• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

New subspecies of Cannabis discovered; the "rasta"

Blowmonkey

Blowmonkey

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
12,861
Location
No
Rasta lends its name to a third type of cannabis

17 September 2005
NewScientist.com news service

AS POLICE and dope smokers know, there are two types of cannabis. Cannabis sativa sativa is mainly used to make hemp, while the indica subspecies is prized for its tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, which produces the "high". But now Australian researchers have discovered a third type of cannabis, called rasta.

Simon Gilmore of the Canberra Institute of Technology catagorised 196 sample plants according to the DNA in their mitochondria and chloroplasts. The samples included plants grown for drugs and hemp as well as wild varieties from Europe, Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica.

The results showed three distinct "races" of cannabis. In central Asia the THC-rich indica predominated, while in western Europe sativa was more common. In India, south-east Asia, Africa, Mexico and Jamaica the rasta variant predominated. It looks similar to the sativa subspecies, but generally contains higher levels of THC.

Since the study was of DNA rather than a formal taxonomic study, Cannabis sativa rasta is not yet an official new subspecies: the name was the result of a competition in Gilmore's lab. Their work is expected to appear in the journal Forensic Science International later this year.
Click to expand...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18725175.200

Pretty cool, I am a bit skeptical of it though.. I mean, what happens to ruderalis, is that classified as a sativa now or what..? And the "rasta subspecies" sounds like some kind of joke, but oh well..

The taxonomy of cannabis is really getting confusing now.
 
What kind of idiot wrote that? What happened to Ruderalis? Since when can't a Sativa have a huge amount of THC?

Haha, now that I typed it I see Blowmonkey noticed that too =D

Yeah, it'S hella confusing. Especially since "Sativa" just means "widely cultivated".

Anyway, I'm gonna smoke some more of whatever the hell my stash is classified as now.

--- G.
 
I think I'm getting it.. There already was debate about wether C. ruderalis was actually a different subspecies, so this pretty much acknowledges that it isn't and is just another variety of C. sativa.


Look at my beautiful screenshot-drawing which explains it a lot better:

screeenshot.jpg


Far left is "ruderalis", then comes the newly discovered subspecies (which is described as a different variety or "ecotype" of C. sativa above, but is actually a whole different species), then comes another variety of C. sativa and lastly C. indica..

Here's an article on the taxonomy of Cannabis where you can find the original pic (and more relevant info):
http://haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/4513.pdf

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
It's pretty stupid as far as I am concerned, I mean, subtypes? Cultivars? Unless it's a different species, whats the big deal? It's just some people drawing arbitrary lines.
 
The study appears to have used maternally inherited, non-recombinant sources of DNA (mitochondria/chloroplasts), which would be much more highly conserved than nuclear DNA. Given that and the apparently far-ranging collection of samples (from wild and cultivated forms) it seems fair to describe these as legitimately distinct populations, having diverged evolutionarily from each other (although still very similar and genetically compatible.)

Does it 'matter'? Not really. But it's kind of neat, since it suggests that they've caught marijuana 'in the act' of separating into new species. Somewhere along the line the ancestral marijuana plant lineage diverged into these strains, for reasons unknown.

I suppose a very bored person could put together a quickie genetic field test to tell you what the maternal ancestry of your pot was. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top