There is only one species of dog, canis familiaris. I still wouldn’t call a chihuahua and a great dane the same thing. Species or subspecies, indica is still a different thing.
Huh, last I looked somewhere I’m pretty sure indica was considered a subspecies, not a distinct species. Thanks for the update or correction, either or.
Oh wait no I should’ve known, it’s something we’re still pretty much arguing over. That is whether sativa and indica (and ruderalis) are both suspecies, or whether they’re all their own species in the same family.
And dog breeds are still (at least in the vast majority) not even different subspecies, just different breed (variants of the same species)
Indica is technically “cannabis sativa indica” and then a strain would technically be written fully as “C. sativa var indica, ‘Indian Kush’” or “C. sativa indica, var ‘Northern Lights’” or something to that effect. But also sativa would be like “C. sativa sativa, var. ‘Durban Poison’”
This is all up for debate, I’m not saying there’s consensus on what is or isn’t correct. Just inputting a lil content to Lemmy
Cannabis Ruderalis has entered the chat as the third currently recognized species, unique for its auto-flowering quality.
Can you smoke it? Or is it like the Intel Arc of weed?
Sure you can. It’s a lower THC than some of the other species, but often crossbred with them
I understand self-pollinating, but what is auto-flowering?
Short answer non-autoflowering cannabis relies on the day/night cycle to figure out when to flower, while auto-flowering relies on an inbuilt timer, once it’s old enough it’ll flower.
puffs blunt
manually flowering cannabis requires the grower to go around opening and closing the flowers every day
Where self-pollinating is where a plant’s pollen fertilizes its own ovules to create seeds, auto-flowering is where the plant transitions from vegetative state to the flowering state based on age instead of light cycle.
Idk it’s so interesting to me
“Normal” (non-autoflowering) cannabis is more properly “photoperiod”, which means that they only start blooming once they “recognise” the light period to be around 12/12 (and some strains like 18/6, referred to as “earlys”, but those are quite rare.)
“Autoflowering” refers to how the plants “automatically” go into bloom despite the light period you have. Ruderalis is (well arguably) a subspecies (or a species of it’s own, whatever) that evolved at such northern latitudes that when the lights actually hit 12/12 (in autumn), there wouldn’t be time to bloom.
So ruderalis evolved to bloom despite the light period, more relying on just how old/big/fed the plant is. Mainly just the age of the plant.
At first ruderalis strains were really small and mild (Lowryder, ah, the nostalgia), but that was like 15 years ago.
Nowadays it’s hard to find strains that there aren’t autoflowering versions for, and the plants can be pretty much just as huge as “normal” photoperiods.
Depends on the grower and whether they’re grow outside or inside, but not having to change your lights can be an advantage, especially since the 12/12 requires 12 hours of proper darkness, ao for instance small windowsill cannabis wouldn’t bloom in northern latitudes. Requires a good lightproof tent to grow normal photoperiods. Autoflowers are less fussy and usually faster from seed to weed.
However if you do have a proper setup, you’re probably gonna want photoperiods, as growing them gives more control. You can decide how long you want the “vegetative” phase to last, so you can grow the plants for 3 weeks them force them to bloom or you can grow them for 6 weeks and let them flower. Then the flowering takes about 8-12 weeks on top of that. With autoflowers it’s usually 10-12 from seed to harvest. Fastest ones claim 8 weeks.
Hope that answers your question somewhat.
Thank you for the detailed explanation!
I mean…I did mention it, didn’t I? Or is that what you’re talking about?
I mean, I don’t partake but isn’t it the same as saying cabbage, kale, broccoli, cauliflower and a dozen other things are the same?
It would be the same as saying there is only one species of broccoli, Brassica oleracea.
And redwoods
REDWOODS ARE BRASSICA???I feel very dumb, but I’m glad I checked before posting
Me in this thread.
“What’s with all the files named after cannabis strains on the gcms and lcms computers?”
“I was making a point.”Right there with you. I got a good giggle out of this.
Idk wtf that cat is but I’m on team cat.
