Quest for mold-resistant strains, Hawaii outdoor greenhouse grow

[cbdhemp808]

More on the origins of cannabis, from a joint study by the Max Planck Institute and Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2019...

https://www.science.org/content/article/oldest-evidence-marijuana-use-discovered-2500-year-old-cemetery-peaks-western-china

(The above article refers to the study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw1391)

"Cannabis, also known as hemp or marijuana, evolved about 28 million years ago on the eastern Tibetan Plateau, according to a pollen study published in May. A close relative of the common hop found in beer, the plant still grows wild across Central Asia. More than 4000 years ago, Chinese farmers began to grow it for oil and for fiber to make rope, clothing, and paper."​

• • •​

"The cannabis burned 2500 years** ago at the Jirzankal cemetery, [9,800 ft.] high in the Pamir Mountains in far western China, was [psychoactive]. Excavations there have uncovered skeletons and wooden plates, bowls, and Chinese harps, as well as wooden braziers that held burning material." [** approx. 470 BC]​

• • •​

"They found unusually high levels of THC compared with typical wild cannabis, although much less than in today's highly bred plants. The cannabis was apparently burned in an enclosed space, so mourners almost certainly inhaled THC-laced fumes..."​

• • •​

"The region's high altitude could have stressed the cannabis, creating plants naturally high in THC, says co-author Robert Spengler, also of [The Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History]. "It is quite likely that people came across cannabis plants at higher elevations that were naturally producing higher THC levels," he says."​

So, another factor: high elevation can stress cannabis plants to produce more THC.

To be continued...

 

[cbdhemp808]

And they have a drink called "bhang" (?) made from the flower and milk, and heated. Don't know how old that is but likely pretty ancient.

So they obviously figured out the relationship regarding extracting into a fat.

And bhang butter, aka sacred ghee.

 

[cbdhemp808]

Yes, Mechoulam in 1963 and 1964. [CBD and THC]

Correction... From Mechoulam...

"The first real progress was achieved in the early 1940s by Lord Todd in England and Roger Adams in the US, who independently isolated cannabinol, a very weak psychoactive constituent, and cannabidiol which is inactive. Synthetic studies led to compounds with cannabis-like activity, but the main active component of the plant was still beyond their reach (Mechoulam, 1973).​

​

In the early 1960s we established the structure and stereochemistry of cannabidiol (Mechoulam and Shvo, 1963)."​

​

[ source ]​

 

[cbdhemp808]

Today in the veg house... all clones in 10 gal pots.

Clockwise starting with the foreground: White Widow, Humboldt Dream, Blueberry, and HI-BISCUS. I'm just waiting for the clones to take, then I'll start transferring to the flower house.

 

[CBDMed]

It's not surprising that the communist government of China, in its control of Hong Kong, would suppress cannabis. In their eyes, the plant is too powerful to even allow the people access to its CBD forms, let alone its THC forms.

Yes, many chemical-medical pharmaceutical doctors do not like natural medicine, as it eat$ into their profit$.

 

[CBDMed]

I'm sure the ancient Chinese practitioners knew of the value of the flowers as medicine. As to whether or not their flowers contained CBD, I think it's just a matter of historical timing. Surely the closer you get to modern-day, the more obvious it is that their flowers contained CBD, and in terms of the ancient Chinese, I think it's very possible... as soon as they got their hands on sativa and sativa/indica hybrid genetics. Of course, they very well probably didn't know that they were working with two distinct molecules (THC and CBD)—they just knew that the effects were different. So, they originally were working with type I indicas. Then they may have been working with type II indicas and sativas. As to whether they had access to type III (high CBD, very low THC), that's a tough call. BUT... the landraces developed to the west of China may have included type III phenotypes. Eventually growers and breeders in China probably also had these phenotypes.

Well, it may well have been that the farmers were aware of what they had (especially closer to India), and maybe someone knew how to differentiate between CBD and THC, and what conditions to apply it? Only, if such knowledge perhaps made its way from the farmers into the ancient medical community, it did not make its way into the ancient medical texts.

I took a look at the Brand/Zhao study, and it seems to be purposely skewed toward the use of the seeds. The authors sort of dance around the subject of the use of the flowers. They even describe in detail a concoction made from stir-fried seeds boiled in alcohol as a treatment for "severe pain" (circa 1070 AD?), and conjecture that maybe the seeds still had resinous bracts intact. ...Like as if the ancient Chinese weren't fully aware of the pain-relieving effects of the flowers!

No, sorry. It is not a treatise on recreational, wellness, or home medicinal use of cannabis in ancient China. He's doing a survey of the ancient medicinal texts regarding prescription medicinal cannabis use.

Like I said, it seems that they were not able to differentiate between the CBD and the THC strains at the medical level. (It may well be that some farmers had this knowledge, but apparently it did not make its way into the medical literature before 1070 CE..)

