So i got some 420 and the guy called it Rasta.

I've been smoking nonstop for 20 years and never heard of it.

It looked like the best stuff I'd have ever seen.

I did a search.

Lo-and-behold, they say it's a new strain.. google it yourself.. Rasta strain.

Anyhow here's the report: It's a new strain! It doesn't feel like either sativa nor indica although it definitely is more sativa if i had to lean one way or the other.. it's extremely potent (at least mine is) and the taste is amazing although a bit bizarre (fruity but also a bit like cheese or something...)

The high reminds me more of pill that a smoke, like some sort of cheap speed maybe.. but i guess that' because its not what i've been used to feeling from weed... anyhow I wanted to report, it's been ages since i've been on the nexus but i have a lot to thank for it

i smoked up my department at the office today and we were all taken aback.. so try it if you can, it is a really interesting find for me.

Interesting. I had not heard of this. Was it more speedy and uplifting than a pre Sativa strain? There are some pure Sativa strains that I have had that are like an expresso - big surge of energy. The opposite of the pure Indicas that cause couch lock and blissful lethargy. Would like to know more about this and its effects and what CBD levels it contains in contract to its THC levels. Thanks for the info.

http://www.hightimes.com/read/d...vers-new-cannabis-strain
i am amazed.
exciting stuff

Not any chance of it being a ruderalis strain?

I have seen ruderalis/sativa/indica hybrids which is why I ask (though I gather straight ruderalis strains are not overly potent compared to sativa as primary example)

Sounds like some seeds I would like to get hold of at any rate

Thanks for sharing, I had not heard of this strain. It brings to mind some other strong Sativa strains with THC-V, such as Durban Poison. I haven't researched THC-V heavily, but from experience and my light reading it certainly adds an extra "oomph" to the high. Some say the high even borders on psychedelic (low dose LSD, etc.). These THC-V strains tend to give me a headache if I smoke too much of it, but as powerful as they are I don't need to smoke much most times.

Certainly don't know if the THC-V is the whole story here, but the effect it has on my highs with various strains is prominent. Very energetic and an interesting headspace. Good stuff

why are they calling sativa and indica "strains"? They are species.

A fair point well raised.. Sub-species of the same genus would be technically correct I believe.

I slap myself for my lazy prose

If two different species can breed with each other AND produce a fertile offspring (this is key word here) then technically they can be regarded as the same species.

Offspring of sativas and indicas are also fertile so their parents are regarded as being the same species (with "sativa" and "indica" being the subspecies).

The same logic applies to humans (inter-racial breeding) but does not apply to e.g. horses and donkeys, as the latter can mate and produce offspring but the resulting mules are sterile.

So indicas and sativas are pretty much strains technically speaking.

Unfortunately, this was discovered in 2005 (judging by that high times article, previously posted)
Cool! Just not "new"

new to me

Am I wrong on this one because it is my understanding that the sativa strains were used for rope making and unless I am reading this wrong the high times article is saying indicas are used for rope production...'



Am I reading this wrong?

I pity the soul who uses sativa for making rope.

Besides, female plants are not used for rope. (afaik) It's normally male hemp plants, usually of the indica or ruderalis variety.

I guess I was thinking about hemp, but if you read this from wikipedia.com on HEMP it only mentions sativas as used for rope production... now I am confused... Oi!

I respect you all, but I'm going to explain why I believe there is not only 1 species of Cannabis (I have had some education in Plant Taxonomy).

(note: I have searched for and not found Linnaeus's Original Description of Cannabis sativa's character traits):

Zoologists prefer the Biological Species Concept; most current and recent Botanists prefer the Morphological Species Concept due to the existence of the following types of non-ideal species: 1). Hybrid-Swarm species (morphologically distinct, but reproductively viable) and 2). Cryptic Species (morphologically identical, but reproductively isolated).

What you all have been describing so far is the Biological Species Concept.

The Morphological Species Concept is based upon similarities/differences in the morphology of the various plant structures.

Relevant side note: There is 2 methods that I was taught to classify plant species (Botanists prefer method #2).

The (older) 1). Artificial classification system
The (newer) 2). Natural classification system.

1). Designed for non-scientists; based upon very few character traits; low character trait correlation; has a tendency to group unrelated organisms.

2). Designed for scientists; based upon many character traits; high character trait correlation; tendency to group related organisms.

The Natural classification system utilizes homologous character traits and analogous characters.