Fuck lemmings, worst thing to happen to Lemmy!
And there’s only one species of wild cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Get out of here with that “broccoli”, “kale”, “cabbage” or “brussel sprouts” nonsense!
“broccoli”, “kale”, “cabbage” or “brussel sprouts”
Well of course, they are domestic cabbages.
me when weed smokers are talking about magic mushroom “strains”.
These are pretty different though, as cannabis has literally dozens of different cannabinoids and terpenes, but “magic mushrooms” refers to psilocybin shrooms, which all have psilocybin and psilocin in varying amounts.
Cannabis relies on the entourage effect.
Found the guy without experience of drug culture
Name a drug and I’ve done it.
Name two magic mushrooms without psilocybin.
I can. Can you, even with googling?
“Magic mushrooms” is exactly what refers to psilocybin, even more accurately than “ecstasy” refers to MDMA (a lot of pills have caffeine/mda/speed/rc’s).
If you told someone you did shrooms, who the hell would even ask “oh you do mean like psilocybin mushrooms or amanitas or what?”
Name a drug and I’ve done it
Krokodil?
Ayahuasca?
Jenkem?
Krokodil?
Shitty homemade Russian desomorphine, I’ve had fentanyl.
Ayahuasca?
Ayahuasca is a brew in which you have a DMT-containing compound and a MAOi in order to get it through to your brain, so to speak. (That’s not how it works neurochemically but I’m lazy in writing rn so that’ll suffice.) Drinking Ayahuasca means the ROI (route-of-ingestion) is oral, meaning rather slow. It does last a long time, 10-12 hours, (context pending). The psychoactive element, DMT, is something I’ve smoked. That is a much faster ROI, and although the trip is shorter, it is way more intense, and the only way some people say a breakthrough dose is possible. Ayahuasa is milder and lasts longer, and is done in a setting in which there are professionals (not medical, but spiritual, ‘shamanical’, if that makes sense) and is more therapeutic. Smoking DMT is… a rather more intense, more psychedelic experience. Less than 10 seconds after my first hit… the walls started… “living in time”. I remember using those words, but as of this moment, I couldn’t explain exactly why. After the trip, I also said “I met God” and I know I just used it as shorthand, because I don’t believe in a singular deity whatsoever, but… it was just as clear to me as 2+2 at the time that I had sort of talked to the “consciousness of the universe” or however you might be able to even attempt to simplify it to a few words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bvi8206lpA&ab_channel=ELVES https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8716686/
There’s a few resources for anyone who found my that intriguing.
Jenkem?
Greatest memelording of the early 2000’s, not an actual drug, but other volatiles I could recommend are nitrous oxide and, among others, ether. (I’m also growing my own mescaline, and have been for the past ten years, not that it’s an inahalant of any sort, just the movie reminded me. It takes a while to grow mescaline cacti, so growing it doesn’t mean yielding it.)
Brodda wut? I’m a mycologist.
Interesting that a mycologist has 0 posts or comments regarding mushrooms/fungi prior to this post. Not that you have to, but rather that both of my mycologist friends are extremely enthusiastic about talking about it.
Avoiding the question while pretending to be an expert, cool, cool.
Hey when people ask you “do you drink alcohol” do you answer them with “brodda wut? lol, no, only ethanol, why would you think ‘alcohol’ means ‘ethanol’ ‘alcohol’ actually means all alcohols and most of them aren’t suitable for human consumption”?
I’m sure you don’t.
Now, seeing how you’re an expert mycologist, please, do name two “magic mushrooms” which don’t contain any psilocin or psilocybin or any of the precursors. (Meaning shrooms in which the “magic” isn’t from psilocybin.)
Psilocybe cubensis (cubes) are prob what you’re thinking of because they grow like weeds. But there’s hundreds if not thousands of Psilocybe alone. We estimate the species of fungi number in tens of millions.
Here’s a quick guide if you’re interested in home cultivation.
Weird how a “mycologist” can’t even discern between a family and a species.
