5. THE INDICA – SATIVA DEBATE

stichting-adriaan-van-royen-instituut-amsterdam-02

The Daily Adrian

5. THE INDICA – SATIVA DEBATE
November 23rd, 2022

Previous

Next

Are you enjoying the regular newsletters about cannabis? Consider subscribing to our newsletter! Every two weeks there’s a new article!

Sign up here

Cannabis taxonomy dates back to the XVIII (18th) century, when most other classification of natural species also began1. This was a time of discovery for European naturalists, as the enormous extent of biodiversity and geographical variation of plants, animals, and fungi started to spark the interest of researchers. At the time, the concept of DNA was unknown to science and genetic tools were not available. This meant that when a new species was found, it was classified and named only via its morphology (physical appearance) and, in later years, by looking at evolutionary links with other discovered species (thanks to the work of Charles Darwin!)2. The first attempt to classify Cannabis belongs to the Swedish scientist and “father of all taxonomy” Carl Linnaeus1. Still today, the publication of Linnaeus’s Species Plantarum in 1753 is treated as the starting point of botanical nomenclature for Cannabis1.

Linnaeus’ description was extremely brief and limited to flower and seed morphology. He described a plant specimen collected in northern Europe with loose flowers and sparse leaves covered in trichomes (small hair). The plant was characterized by large, elongated, pale green seeds with a reticulated pattern1, and was classified in the genus Cannabis, species sativa; or as we know it today: Cannabis sativa. Thirty-two years later, French scientists Jean-Baptiste Lamarck coined the term Cannabis indica for Cannabis plants originating from India, Southeast Asia, and South Africa1. Lamarck’s description of C. indica differed from the description of C. sativa by eight “very distinct” morphological characters. For instance, this newly discovered plant had more compact flowers than C. sativa, more branching and more trichomes covering leaves. Lamarck also described chemical differences of C. indica such as a strong odor produced by the plant and, for the first time in history, its psychoactive effects. As stated by Lamarck himself: “The principal effect of this plant consists of going to the head, disrupting the brain, where it produces a sort of drunkenness that makes one forget one’s sorrows, and produces a strong gaiety.”1

 

Despite the morphological differences described by Lamarck and Linnaeus, what followed was a lot of controversy on this classification1. Scientists split between the two schools of thought, using only one of the two species’ names. Botanists from Scandinavia and Great Britain mostly used “C. sativa” when describing any Cannabis species. Instead, French and Russian botanists used “C. indica” or coined new taxa, such as C. chinensis, C. gigantea and C. ruderalis1. Some botanists argued that no differences existed between the two species, because depending on the specimen, more similarities or differences could be found between the two.  As a result, as field botanists explored Asia and Africa in the coming years, the names C. sativa or C. indica start to inconsistently appear in literature, diverging from the original nomenclature of Linnaeus and Lamarck. 

To this day, the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (ICN), lists both C. sativa and C. indica as recognized different species3. However, more and more novel studies find a disparity between taxonomic data and the very definition of what accounts for a species. For example, different species should not be able to interbreed, except for very rare exceptions such as the mule4. However, C. sativa and C. indica can be easily crossbred into hybrids (most commercially available Cannabis is made of hybrids today!), challenging their distinction into two separate species. Additionally,  it is expected that the distributions of C. sativa and C. indica would occupy separate geographical regions. Yet, already in the 19th century distribution maps showed no hint of such regions, with the distributions of C. sativa and C. indica randomly overlapping (Figure 2). What makes the story even more challenging is accurately determining when and where Cannabis evolved, because the Cannabis genus lacks a robust print in fossil records5.

Recent phylogenetic research on Cannabis generally supports the idea of only one existing Cannabis species. The mean genetic divergence between C. sativa and C. indica has been found to be 0.41%. In comparison, variants of plants belonging to the same species have a mean divergence of 0.43%, while for different species the genetic divergence is often around 3.0%6. This would indicate that sativa and indica are different variants, not species, of Cannabis. Nonetheless, when looking at metabolites some differences can be found. C. sativa generally shows higher THC content (THC>CBD), while C. Indica ranges between high CBD levels (CBD>THC) and 1:1 ratios of THC-CBD6. 

What survives in the “Sativa vs Indica” debate today is a separation on psychoactive effects. C. indica is known to have more pain-relieving effects, and it is recommended for treating insomnia, pain and to relax the body. Instead, C. sativa is instead generally considered to have an uplifting and energizing effect, which is recommended for treating depression, headaches and nausea1. 

However, as we mentioned earlier, most commercial Cannabis found in Dutch “coffeeshops” and other stores internationally is now produced by crossing both Indica and Sativa plants into hybrids. We will cover this topic in another newsletter. Stay tuned!

Sources

  1. Mcpartland, J. M. & Guy, G. W.. Models of Cannabis Taxonomy, Cultural Bias, and Conflicts between Scientific and Vernacular Names. The Botanical Review 83, 327–381 (2017).
  2. Hey, J., Fitch, W. M. & Ayala, F. J.. Systematics and the origin of species: An introduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 6515–6519 (2005).
  3. Pollio, A.. The Name ofCannabis: A Short Guide for Nonbotanists. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 1, 234–238 (2016).
  4. Hey, J., Fitch, W. M. & Ayala, F. J.. Systematics and the origin of species: An introduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 6515–6519 (2005).
  5. Mcpartland, J. M.. CannabisSystematics at the Levels of Family, Genus, and Species. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 3, 203–212 (2018).
  6. Mcpartland, J. M. & Small, E.. A classification of endangered high-THC cannabis (Cannabis sativa subsp. indica) domesticates and their wild relatives. PhytoKeys 144, 81–112 (2020).
Figure 1: Cannabis indica (left) and Cannabis sativa (right). Adapted from www.nationalholistic.com
Figure 2: Natural distribution of C. sativa (red) and C. indica (blue) in the 19th century. No clear geographical distinction was found. Adapted from: Mcpartland, J. M. et al. 2017

Sources

  1. Mcpartland, J. M. & Guy, G. W.. Models of Cannabis Taxonomy, Cultural Bias, and Conflicts between Scientific and Vernacular Names. The Botanical Review 83, 327–381 (2017).
  2. Hey, J., Fitch, W. M. & Ayala, F. J.. Systematics and the origin of species: An introduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 6515–6519 (2005).
  3. Pollio, A.. The Name ofCannabis: A Short Guide for Nonbotanists. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 1, 234–238 (2016).
  4. Hey, J., Fitch, W. M. & Ayala, F. J.. Systematics and the origin of species: An introduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 6515–6519 (2005).
  5. Mcpartland, J. M.. CannabisSystematics at the Levels of Family, Genus, and Species. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 3, 203–212 (2018).
  6. Mcpartland, J. M. & Small, E.. A classification of endangered high-THC cannabis (Cannabis sativa subsp. indica) domesticates and their wild relatives. PhytoKeys 144, 81–112 (2020).
Tags:
Cannabis, Newsletter

Leave a Comment