too high for genetics, sorry

Comments

• compostgoblin@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Indica and sativa are pretty much meaningless now, aren’t they? Like, strains have been crossbred so many times that now “indica” vs “sativa” refer to the effects experienced more so than any real genetic distinction?

  source

  • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That, plus there’s a whole diatribe on what the naming even actually is, to the point where they proposed C. sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa to “clear things up” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#20th_century

    source

    • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Quadruple Sativa.

      source
  • Ageroth@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I thought I had read something that said there never was a genetic or even chemical difference between sativa and indica, just the terpenes are different. Like how there’s all these different dog “breeds” but if you compare genetics they’re like 99% the same.

    bedrocan.com/international-research-shows-no-gene…

    www.nature.com/articles/s41477-021-01003-y

    source

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah, but the terpenes and cannabinoid profile is the whole point. Same way as dog breeds are quite different in size, fur, ear shape etc even if the genetic difference is <1%

      source
  • prettybunnys@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Excepting a landrace but those barely exist anymore either

    source
• floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Uhh larger leaf means it’s stonger because it’s more weed bro

  source

  • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    “more weed per weed”

    We can write that as “weed/weed”, which obviously reduces down to 1, because dividing something by itself = 1

    1 = True

    So therefore you are right. Congratulations.

    source
• Dogiedog64@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I care not for the genes, only that it makes me giggle on the couch uncontrollably for 6 hours.

  source