Psilocybe cubensis and it’s variants are the one’s you farm at home, but they’re far from being the only psilocybe species that are ingested. One of the foremost being psilocybe semilanceatea (liberty caps) which is far more potent than any cubensis. There are dozens of species of psilocybe mushrooms, but like the name might suggest, they all contain psilocybin.
I specifically said name me two mushrooms which do not contain psilocybin and which rely on other psyhoactives, for my point is that rather like alcohol, with mushrooms, only really the dosage varies with variants, whereas with cannabis variants, the actual composition of the psyhoactive chemicals varies… greatly. (And for the pedants, mushrooms will have varying relative amounts of psilocin and psilocybin and relatives, but since psilocybin metabolises into psilocin, it’s nowhere near the same as with dozens of different cannabinoids + terpenes.)
I’ve cultivated shrooms several times. Have you? A rather noob’s guide you’ve linked if I might say. Almost as if it’s the first result someone Googling it might link.
“Mycologist” lmao, you’re a bad liar bruv.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea
your point?
Damnit, it’s always brassica
MFW someone pretends there is a universally accepted definition of “species.”
Obviously life will refuse to be neatly classified, but that doesn’t mean people smarter than us won’t still try to do it in order to better understand the world.
… yes? Did you not read your own link? There are several definitions of “species” offered. Go have a look at how this applies to Cannabis and perhaps you will get my point.
What’s wrong with the definition about being able to make fertile offspring?
Life is much more complicated than the middle school definition. Some of the more interesting species are “sterile” crosses that have overcome the sterility. For example the ancestry of wheat.
Wheat is mostly a hexaploid aka 6 copies of each chromosome. It arose from a triploid interspecific cross (triploids are always sterile) that spontaneously doubled (hexaploids are fertile).
As a hexaploid it can be crossed to diploid rye to produce fertile offspring called triticale (tetraploid). Crossing triticale to either wheat or rye creates sterile offspring (pentaploid & triploid)
So are they all one species because they can sometimes produce fertile offspring?
is this a ligma joke that i’m too high to understand
this is actually one thing that has pissed me off for 30+ years. to be fair, there is 2-3 types, one for smoking, one for hemp products (non smoking/not getting high) and the wild kind.
Kinda sorta a bit different but you got the gist down close enough. 🙏
Cannabaceae is the plants family which is good shit btw 🤩🧐
There are two ways of thinking I’m aware of. It’s all cannabis sativa. Or. It’s cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and cannabis ruderalis as the three sub species.
Ruderalis is literally ditch weed in that it grows randomlyin the ditch’s around midwestern America, near where “hemp” was produced previously, and produces nothing smokeable or enjoyable I’m aware of.
Hemp is just a governmental term applied to the cannabis plant to denote it has less than .3% THC making it non psychoactive. This is currently heavily abused in the USA as THCa, the naturally occurring acid that grows on cannabis, melts or converts into THC with heat. And the law seemingly defines it into as THC being over .3% not THCa. Weird loophole.
you forgot the one for spicing ales.
Can anyone explain ?
Cannabis sativa is the same plant for every single strain of cannabis in existence, as well as hemp. The meme is pointing out how we talk about sativa, indica, and hybrids as completely different plants, rather than variations of the same species
But each strain is different, right? Like how a chihuahua and a German shepherd are both dogs, but vastly different.
Yes, the different strains absolutely have some differences, and I’m not trying to say it’s all bullshit. Weed is awesome, and we should document new stuff as it comes along, but we need to remember that it’s all a single plant. I’d say weed is like the apple of drugs
Yes. Some strains smell like a baby just shit kn a diaper and some smell like a fresh cut mango mixed with some pine needles lol. Flavor also vastly different! It’s a wonderful plant to explore
Cannabis sativa is the same plant for every single strain of cannabis in existence
This is incorrect. Cannabis is the family designation where Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis are the species designations.
This is debated. But this string is an explanation of recent debate. Whether it’s all sativa or there are the three sub species. I prefer the sub species route myself.