The ancient Chinese bencao texts go back to 220 BC. The Shang Dynasty goes back to 1600 BC. Surely the Chinese culture existed long before the Shang Dynasty, but lets just grab that number "1600 BC". So, before the bencao texts appeared, there was a period of Chinese culture extending at least 1,380 years. That's a long time.

[EDIT: Just came across this... "The first documented case of its use dates back to 2800 BC, when it was listed in the Emperor Shen-Nung's (regarded as the father of Chinese medicine) pharmacopoeia." source. Shen-Nung is known as a "mythical emperor" whatever that means! ]

Well, have you heard of the legend of King Arthur and the round table?

Shen Nung is thought to have been a real historical figure. Of course there's a lot of legend and myth that springing up around him also, but he has reported to have left many medical texts that are attributed to him.

(I hesitate to bring up King David. Some consider him mythological in spite of all the archaeological evidence.)

The cannabis first used in ancient China would surely have been the indigenous high-THC indica varieties, not the sativa hemp varieties or hybrids from the west. So, the ancient Chinese were likely very well aware of the psychoactive properties, and medicinal properties, of their local cannabis plants.

I do not doubt in any sense that they were well aware of any psychoactive properties. I don't think that part is in question.
I am much less familiar with the Indian Ayurvedic system of vata pita kapha (there is a fraternity for you!), and I do know that the two medical systems are complementary (both being natural medical systems rely on herbs and minerals and things). However I am relatively familiar with the Chinese system, and I know from trying to learn the Indian Vedic system that the two are not the same and the approach to issues is not the same.

Untold billions of people are familiar with the effects of alcohol intoxication, and there are some doctors who will prescribe alcohol medicinally. However, they are the exception, rather than the rule. (There might be some prescription use of alcohol in the allopathic medical canon, but not much.)
My point is that human and cultural knowledge of the effects of alcohol and intoxication in today's culture have very little correspondence to the acknowledged canonical medicinal uses.
Further, the US government and most states still look critically at medical cannabis, even though that is not an accurate reflection of the general knowledge among the population, which now favors legalization for medicinal uses. (But for political reasons, the government denies any medicinal benefits.)

Meanwhile, in India to the south, they also had access to high-THC indica plants. Their system of medicine, Ayurveda, is even older than the Chinese system, going back to the Rig Veda (3000-2500 BCE)...

"Cannabis is known as “Bhanga” in Ayurveda. Atharva Veda [1200-1000 BCE] mentions cannabis as one of the five most sacred plants on Earth and refers to it as a “Freedom for Distress” or a “joy-giver”. Therapeutic value of this plant is mentioned in many of the Ayurvedic texts like the Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, and Shargandhara Samhita.​

​

Anandakand has a whole chapter dedicated to the herb, which describes various purification methods, formulations and antidotal therapy to counter the side effects of overdose of cannabis.​

​

There are around 209 formulations mentioned in Ayurveda using Cannabis as single ingredient." [ source ]​

Cool. I will have to check it out someday.

So, you can't tell me that the ancient Chinese practitioners weren't fully aware of all this.

"The exchange of traditional medicine between China and India began in the Qin and Han Dynasties (221 BC–220 AD), prospered in the Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD), and declined after the Song Dynasty (960–1279 AD). It was also directly related to the rise and fall of Buddhism. The traditional medicines of the two countries are highly complementary..."​

[ source ]​

Big sigh...
I am NOT looking for an argument (and I have little time). But no, I don't have any issue at all with the concept of the ancient Chinese people were aware of medicinal and recreational properties of cannabis. I think it is obvious, and intuitive. All native peoples are going to explore the world around them, to see what good they can derive from their immediate surroundings, without money. That's just common sense.

Also, it seems like good information that there was medical exchange between the two countries. However, from what I know of the Chinese and the Indians, no, I do not believe it is obvious or intuitive that this knowledge made its way into the Chinese medical canon, because classical Chinese medicine and Indian Ayurveda are too totally and completely separate systems that work well together, but which have different takes and outlook on life.

Further, I celebrate and rejoice that the Indian medicinal practitioners were able to recognize the obvious health and wellness value of this genus and species, and I will have to check into it. Thank you for listing the sources. HOWEVER, from what I know of Chinese medical theory (which is considerable, because I almost signed up for a PhD in Chinese Medical Theory at one point), they were not able to isolate the differences between CBD and THC, then they were unlikely to prescribe cannabis flowers as medicine, because they would've been uncertain about what effects it would generate.

Are you aware of any research indicating that the ancient Chinese (or the Indians, for that matter) differentiated between THC and CBD cannabis? Such data would change my mind, but I have not been able to find any. Are you aware of such data? I would be very appreciative if you had such data to share.

 

[CBDMed]

And they have a drink called "bhang" (?) made from the flower and milk, and heated. Don't know how old that is but likely pretty ancient.

So they obviously figured out the relationship regarding extracting into a fat.

Good stuff

I think Indian Ayurveda is much more in tune with mystical and spiritual concepts. I think they embrace THC much more readily.

