Discussing the word Strain

[Thomas M]

Can we get rid of the word “strain” and use the actual name for a specific plant. The word “ cultivar “ is actually the proper term. Strain is generic and cheap IMHO.

 

[Peat Phreak]

It's not happening.

 

[Thomas M]

it is a word I try to avoid at all costs. It’s isn’t the correct term for a cannabis species. Or really any plant species.
I will use to correct terms almost 99%of the time.

 

[Roy Growin]

Cultivar only refers to hybrids
Genetic phenotypes would be more accurate

 

[Thomas M]

Ehh idk about that. Then what do we call poly hybrids.

cultivar​

noun​

cul·ti·var ˈkəl-tə-ˌvär
-ˌver

: an organism and especially one of an agricultural or horticultural variety or strain originating and persistent under cultivation

So while the definition leads us to the word cultivate. Then by process, the only time to use cultivar would be when growing a certain plant.

I still feel it’s a better word than strain. That word is so low brow.

Idk. Just a thought.

 

[Roy Growin]

I love words
Merry Xmas friend

 

[Thomas M]

You aswell.

Words are fun. Especially when people use them. I prefer to use words that are not the common or slang. Instead opting for words that make people think. Not to say, some days I’m lazy. My brain won’t process certain times.

 

[Sparkey224]

Its just on of those "uncontrollables" why worry if you can't fo anything about it? Not bashing, but its everywhere..lol..
Now, if you can change the whole internet with this one thread. I salute you Sir.

 

[Thomas M]

Its just on of those "uncontrollables" why worry if you can't fo anything about it? Not bashing, but its everywhere..lol..
Now, if you can change the whole internet with this one thread. I salute you Sir.

Well while it’s a personal crusade. I think a lot of people get caught up in slang terms. Not using more of a clinical or professional approach to this topic is detrimental. Maybe not in ways that are tangible to most. Just in a way of slack and not putting the proper effort.

Doesn’t matter I guess. Was just thinking about this recently. As I tend to think a lot about many things.

 

[Gee64]

I was always under the impression that a cultivar is an absolute guaranteed outcome, as in a clone, and a phenotype would be the mother, As in "this is a cultivar of a phenotype I have had in my tent for years"... But to be honest I have never checked into it, just assumed it was true. I believe cultivar is actually an accepted slang contraction for "cultivated variety", but again....who knows...

 

[Thomas M]

I was always under the impression that a cultivar is an absolute guaranteed outcome, as in a clone, and a phenotype would be the mother, As in "this is a cultivar of a phenotype I have had in my tent for years"... But to be honest I have never checked into it, just assumed it was true. I believe cultivar is actually an accepted slang contraction for "cultivated variety", but again....who knows...

So pheno would be the genetic expression of a specific “strain” based on the level of genetic refinement. So an F1 can have many phenos. Where as a IBL or BX would have decidedly less.
At least that’s the way I perceive the whole genetic lineage of breeding

 

[Sparkey224]

F1's do have more pheno expressions, clone vigour,etc. Both Bodhi and Neville only make/made F1s.
Its my favorite over the IBLs for sure.

Back on topic! Had a high moment there.
Cheers

 

[Thomas M]

F1's do have more pheno expressions, clone vigour,etc. Both Bodhi and Neville only make/made F1s.
Its my favorite over the IBLs for sure.

Back on topic! Had a high moment there.
Cheers

I mean it’s a worthy discussion for those who might not know the way it works.
Cutting out traits and expressions are why the refining process takes place.
So f1-4 are great fun for any breeder new or old. Because of the implementation.
Anything above an F4 tends to get more narrow in scope. Highly refined genetics for me are great if you are looking for a specific trait to breed into something. Or you are looking for that IT plant expression of (yes) that specific cultivar.
If that makes sense?

 

[Sparkey224]

I mean it’s a worthy discussion for those who might not know the way it works.
Cutting out traits and expressions are why the refining process takes place.
So f1-4 are great fun for any breeder new or old. Because of the implementation.
Anything above an F4 tends to get more narrow in scope. Highly refined genetics for me are great if you are looking for a specific trait to breed into something. Or you are looking for that IT plant expression of (yes) that specific cultivar.
If that makes sense?

Yes, very well said.
F1s are exciting to me. Just never know what youre going to get on either side.
I like IBLs don't get me wrong but not having a Mom plant, cloning perpetual, f1s seem to have more vigor. I could be wrong just my observation.