What do you mean by “same plant”? They are different species.
They are the same species by the scientific definition. The meaning of the word “species” has become diluted over time as it was adopted by more people and misused, just like all language.
They are the same species by the scientific definition
Seems there there is very much a debate about it and they are either considered seperate species, subspecies or a single one.
There’s really no debate about it.
deleted by creator
No, they’re not. Industrial hemp is also Cannabis sativa.
Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis)
Species[1]
Cannabis sativa L. Cannabis indica Lam. Cannabis ruderalis JanischTaxonomy is difficult, and we’re still figuring it all out.
I would, however, point out that the specific page on Cannabis sativa lists them as subspecies. So, it appears there isn’t even consensus on Wikipedia.
In mycology one will hear references to ‘lumpers’ and ‘splitters’ taxonomically. That is, do we lump these specimens together, or do we split them into difference groupings. When we look at the genetics, it has been the case that we find that those critters that appear similar may not be those that are related by genes/ evolution. And of course by “we” I mean the larger scientific community, not me and the mouse in my pocket. Oh wait, that’s not a mouse it’s a shrew. ;-)
My point exactly. That’s why I find it a bit strange that the post and some comments here act like it’s a certainty.
Standard middle school definition of species is applicable here. If they can breed and their offspring is fertile, they’re the same species.
QED, Spock is sterile.
Standard middle school definition of species is applicable here
And here I was thinking about looking into some of the papers for the actual reasons … but turns out those stupid scientists just wasted their time because they forgot about middle school. Fools!
I kind of thought the Spock thing would convey I wasn’t 100% serious in my reply to a weed shitpost.
I think the confusion is that there are two well-known subgroups of cannabis sativa, indica and sativa (ruderalis is more obscure). So the species and subgroup have the same name, to the consternation of indica lovers.
It may also be referential to the greater indica/sativa internet drama, there are fierce disputes about the differences or lack thereof. The confusion is amplified due to the lack of quality control in cannabis genetics and sales, and most strains are hybrids between the two (or three)
As I read it, it’s basically saying there’s only one kind of red wine: red. You’re right, but you’re ignoring all of the subcategories that the typical consumers use to talk about it.
Weed smokers typically consider strains to be either Indica or Sativa, but there’s a whole debate about if those are real differences at all. The plant itself is called Cannabis Sativa, hence why this statement is true.
The plant itself is called Cannabis Sativa…
The plant’s family is Cannabis. The plant’s species is either Indica, Ruderalis or Sativa.
The post is wrong.
Cannabis is the family, while Indica, Sativa and Ruderalis are the species.
The part directly above the species is the genus. Family comes after that, and is Cannabaceae in this case.
Yeah but the original cannabis indica described has none of the physical characteristics of what it does today, there is not a genetic difference between sativa and indica that is sold in the cannabis market today.
And yet they are very very different each strain. Doesnt matter if “indica” is fake, they test how it smoked and declare it that type and it is a meaningful difference.
Things marked sativa give me headaches inevitably. Hybrids and indica marked bud doesnt. There is a difference in how breeds effect you, despite incorrect colloquial naming.
In reality testing shows that named strains are not a thing, the testing shows THC and cbd content among things like tannins occasionally, but the only proven relevance to anything is THC.
“Incorrect colloquial naming” is an understatement, genetically weed strains as they are named don’t exist at all.
That said, stuff labeled indica on the package may have been formulated to be more relaxing by the manufacturer. Such as by having more CBD and less THC.
The hops used for brewing beer belong to the same family as marijuana and have a similar alkaloid, the hop harvesters at the end of the day can confirm this.
Hackberry trees (Celtis occidentalis) are also in the same family!
Sounds like a 90s diesel strain that’ll have you coughing your balls off.
Yes and others more, but hops are the nearest parent, because of this also cannabis is used to make beer
I guess people that keep thinking this are going The wrong way down a one way street
Ah… Benny Harvey RIP. Gone but not forgotten
Is this …bioessentialism?
So indica and ruderalis are just sativa variations?