From what I know of the Chinese, they can be very hard-over regarding their martial concepts. I have not heard of a similar Chinese drink.

 

[CBDMed]

And bhang butter, aka sacred ghee.

Yes, good stuff!

I have not seen anything like that in the Chinese system.

Doubtless Ghee and Bhang were imported by some in ancient China. (I am not sure why anyone who cares about people would want to restrict a wellness plant, but human politics is what it is [which is why I am thankful for 420].)

 

[cbdhemp808]

Well, it may well have been that the farmers were aware of what they had (especially closer to India), and maybe someone knew how to differentiate between CBD and THC, and what conditions to apply it? Only, if such knowledge perhaps made its way from the farmers into the ancient medical community, it did not make its way into the ancient medical texts.


No, sorry. It is not a treatise on recreational, wellness, or home medicinal use of cannabis in ancient China. He's doing a survey of the ancient medicinal texts regarding prescription medicinal cannabis use.

Like I said, it seems that they were not able to differentiate between the CBD and the THC strains at the medical level. (It may well be that some farmers had this knowledge, but apparently it did not make its way into the medical literature before 1070 CE..)


Well, have you heard of the legend of King Arthur and the round table?

Shen Nung is thought to have been a real historical figure. Of course there's a lot of legend and myth that springing up around him also, but he has reported to have left many medical texts that are attributed to him.

(I hesitate to bring up King David. Some consider him mythological in spite of all the archaeological evidence.)


I do not doubt in any sense that they were well aware of any psychoactive properties. I don't think that part is in question.
I am much less familiar with the Indian Ayurvedic system of vata pita kapha (there is a fraternity for you!), and I do know that the two medical systems are complementary (both being natural medical systems rely on herbs and minerals and things). However I am relatively familiar with the Chinese system, and I know from trying to learn the Indian Vedic system that the two are not the same and the approach to issues is not the same.

Untold billions of people are familiar with the effects of alcohol intoxication, and there are some doctors who will prescribe alcohol medicinally. However, they are the exception, rather than the rule. (There might be some prescription use of alcohol in the allopathic medical canon, but not much.)
My point is that human and cultural knowledge of the effects of alcohol and intoxication in today's culture have very little correspondence to the acknowledged canonical medicinal uses.
Further, the US government and most states still look critically at medical cannabis, even though that is not an accurate reflection of the general knowledge among the population, which now favors legalization for medicinal uses. (But for political reasons, the government denies any medicinal benefits.)


Cool. I will have to check it out someday.



Big sigh...
I am NOT looking for an argument (and I have little time). But no, I don't have any issue at all with the concept of the ancient Chinese people were aware of medicinal and recreational properties of cannabis. I think it is obvious, and intuitive. All native peoples are going to explore the world around them, to see what good they can derive from their immediate surroundings, without money. That's just common sense.

Also, it seems like good information that there was medical exchange between the two countries. However, from what I know of the Chinese and the Indians, no, I do not believe it is obvious or intuitive that this knowledge made its way into the Chinese medical canon, because classical Chinese medicine and Indian Ayurveda are too totally and completely separate systems that work well together, but which have different takes and outlook on life.

Further, I celebrate and rejoice that the Indian medicinal practitioners were able to recognize the obvious health and wellness value of this genus and species, and I will have to check into it. Thank you for listing the sources. HOWEVER, from what I know of Chinese medical theory (which is considerable, because I almost signed up for a PhD in Chinese Medical Theory at one point), they were not able to isolate the differences between CBD and THC, then they were unlikely to prescribe cannabis flowers as medicine, because they would've been uncertain about what effects it would generate.

Are you aware of any research indicating that the ancient Chinese (or the Indians, for that matter) differentiated between THC and CBD cannabis? Such data would change my mind, but I have not been able to find any. Are you aware of such data? I would be very appreciative if you had such data to share.

I think we disagree on some points. We are attempting to look back at ancient China and make some guesses as to what was going on with cannabis and their developing system of medicine. What happened early on in China is obviously different than what developed let's say in the past 500 to 1000 years, up to modern day teaching and practice of TCM. One thing is for sure—the traditional medicine of China is very focused on the use of herbs. So, it's kind of hard to believe that they wouldn't fully explore and put to use what is probably the most powerful herb there is. You may be right that, due to cultural and government influences, there was an avoidance of cannabis as an intoxicant (i.e. they perceived the intoxicating effects as outweighing the medicinal effects). Perhaps that view intensified in more modern times.

I also don't think that the distinction of THC vs. CBD, in ancient times, somehow changes the importance of the plant in those times, whether used with or without the guidance of a practitioner. It's not even clear that, early on, they even had access to CBD plants (sativas) in China. It seems more likely they were high-THC indicas. While THC is psychoactive, it is also medicinal. (Of course, the potency and the dose are super important, which is basically the case with all herbs.) It is well known in our time that both THC and CBD are useful for a variety of ailments and conditions, both alone and in combination.