There are 2 types of Natural Classification:

1). Phenetic Classification
2). Phlogenetic Classification

1). Based upon character trait correlations, not phylogeny. Attempts to reflect overall similarity; gives equal significance to all character trait states; "important" plant character trait states are not subjectively chosen by a human (each human may choose different sets of important traits); much more objective method. Uses homologous and analogous traits; this method accepts character convergence. disadvantage = convergent evolution complicates this.

2). Based upon ancestral descent; attempts to reflect phylogeny. Certain "important" character trait states are selected- and those are given a greater significance during classification; subjective character trait bias is inherent. Uses only homologous character traits; this method does not accept character trait convergence.
disadvantage = subjective character bias inherent.

> Since Cannabis sativa is specifically prohibited, we should attempt to get right down to: legally, and taxonomically- what is a Cannabis sativa? It is likely based upon the exact wording used by Linnaeus within the Original Description.

I realize that THC is prohibited as well, but I believe that Cannabis has more than 1 species. Anytime something is "overly vague" it can be struck down when legally challenged; I think it could be argued that inherent subjective character bias is equal to overly vague. I also believe that Cannabis would be shown to have multiple species if all character trait states were given equal significance.

An interesting paper that supports the multiple species concept of cannabis is "A Chemotaxonomic Analysis of Cannabinoid Variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)" by Karl W. Hillig and Paul G. Mahlberg.


P.S. Spread the word about the alleged anti-tumor effects of certain cannabinoids found within Cannabis.

Thanks for the interesting info!

But I think I missed your explanation of why you believe that s not only 1 species of Cannabis... Could you explain it again what cues you to that, as it wasn;t aprticularly clear from your post? I.e., regardless of the classification systems or any theory in general, what type of data or phylogenetic analyses suggest to your that "more than one cannabis species" assertion?

NOTE: currently, and with the availabel DNA barcoding data, indica is considered a subspecies of the Cannabis sativa species.

Thanks for the reply.

Initially, I started believing this due to vegetative morphology differences between strains that are considered indica dominant and strains that are sativa dominant: such as leaflet width, inter-nodal distance, differing medicinal effects (including where the effects are mostly felt), differing intoxicating effects.

I have not compared male flower morphology between sativa flowers and indica flowers, and that might be important, I admit. I was taught comparing flower morphology is way more significant than comparing vegetative morphology, but also that the original description is what is gone by (especially when the authority is Linnaeus), wonder if Linnaeus mentioned leaflet width, inter-nodal spacing and/or intoxicating effects.

More recently, I had talked with Shaolin on nexus chat and Shaolin was kind enough to link me to this interesting paper (pdf from 2004), which I attached in my previous post.

In the last sentence of the abstract, it says "This study supports a two-species concept of Cannabis." See abstract below, or attachment provided in previous post for chemotaxonomic reasons that I think they are multiple species (ratios of THC to CBD).


"Cannabinoids are important chemotaxonomic markers unique to Cannabis. Previous studies show that a plant’s dry-weight ratio of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) can be assigned to one of three chemotypes and that alleles BD and BT encode alloenzymes that catalyze the conversion of cannabigerol to CBD and THC, respectively. In the present study, the frequencies of BD and BT in sample populations of 157 Cannabis accessions were determined from CBD and THC banding patterns, visualized by starch gel electrophoresis. Gas chromatography was used to quantify cannabinoid levels in 96 of the same accessions. The data were interpreted with respect to previous analyses of genetic and morphological variation in the same germplasm collection. Two biotypes (infraspecific taxa of unassigned rank) of C. sativa and four biotypes of C. indica were recognized. Mean THC levels and the frequency of BT were significantly higher in C. indica than C. sativa. The proportion of high THC/CBD chemotype plants in most accessions assigned to C. sativa was ,25% and in most accessions assigned to C. indica was .25%. Plants with relatively high levels of tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) and/or cannabidivarin (CBDV) were common only in C. indica. This study supports a two-species concept of Cannabis."

That is from 2004, and the paper itself goes into detail...

Do you have more recent information otherwise?

I am curious if anyone has- in person- ever compared male flower morphology between C. sativa and C. indica?

Thanks again for your reply.

edit: I know that there is a DNA connection between the 2+, but as far as differences in vegetative morphology and/or chemotaxonomically during flowering, I believe there is enough of a difference that there should be officially multiple species.