Sativa vs. Indica The big debate
Have we been assigning greater predictive power to these terms than what is supported by scientific evidence? Kinda, yeah.
The Nitty Gritty
Many of us have used the terms Sativa, Indica and Hybrid since we were teens, as a shorthand to help us predict how certain cannabis varieties are going to make us feel. But are these classifications reliable for this purpose? While these terms are still relevant to cultivators, they were never intended to predict, or even describe, the experience of the consumer. In 1753, Carl Linnaeus published Species Plantarum, classifying all cannabis plants under one group: “Cannabis sativa L.,” with “Cannabis” as the genus, “sativa” as the species, and “L.” indicating Linnaeus’ system. “Sativa” comes from the Latin “sativum,” meaning “cultivated.” French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck updated this naming convention in 1785, adding two distinct species: “Cannabis sativa,” a taller, lankier, and more fibrous plant, and “Cannabis indica,” a shorter, stouter, and more psychoactive plant, its name meaning “from India,” where it was thought to originate.
Origins of Sativa & Indica
Originally, Sativas thrived in warm, humid climates, growing tall and slender, which prevented excess humidity absorption and allowed the plant to avoid rot. Their extended growth and flowering period is due to the consistent warm weather that avoids cold and rainy conditions towards the end of the growing season. Indicas originated in climates with greater seasonal temperature variation and colder climates overall. This resulted in shorter, more compact growth patterns. Their shorter growth cycle enables them to be harvested before the onset of cold and wet fall and winter conditions.
Is Changing Coming?
There’s an ongoing effort by many in the cannabis community to discard the current classification system (at least for consumers), given the extensive cross-breeding of modern cultivars and the inaccuracy of what the terms have come to mean colloquially. After all, these terms are botanical names that refer to a plant’s structure and were never meant to either describe or predict the effects a plant may produce.
Benefits of Simplicity
Yet, the majority of cannabis consumers and the industry at-large (including dispensaries like ours!) continue to use these terms, mostly for its broad understandability. For most, Indica has become a shorthand for “relaxing,” Sativa means “energizing,” and a Hybrid will offer the best of both worlds. These terms may have lost their biological roots, but their cultural meaning has been ingrained. This has led to many cultivators classifying their crops based on predicted effects, rather than plant attributes, which in turn reinforces the continued use of this shorthand.
Smith et al. (2021), explained by Dr. Riley D. Kirk, PhD
One new method of classification is proposed by Smith et al. (2021) in a research study on the validity of cannabis naming conventions. Dr. Riley D. Kirk, PhD, a natural product/cannabis chemist and cannabis educator, elaborates on the findings:
Riley explains, “We would expect to see if something would consistently make us feel sleepy like an indica or energised like a sativa to have consistent chemistry that would help describe that feeling and what’s causing that feeling for us. So in theory if you were to analyse a bunch of varieties of cannabis and chart them, all of the sativas should group together, the indicas, and the hybrid respectively. Just based on their chemical profiles alone.”
During the Smith et al, 2021 research, Riley explains that this assumption wasn’t observed. Instead, they found a “lack of consistent clustering, with more interspersed sativas, indicas and hybrids all over the chart.”
However, when the same data was re-analysed based off of the dominant terpene of that variety “you do get a clustering. With some examples of the data going as far as to showing the terpinolene dominant strains all together, as well as clustering of myrcene and then limonene respectively”.
From these findings, Riley believes the research supports the push to de-emphasize the sativa, indica or hybrid classifications. She suggests that a better approach to effect prediction may be to profile strains based on their dominant terpenes and the observable chemistry of the plant.
Now for a Big But…
Each person is unique in their physiology. It’s unsound to expect that any single substance (or set of compounds, like dominant terpene groupings) will infallibly produce a certain effect in all who consume it. But, by looking at the chemical characteristics of the plant, rather than just their typology, we may be able to move beyond oversimplified terms and introduce new methods of classification. But, it will remain a challenge, as ever, to accurately predict effect for individuals. Which is why we’ll all just have to keep trying new strains to find out if they vibe with us ;)
References:
Smith, C. J., Vergara, D., Keegan, B., & Jikomes, N. (2022). The phytochemical diversity of commercial Cannabis in the United States. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0267498. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267498
Kirk, Riley [cannabichem]. “The Science of indica, sativa, hybrid classification.”* Instagram, April 7, 2023, https://www.instagram.com/reel/CqsODy4LdTs/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==.
Staff, L. (2023, March 14). Indica vs. sativa vs. hybrid strains: understanding the differences between weed types. Leafly. https://www.leafly.ca/news/cannabis-101/sativa-indica-and-hybrid-differences-between-cannabis-types
Voeks, R. A. (2014). Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. The AAG Review of Books, 2(2), 54–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/2325548x.2014.901859