Regarding U.S. states and medical cannabis, I count 37 states that have legal medical cannabis. That's 74% of U.S. states. As for the federal government, I think it's mainly big pharma and the AMA responsible for suppressing cannabis, exerting their power and influence on the government. I think this goes back to Rockefeller and Carnegie, with their funding of the medical system (incl. pharma) and medical schools in the U.S., and smear campaign against natural medicine.

Anyway... yes, we disagree on some points. But let's leave it there. I'd like to get back to a discussion of the origins of cannabis, sativa vs. indica, and so on. Feel free to continue the China discussion on your thread.

 

[CBDMed]

I think we disagree on some points. We are attempting to look back at ancient China and make some guesses as to what was going on with cannabis and their developing system of medicine. What happened early on in China is obviously different than what developed let's say in the past 500 to 1000 years, up to modern day teaching and practice of TCM. One thing is for sure—the traditional medicine of China is very focused on the use of herbs. So, it's kind of hard to believe that they wouldn't fully explore and put to use what is probably the most powerful herb there is. You may be right that, due to cultural and government influences, there was an avoidance of cannabis as an intoxicant (i.e. they perceived the intoxicating effects as outweighing the medicinal effects). Perhaps that view intensified in more modern times.

I also don't think that the distinction of THC vs. CBD, in ancient times, somehow changes the importance of the plant in those times, whether used with or without the guidance of a practitioner. It's not even clear that, early on, they even had access to CBD plants (sativas) in China. It seems more likely they were high-THC indicas. While THC is psychoactive, it is also medicinal. (Of course, the potency and the dose are super important, which is basically the case with all herbs.) It is well known in our time that both THC and CBD are useful for a variety of ailments and conditions, both alone and in combination.

Regarding U.S. states and medical cannabis, I count 37 states that have legal medical cannabis. That's 74% of U.S. states. As for the federal government, I think it's mainly big pharma and the AMA responsible for suppressing cannabis, exerting their power and influence on the government. I think this goes back to Rockefeller and Carnegie, with their funding of the medical system (incl. pharma) and medical schools in the U.S., and smear campaign against natural medicine.

Anyway... yes, we disagree on some points. But let's leave it there. I'd like to get back to a discussion of the origins of cannabis, sativa vs. indica, and so on. Feel free to continue the China discussion on your thread.

EDIT: I am 100% fine with that. I posted the Chinese medical parts on my thread, and at first I only posted the parts on your thread that pertained to taxonomy of cannabis, since that seems to be more your interest.
The. You wanted to discuss the article more, and challenged my statement, so I just responded in amistad.
But if you prefer to focus more on the origins of cannabis (and Indica versus sativa etc.) on your thread, I am totally fine with that. I am learning lots of good things, and I'm enjoying the discussion. Already I learned many good things about phenos!!
And I am looking forward to putting this knowledge into action. So thank you.

 

[cbdhemp808]

EDIT: I am 100% fine with that. I posted the Chinese medical parts on my thread, and at first I only posted the parts on your thread that pertained to taxonomy of cannabis, since that seems to be more your interest.
The. You wanted to discuss the article more, and challenged my statement, so I just responded in amistad.
But if you prefer to focus more on the origins of cannabis (and Indica versus sativa etc.) on your thread, I am totally fine with that. I am learning lots of good things, and I'm enjoying the discussion. Already I learned many good things about phenos!!
And I am looking forward to putting this knowledge into action. So thank you.

Sorry, it was late last night (wee hours) and I failed to include...

And thank you very much for your input and for spurring debate! It's one thing I love about this forum, when we bring our unique perspectives and knowledge to a discussion, and then new information gets flushed out.

For one thing (and I think there are others), your input on the use of cannabis in Chinese medicine lead me to this very cool interview of John McPartland, which I included parts of in this post, and the semi-crazy revelation (for me) that Cannabis sativa subspecies indica var. indica is what we are currently calling "sativa". This is the scientific confirmation of what I was beginning to understand regarding the original landrace and wild sativas vs. what we call a sativa in modern times (which is the result of cross breeding with indica). Take for example one landrace that has come up in recent discussions, Thai sativa—I realized the THC potency was achieved by crossbreeding with indica. So, "landrace" does not mean pure sativa or pure indica.

Then, the McPartland info lead me to the Max Planck and Chinese Academy study of 2019 (my post here), with the stunning info (for me) that cannabis "evolved about 28 million years ago on the eastern Tibetan Plateau". So there's the epicenter right there! East Asia, very high elevation. (The Tibetan Plateau avg. elevation is 16,000 ft.!!) If true, that's very convincing evidence that indica types were the first cannabis. The study also uncovers tantalizing info on the earliest known use of THC cannabis based on physical evidence, with findings regarding ritual use, lack of CBD, the impact of elevation on potency, etc.

