Profound

PART THREE - afghanica et al.


The_Flintstoners began this essay with the intent of doing something more than just introducing a couple of potential definitions for acceptance by the cannabis community, but we believe the background information will prove helpful for most individuals to get better understanding of what will follow. Without a doubt, Cannabis is a marvelously complex plant with a tremendously wide variety of medicinal uses, so it really shouldn’t surprise people when we tell them that the discussion of Cannabis as a species and sub-species can also be complicated.

In some ways Cannabis could even be considered a bit of a botanical enigma. At first, Cannabis was classified as a relative of the nettle family (Urticaceae). A little later in it’s modern history, Cannabis was thought to be a part of the Moraceae family, which also includes the fig. Today, that has changed yet again, and cannabis is now classified in a unique botanical group, the Cannabaceae, which it shares with only one other distant relative. Humulus lubulus is now considered to be the closest relative to Cannabis, a plant that might be familiar to beer drinkers, it’s commonly known as the hop. Botanists have even managed to graft a Cannabis plant onto hops rootstock, however the two cannot interbreed.

Some scientists consider Cannabis to be monotypic, a genus consisting of only one species - Cannabis sativa, while others consider Cannabis to be polytypic, with two or more species making up the genus - Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica (and perhaps more.) The_Flintstoners don’t have any particular vested interest in either side of that debate. But, we do have an opinion, and we can add a few bits of what might be considered “evidence” to the discussion that might not otherwise be common knowledge for a majority of the Cannabis community.

Not long ago that we learned that many parasites co-evolve with their hosts, meaning that over the evolutionary scale of time, the pests become “hooked” on a specific species that alone acts as a host plant. We’re told this is called “Farenholz’s Rule,” and it explains why many pests attack one specific species while ignoring others. Modern research indicates that some pests attack hemp plants but cannot feed on marijuana drug cultivars, and that one specific insect pest can even distinguish between Turkish and Mexican strains of marijuana. In our minds, that’s certainly evidence that points to significant differences between varieties of cannabis, even if it isn’t any kind of definitive proof that the Cannabis genepool consists of more than a single species.

With that in mind, we actually would like to propose that the community accept a polytypic approach to Cannabis taxonomy, and we would also propose that the best “model” to accept is that contained in “Hemp Diseases and Pests” by R.C. Clarke, J.M. McPartland, and D.P. Watson. The following four descriptions are copied directly from that text.


1. Cannabis sativa (= C. sativa var. sativa)
Plants tall (up to 6 m), stems smooth and hollow, laxly branched with long internodes; petioles short, usually 5-9 leaflets per leaf, leaflets lanceolate, largest leaflets averaging 136 mm long (length / width ratio = 7.5); racemes have long internodes, and achenes are partially exposed, achenes (seeds) usually > 3.7 mm long, somewhat lens shaped with a blunt base, surface dull light to dark green and usually unmarbled, seeds usually adherent to plants at maturity. Cultivated for fibre, oil, and sometimes for drugs.

2. Cannabis indica (= C. sativa var. indica)
Plants shorter (under 3 m), stems smooth and nearly solid, densely branched with shorter internodes; petioles shorter, usually 7-11 leaflets per leaf; leaflets averaging 92 mm long (l/w ration = 10); achenes averaging 3.7 mm long, less lens shape, with a more rounded base, surface green-brown and marbled or unmarbled, with or without an abscission layer. Cultivated primarily for drugs, but also for fibre and oil.

3. Cannabis ruderalis (= C. sativa var. spontanea)Plants small (usually under 0.5 m), stems smooth and hollow, occasionally unbranched; petioles short and usually 5-7 leaflets per leaf, leaflets elliptic, largest averaging 60 mm long (l/w ratio = 6); achenes small with a pronounced abscission structure at the base, surface dull green and marbled, abscission layer fleshy with oil producing cells, seeds readily shed from plant. Not cultivated.

