopefully genome sequencing of all varieties and cultivars will eventually reveal their true evolution and relationships.

These posts are great, but could you possibly break them into paragraphs? It’s hard to read these giant blocks of text.

 

[bhasma]

These posts are great, but could you possibly break them into paragraphs? It’s hard to read these giant blocks of text.

OK, I'll keep that in mind. I began with the initial question and the conclusion, and the words in between poured out in a continuous flow.