[I just found the article and study, also in 2019, that suggests the Tibetan Plateau origin! HERE and HERE. McPartland is the lead author.]

I will try to unpack this all more, going forward, with the discussion of what it really means to be 100% sativa or 100% indica.

 

[cbdhemp808]

The possible epicenter of cannabis ("center of origin"), eastern Tibetan Plateau, near Qinghai Lake, elevation 10,500 ft., according to the 2019 study by McPartland, Hegman, and Long. (Review | Study). Also showing the location of Jirzankal Cemetery (ca. 500 BCE) near the border of Tajikistan, elevation 9,800 ft, which is the location of the 2019 study, The origins of cannabis smoking: Chemical residue evidence from the first millennium BCE in the Pamirs. (Review | Study).

Map data © 2024 Google, TMap Mobility

 

[CBDMed]

Crazy. Cannabis grew up here???
But today it likes 78F???

 

[CBDMed]

You know this looks nothing like the inside of my SIP bucket!!

 

[cbdhemp808]

Crazy. Cannabis grew up here???
But today it likes 78F???

Thank you! This got me to thinking... was the Tibetan Plateau always so high, dry, and cold? In other words, what was the climate of this area like 28 MILLION YEARS AGO? I.e. the time period of the cannabis "center of origin" theory proposed in the 2019 study. (Which by the way I have only skimmed through!)

Note that the divergence or "split" of cannabis from humulus (hops) also occurred right around 28 million years ago, so the dating of the pollen (fossils?) in the 2019 study points to the very beginning of cannabis as a separate genus.

Well, according to this scientific article published in Jan. 2021, they draw the following conclusions...
(mya = million years ago)

• The geology and climate of the region came together during the Mesozoic era, 252-66 mya
• The landscape was comprised of mountains and deep valleys
• The deep valleys contained subtropical plants and animals
• The area "did not rise as a pre-formed plateau... driven solely by the India–Eurasia collision"
• "The Tibetan Plateau did not form until the Neogene", 23 mya to 2.58 mya

So if the 2021 article is correct, I take this to mean that, at 28 mya, the region was at much lower elevation, much warmer, and much wetter. Makes sense in terms of the cannabis origin story!

The period including 28 mya is called the Oligocene Epoch, 33.7 mya to 23.8 mya. I believe 28 mya would be considered "mid Oligocene". Late Oligocene is called the Chattian age, 28 mya to 23 mya.

From the above article (underlines added)...

Among the fossil finds from the Chattian (late Oligocene) lower Dingqing Formation is a climbing perch [a kind of fish], Eoanabas thibetana (Anabantidea) [71], whose modern relatives occupy tropical lowlands of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa below 1000 m [3280 ft], while higher in the succession (early Miocene–Aquitanian) a primitive form of the cyprinid fish Plesioschizothorax macrocephalus has been recovered, whose modern relatives are restricted to elevations below 2500 m. These and other discoveries [40] suggest low elevations in marked contrast to the >4000 m derived from isotope studies.​

• • •​

As the Himalaya [rose past] 5 km [16400 ft], they imposed an increasing rain shadow effect on central Tibet**. By the late Oligocene, this caused the central valley lake margin vegetation to become more xerophytic [i.e. adapted to dry climate], while Neogene uplift and ‘bathtub sedimentation’ [7] raised the valley floor to its present elevation of ∼5 km exacerbating the drying process. [** Meaning the "area occupied by the modern plateau"]​

So, at 28 mya the valleys were likely still subtropical, and began "drying out" over the period of the next 5 million years. And by 23 mya, the high-elevation, cold, dry plateau was formed.

Wow, this is really fascinating, because it could mean that cannabis branched from humulus (hops) in a subtropical climate (think San Diego, Calif.) If so, the original cannabis emerged not in the high-altitude, dry, cold climate associated with some of the original indicas, but in a lower-elevation, moderate climate with warm/hot summers and mild winters.

So, in another strange twist, the original cannabis from the Oligocene may have been like the sativas that evolved on the steppes of Central Asia—i.e tall and with low THC. And then, due to the transformation of the climate in the region of the Tibetan Plateau, cannabis morphed into its high-altitude, dry-climate-adapted, high-THC indica form.

But I wonder, how definitive is the science at this point, that the original cannabis indeed originated from this one geographic region? If it did originate in this one region, then this seems to point to a strange sativa-indica-sativa evolution sequence. If this one region isn't the true "center of origin", then there could have been a much older pattern of emergence. In other words, the original sativas of 1-1.8 million years ago may have descended from the Oligocene cannabis, just as the indicas did. For that to be the case, the Oligocene cannabis may have had an ancestor that was spread over a wider range including Central Asia.

Indeed, one ancestor is humulus (hops), but I'm talking about a cannabis ancestor that emerged from hops around 27.8 million years ago. Surely, that emergence must have had a specific, single point. Or is that just an assumption?