4. Cannabis afghanica (= C. sativa var. afghanica)
Plants short (under 1.5 m), stems ribbed and nearly solid, densely branched with short internodes; petioles long, usually 7-11 leaflets per leaf, leaflets dark green and broadly oblanceolate, largest leaflets averaging 130 mm (l/w ratio = 5); racemes have short internodes, and achenes are not exposed; nested, compound bracts sometimes produced; achenes usually <3.0 mm long, nearly round with a blunt base, surface shiny grey and marbled. Cultivated exclusively for drugs, primarily hashish.

Before anyone gets upset at us for “arbitrarily” splitting Cannabis into four different species, (including at least one - afghanica - that’s not commonly recognized as a separate species, but instead considered by many to be a kind of landrace strain), we’d like to again point out that we did not invent these particular definitions. The proposed four species taxonomy for Cannabis was presented for consideration and explained by three other prominent cannabis researchers, not the_Flintstoners.

It is also true that we’ve seen research results indicating Cannabis is a single species. Scientists who maintain that Cannabis sativa is a single species, then consider indica, afghanica and ruderalis (spontanea) to be a sub-species. There may very well be some merit to their arguments, but it’s also our opinion that the researchers involved were not of the same “standing” or caliber as R.C. Clarke et. al. Therefore, lacking further evidence to the contrary, we will move forward with a continuing explanation of the polytypic classification of Cannabis.

R.C. Clarke and friends go on to further explore the taxonomic topic by explaining, “In our opinion, researchers frequently misname these Cannabis segregates. C. indica is frequently misnamed C. sativa, and C. afghanica is frequently misnamed C. indica. Clarke (1987) attempted to correct the confusion by elevating C. Afghanica Vavilov from it’s original sub-species level (= C. Sativa f. afghanica Vavilov 1926.) Clarke noted that Schultes et al. (1974) lumped C. afghanica with C. indica. Unfortunately, Cannabis from Afghanistan has come to typify C. indica, especially in the eyes of marijuana breeders. This is incorrect; Lamark (the botanist who named C. indica) was entirely unfamiliar with Afghan Cannabis. His taxon refers to the biotype from India (indica). Marijuana breeders use of the name “indica” for the afghanica biotype has become entrenched, causing extensive confusion. Some breeders (e.g. Schoenmakers 1986) double the confusion by calling afghanica plants “ ruderalis species”.”

So, at least one of the world’s most prominent cannabis scientists and researchers thinks most of the cannabis community has been misusing the term indica pretty much from the beginning. It may be an uphill battle, asking growers and breeders to learn a new set of standards for Cannabis classification, likely it will be a difficult (or impossible) thing to get others to accept. However we can see significant advantages to accepting change.

One example of the consequences accepting this taxonomic change might make, would be to consider how it would impact our analysis of an heirloom variety that was named “Desert Rose” by a friend of ours a few years back. “Desert Rose” is a variety that originated in the Middle East. It is grown by nomadic Bedouin tribesmen who wander the desert wastes of the middle east. It’s primarily a hash plant for the Bedouins, but a friend from the Holy Land was able to access some seeded herb before it was sieved for hashish, he saved the seeds and shared a significant number of them with the lady who founded the_Flintstoners medical cannabis collective.

We’ve seen more than a few examples of Desert Rose grown indoors, and remembered more than one individual at CW who planned to work with the strain as a part of a breeding program. We can also attest to the fact that Desert Rose certainly does produce a very nice grade of Hashish. It’s a beautiful and interesting plant, very hardy and pest resistant, and as one would expect, quite tolerant of high temperatures. But it expressed traits that were less “indica-like” than we had initially expected. That made it somewhat difficult to determine what place it might have in any kind of future breeding program for medicinal users, and made us have doubts about the true genetic lineage of Desert Rose.

In retrospect, we may have made some hasty and false assumptions. If we were to use the polytypic cannabis taxonomy proposed by R.C. Clarke, our conclusions about the seeming lack of “indica-like” traits could have been the act of observing that Desert Rose does not have C. afghanica in it’s heritage. Using our current understanding of Cannabis taxonomy, and using the definitions provided by Clarke and friends, we’d now conclude that Cannabis indica is actually the correct sub-species identity for Desert Rose.

__________________