 

[Thomas M]

Potentially yes. But as you know. Every version is a little different. Not every genetic expresses the same way.
When considering a mom plant. One must always know why they want that plant. Sometimes people end up with moms that just shouldn’t be moms.
Selective breeding, brings about the discussion of expressions or phenos.
But the only way to due this is through growing many many many (in some cases thousands of f1 s (example). Then and only then can you have a reference point for which plant (if any) carry the traits you are after. So by that process. You actually select a mother for the traits you want.
Sometimes people are limited when it comes to genetic selection. They will just select a female plant. Slap a mother tag on it. Go about the day.
This is incorrect way. Especially if breeding for success.

I can go on and on. But probably not worth it.

 

[Smoke2Js]

I find this from the American Society For Horticultural Science to be very informative on this subject. From 25 Feb 2021

Identification of Phenotypic Characteristics in Three Chemotype Categories in the Genus Cannabis​

"Modern Cannabis cultivars are morphologically distinguished by their leaflet shapes (wide for “Indica” and narrow for “Sativa”) by users and breeders. However, there are no scientific bases or references for determining the shape of these leaflets. In addition, these two categories contained mostly THC dominant (high THC) cultivars while excluded CBD dominant (high CBD) and intermediate (intermediate level of both THC and CBD) cultivars. This study investigated the phenotypic variation in 21 Cannabis cultivars covering three chemical phenotypes, referred to as chemotypes, grown in a commercial greenhouse. Thirty morphological traits were measured in the vegetative, flowering, and harvest stages on live plants and harvested inflorescences. The collected data were subjected to correlation analysis, hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis, and canonical correlation analysis with preassigned chemotypes. Canonical correlation analysis assigned individual plants to their chemotypes with 92.9% accuracy. Significant morphological differences were identified. Traits usable as phenotype markers for CBD dominant cultivars included light-green and narrow leaflets, a greater number of primary and secondary serrations, loose inflorescences, dense and resinous trichomes, and Botrytis cinerea resistance. Traits for intermediate cultivars included deep-green and medium-wide leaflets, more primary and secondary serrations, medium compact inflorescences, trichomes that are less dense and less resinous, and Botrytis cinerea resistance. Traits for THC dominant cultivars included deep-green and wide leaflets, large and compact inflorescences, dense and resinous trichomes, and Botrytis cinerea susceptibility. The results of this study provide a comprehensive profile of morphological traits of modern Cannabis cultivars and provides the first such profile for CBD dominant and intermediate cultivars. Additionally, this study included the traits of inflorescences, which have not been compared between three chemotypes in the literature. Phenotype markers identified in this study can facilitate preliminary cultivar identification and selection on live plants before or as a supplement to chemical and genetic analysis."

Here they use the terms Chemotype, Phenotype, and Cultivar while discussing identifying cannabis types. All three terms do refer to cannabis. We grow a cultivar, identify its chemo and phenotype, and go from there. There is also use of the term chemovar for “chemical variety” allowing further identification of select traits unique to phenotyopes and chemotypes found in the cultivar.
Hope this helps, to some it's all weed.

 

[SmokingWings]

It's not happening.

Yep. It ain't going to happen. Some people cannot even spell 'strain' so I can just imagine what would happen if they were to start using a word like 'cultivar'.

Look at the use of "nutes" which is not even a word in any English language dictionary that I know of. On top of that they cannot even remember to spell that word the same way from one message to the next. I am thinking of messages with nuts, nets, nats, and my favorite, 'newts'.

I can imagine what is happening when non-English speaking people are using translation software on a message with the word 'newts' in it and figure that they have to grind up small salamanders to add to their soil or coco coir growing mix.

 

[Peat Phreak]

If I owned a weed store, there would be STRICT rules forbidding the use of the word cultivar in my shop.

No offense meant to OP. It's just a word. But we reserve the right to refuse service!

 

[Thomas M]

If I owned a weed store, there would be STRICT rules forbidding the use of the word cultivar in my shop.

No offense meant to OP. It's just a word. But we reserve the right to refuse service!

No offense to you. But I wouldn’t be caught dead in a store you ran. I don’t go to shops. I do my own work.
Think that comment wasn’t called for and rude. But thanks for keeping it professional. At least I know who to not engage with on this site.

 

[Peat Phreak]

I was just trying to keep it real. It was a hypothetical scenario that was used to illustrate the absurdity of your suggestion. If you poll 1000 weed smokers randomly and they answer honestly. I'm certain there would be very little support for making cultivar a default substitution for the word strain.