Let's take a look at the abstract of the 2019 study (underlines and bold added):

Biogeographers assign the Cannabis centre of origin to “Central Asia”, mostly based on wild-type plant distribution data. We sought greater precision by adding new data: 155 fossil pollen studies (FPSs) in Asia. Many FPSs assign pollen of either Cannabis or Humulus (C–H) to collective names (e.g. Cannabis /Humulus or Cannabaceae). To dissect these aggregate data, we used ecological proxies. C–H pollen in a steppe assemblage (with Poaceae, Artemisia, Chenopodiaceae) was identified as wild-type Cannabis. C–H pollen in a forest assemblage (Alnus, Salix, Quercus, Robinia, Juglans) was identified as Humulus. C–H pollen curves that upsurged alongside crop pollen were identified as cultivated hemp. Subfossil seeds (fruits) at archaeological sites also served as evidence of cultivation. All sites were mapped using geographic information system software. The oldest C–H pollen consistent with Cannabis dated to 19.6 [mya], in northwestern China. However, Cannabis and Humulus diverged 27.8 [mya], estimated by a molecular clock analysis. We bridged the temporal gap between the divergence date and the oldest pollen by mapping the earliest appearance of Artemisia. These data converge on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau, which we deduce as the Cannabis centre of origin, in the general vicinity of Qinghai Lake. This co-localizes with the first steppe community that evolved in Asia. From there, Cannabis first dispersed west (Europe by 6 [mya]) then east (eastern China by 1.2 [mya]). Cannabis pollen in India appeared by 32.6 thousand years (ka) ago. The earliest archaeological evidence was found in Japan, 10,000 bce, followed by China.​

Ah ha, key sentence there: "co-localizes with the first steppe community that evolved in Asia". That would be Central Asia, and I take that to mean the authors are suggesting a co-center of origin, and I take that to mean a common ancestor, and that ancestor being the Oligocene cannabis "newly" diverged from humulus. The range of this wild, primordial cannabis was from Central Asia to East Asia. And apparently it was sativa-like. This was ~28 mya. Then it took 22 million years for it to disperse west to the area of Europe, and 26.8 million years to disperse to the area of eastern China. [Humans didn't domesticate cannabis until 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.]

There's lots of wild cannabis growing in Central Asia, but I wonder if any strains have been identified that haven't been contaminated with cultivated cannabis.

 

[Melville Hobbes]

Cannabis ruderalis (wild autoflowering cannabis) is from central Asia/Siberia. I wonder how old it is? Too bad there's no way to find out from the pollen. It's far too old for genetic analysis.

And apparently it was sativa-like.

The study was able to determine that?
How?

 

[cbdhemp808]

Cannabis ruderalis (wild autoflowering cannabis) is from central Asia/Siberia. I wonder how old it is? Too bad there's no way to find out from the pollen. It's far too old for genetic analysis.

The pollen they identified on the Tibetan Plateau apparently dates back to 28 million years ago. If you google "fossil pollen studies" (FPSs) for ruderalis, I'm sure something will turn up.

RE: The Oligocene cannabis... "apparently it was sativa-like"

The study was able to determine that?
How?

I don't think the study made that specific determination. I made an inference because the authors state that the center-of-origin being the eastern Tibetan Plateau "co-localizes with the first steppe community that evolved in [Central Asia]". And the current evidence I think from multiple sources points to sativa being the form that evolved in Central Asia, and then later, Europe.

McPartland said this (in 2018)...

"The oldest Cannabis pollen in Europe appeared during a previous Ice Age... about 1.8 million years ago. That's young compared to Asia, where Cannabis pollen dates back to 19.6 million years ago. The European population may be the ancestor of C. sativa subsp. sativa, and the Asian population may be the ancestor of C. sativa subsp. indica."
[ source, Oct. 2018 ]

(Apparently the indica form was an adaptation to high-altitude, dry, cold climates. Also, indica evolved high levels of THC, in response to these stresses. That's my understanding.)

Let's take a closer look at my post above...

Ah ha, key sentence there: "co-localizes with the first steppe community that evolved in Asia". That would be Central Asia, and I take that to mean the authors are suggesting a co-center of origin, and I take that to mean a common ancestor, and that ancestor being the Oligocene cannabis "newly" diverged from humulus. The range of this wild, primordial cannabis was from Central Asia to East Asia. And apparently it was sativa-like. This was ~28 mya. Then it took 22 million years for it to disperse west to the area of Europe, and 26.8 million years to disperse to the area of eastern China. [Humans didn't domesticate cannabis until 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.]

OK, so this is very confusing. I'll try to break it down... (mya=million years ago)

The 2019 study theorizes that the east Tibetan Plateau is the center of origin of cannabis, 28 mya. At that time, apparently the high plateau had not yet formed, and the region was comprised of mountains and deep valleys, and the climate in the valleys was subtropical. From that I inferred that the cannabis that grew there was of the sativa form, and I refer to this as the Oligocene cannabis. The authors say that this center of origin, "co-localizes with the first steppe community that evolved in [Central Asia]", which to me means that the emergence of cannabis in Central Asia took place also around 28 mya. The question is, did the cannabis that emerged in Central Asia also have the sativa form?

McPartland says (Oct. 2018), "the Asian population may be the ancestor of C. sativa subsp. indica." He's saying that the ancient cannabis populations in Asia may be the ancestor of indicas. (Perhaps there was a single primoridal indica that naturally evolved into multiple strains). The pollen of these populations dates back to 19.6 mya in north-central China. This is not the same cannabis of ~28 mya of what is now the Tibetan Plateau—i.e. cannabis that is over 8 million years older, close to its divergence from humulus (hops).

McPartland also says (Oct. 2018), "The oldest Cannabis pollen in Europe appeared... about 1.8 million years ago....The European population may be the ancestor of C. sativa subsp. sativa". He's saying that the ancient cannabis populations in Europe may be the ancestor of the sativas. In his 2019 study, McPartland says "Cannabis first dispersed west (Europe by 6 [mya])"—meaning, from the center of origin of east Asia (east Tibetan Plateau) and Central Asia, 28 mya, cannabis had dispersed to Europe by 6 mya. That's a span of 22 million years! (Humans had nothing to do with this, by the way, since they only arrived in Europe and Central Asia around 40,000-50,000 year ago.)

I wrote in my conclusion section re: the Hillig/Mahlberg study of 2004:

Original sativas were tall, narrow leaf plants with low THC and varying amounts of CBD, originating from Europe, Asia Minor (Turkey), and Central Asia.

So, what I'm trying to do here is make a logical connection of the ancient Oligocene cannabis of the Tibetan Plateau (28 mya) to the cannabis of Central Asia (28 mya) and Europe (6 mya).

When cannabis first reached the regions of modern-day Europe, was it in indica or sativa form? Or both? Landraces and wild strains associated with Europe are sativas. Likewise for Central Asia.

I conjecture that the Oligocene cannabis (28 mya) was of the sativa form. (Not the indica form which appeared after the Tibetan Plateau had formed, at least 5 million years later in the Neocene.)

So, what is more likely? The primordial cannabis was of the sativa form, from the area of the eastern Tibetan Plateau (north-central China), and spread to the west in that form, or that it evolved into indica, and the indica spread to the west, and then evolved back again from indica to sativa form? I vote the former.

I think it's fascinating that cannabis evolved at this very dynamic point on the Earth's surface—the Tibetan Plateau—which was transformed by the India–Eurasia land mass collision that also formed the Himalayan mountains. The Tibetan Plateau is the highest plateau on Earth. An ancient primordial cannabis diverged from its parent genus, humulus, in this region. And then over the course of at least 5 million years, its subtropical home rose up to around 10,000 ft elevation, becoming dryer and colder. Instead of becoming extinct, cannabis gradually adapted to the new climate. And it developed cannabinoids, including THC which protects the flowers and developing seeds from ultraviolet radiation ("there is an increase of 6-10% in UV exposure with every 1000 feet of elevation").

 

[Melville Hobbes]

If you google "fossil pollen studies" (FPSs) for ruderalis, I'm sure something will turn up.

As far as I've been able to find out genetic analysis is the only way to determine what type of cannabis the pollen came from. The pollen morpology is identical.

"The oldest Cannabis pollen in Europe appeared during a previous Ice Age... about 1.8 million years ago. That's young compared to Asia, where Cannabis pollen dates back to 19.6 million years ago. The European population may be the ancestor of C. sativa subsp. sativa, and the Asian population may be the ancestor of C. sativa subsp. indica."
[ source, Oct. 2018 ]

I conjecture that the Oligocene cannabis (28 mya) was of the sativa form. (Not the indica form which appeared after the Tibetan Plateau had formed, at least 5 million years later in the Neocene.)

This assumes that one came first, and the other evolved from it. It's the same problem evolutionary biologists had with the chimpanzee/human and dog/wolf conversation.
They used to say that humans evolved from chimps, but now we say that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
We had the same ancestor, but evolved to fill different ecological niches.
I'm thinking it's a similar thing with cannabis, and I would argue that human selection is what led to sativa strains.
We were looking for higher quality, and longer fibre, so we selected for taller strains that had a better fibre structure.
When making hemp rope it's recommended to use sativa strains for those very reasons.
When you look at some of the landraces from northern India, which is adjacent to the Tibetan plateau, and has a similar ecology to that described for the area that became the Tibetan plateau, they have a mix of growth characteristics and effects. Almost like transitional species.
I've seen a landrace from the Parvati valley that has "indica" leaves for the first few nodes, that gradually narrow down into "sativa" as the plant gets taller. The internodes are longer than most indicas, but shorter than tropical sativas, and the effects are "balanced hybrid" effects.

So, what is more likely? The primordial cannabis was of the sativa form, from the area of the eastern Tibetan Plateau (north-central China), and spread to the west in that form, or that it evolved into indica, and the indica spread to the west, and then evolved back again from indica to sativa form? I vote the former.

I would argue that it's more likely that they both evolved from a common ancestor that didn't fit into either classification to fill ecological niches as they formed.

 

[cbdhemp808]

As far as I've been able to find out genetic analysis is the only way to determine what type of cannabis the pollen came from. The pollen morphology is identical.

Yes, good point. In McPartland's 2019 they were distinguishing between fossil pollen of humulus and cannabis using some other methods, because the two are morphologically indistinguishable. So, making a determination that pollen is from cannabis ruderalis vs. cannabis indica, for example, would require differentiation. I don't know if that's possible.

I conjecture that the Oligocene cannabis (28 mya) was of the sativa form. (Not the indica form which appeared after the Tibetan Plateau had formed, at least 5 million years later in the Neocene.)

This assumes that one came first, and the other evolved from it. It's the same problem evolutionary biologists had with the chimpanzee/human and dog/wolf conversation.
They used to say that humans evolved from chimps, but now we say that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
We had the same ancestor, but evolved to fill different ecological niches.

At the point where cannabis diverged from humulus, it seems more likely there was a single ancestor, rather than multiple diversion points and multiple ancestors. McPartland (2019) is identifying a possible (or likely) geographic location of the divergence of cannabis from humulus, 28 million years ago (mya). And the climate in that area, at that time, seems likely to have been subtropical. Both modern humulus and cannabis thrive in that environment, so it makes sense.

So, the common ancestor of all cannabis is humulus, and most likely there was one original cannabis species, which then evolved into different types. I'm just guessing that the "one original" is the Oligocene cannabis of 28 mya, and that it took a sativa form.

I think it's very likely that the indica morphology and chemical characteristics were an adaptation to a specific climate type at high elevations in central and east Asia.

I'm thinking it's a similar thing with cannabis, and I would argue that human selection is what led to sativa strains.
We were looking for higher quality, and longer fibre, so we selected for taller strains that had a better fibre structure.
When making hemp rope it's recommended to use sativa strains for those very reasons.

Once humans got their hands on the plant, all kinds of things happened. But if we go back to the "origin story" of cannabis, which is what McPartland specializes in, then we are considering things that happened millions of years ago, not 40 or 50 thousand years ago when humans first migrated to the areas of modern-day Europe and Central Asia, or 12 thousand years ago which I think is the latest theory as to when humans first cultivated cannabis.

So, if the Oligocene cannabis is the mother of all cannabis, McPartland (2019) is saying that some form (or forms) of it dispersed to the areas of modern-day Europe by 6 mya. It seems more likely that a form that was naturally adapted to a moderate climate would have taken hold, and that would likely be a sativa form rather than an indica form. McPartland also says the original wild cannabis populations in Europe may be the ancestor of the sativas.

However, the span of time between the appearance of the Oligocene cannabis in the areas of the Tibetan Plateau and Central Asia, and the emergence in Europe is 22 million years, so it seems very likely that there were transitional forms during that period. Nonetheless, I'm guessing that the climate 6 mya (late Miocene) in the valleys of what is now Europe was probably warmer and wetter than the steppes of Eurasia and high-elevation east Asian areas at that time. It seems that a pioneer plant species coming into that area would be one that is already adapted to the environment.

I would argue that it's more likely that [sativa and indica forms] both evolved from a common ancestor that didn't fit into either classification to fill ecological niches as they formed.

I agree, and perhaps the common ancestor was the Oligocene cannabis, "newly" diverged from humulus, in the moderate subtropical climate of what is now the Tibetan Plateau. We really have no idea what that cannabis looked like, but it seems likely that it didn't have the morphology and chemical characteristics associated with the original indicas. It was probably similar to the humulus it diverged from, and perhaps it looked something like modern-day Humulus japonicus which was originally native to China and other East Asian areas. From there, it may have evolved over millions of years to look more like modern-day sativas or indicas. At this point, I'm leaning toward it evolving into a sativa form, and then indica evolved from the sativa form.

Humulus japonicus ~ the Japanese hop or wild hop

 

[Fenderbender]

Wow, what an expansion these past pages.
Euhm I'm subscribing to the past is the past it's all Granny Smith & Golden Delicious now

Biological life isn't a static thing, it's always on the move, each strain becomes unique as to its environmental factors, companion species or the actions of the cultivator.
As like with most of our cultivations we probably won't be happy with the appearance and taste, smell or seeds of the original.. Ah Sinsemilla? so before the good guys in Sinaloa came up with keeping the females from being pollinated in the 70's everyone was puffing seeded bbq herbs? I mean in India you do get a lot of bag seed as a lot of rolling and picking out the seeds over there, but yeah if you're over there you look for charas not some buds to puff.

Your own backyard is diverging away from other surroundings hence you could find unique species right at home in things that fire of generations fast.