Timeline for Why is Cannabis sativa considered a distinct form of Cannabis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3 at 21:15 | history | edited | bob1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed formatting.
|
| May 7, 2019 at 17:52 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | @dev_willis A name of a plant is just a name, that's it: it's a reference so we can all talk about the same plant. Each plant has too many characteristics to describe them all in a two-word name. Sometimes names come when other information is missing: you might name a plant based on where it is first discovered, and then find out it is more widespread than you first realized. You might name a plant based on a feature that is so far unique to it compared to similar relatives (maybe a different color?), and then find other relatives that also have that feature. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 17:46 | vote | accept | dev_willis | ||
| May 7, 2019 at 17:44 | comment | added | dev_willis | @BryanKrause i see. It seems strange to me that science, which normally values consistency and accuracy for obvious reasons, would not value either of those things when it comes to naming plants. I guess it probably is pretty difficult in this area tho, what with there being so many plants and so many subtle differences and new information being added all the time. Still, it sounds like real science has been influenced by stoner science rather than the other way around. Anyway, thanks for the information! | |
| May 7, 2019 at 14:27 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | Just recognize that names are names. They typically are based in something, but they need not follow a consistent system nor be entirely accurate nor are names describing a trait indicative that the trait is not shared with other species. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 13:27 | comment | added | dev_willis | @BryanKrause ok, so I should not expect scientific names to have any concrete relationship to the plants they are naming? | |
| May 6, 2019 at 15:37 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | Be careful with over-interpreting etymology, especially in the context of biological terminology. There are hundreds of cultivated plants, very few of which have any reference to 'cultivation' in their names. This would be like complaining that someone named their child Amber and she grew up to have blonde hair, and then further arguing that everyone else with brown hair should have been named Amber. The distinction between indica and sativa strains is an interesting one, but it has nothing to do with etymology. | |
| May 6, 2019 at 9:57 | comment | added | bandybabboon | A ver energetic recent document from 2016 demonstrates that no scientists have used the recent genetics technology to see which are the oldest populations of cannabis and if they diverged 5,000 years ago or 50,000 years ago. indeed in Mexico and Russia there are varieties 1 foot tall and in Thailand 20 foot tall, which suggests there may be differences 50,000 or 5000 years old, a future PhD or Research group can find out. frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2016.01113/full | |
| May 6, 2019 at 4:51 | answer | added | jamesqf | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 6, 2019 at 2:55 | review | First posts | |||
| May 6, 2019 at 17:49 | |||||
| May 6, 2019 at 2:53 | history | asked | dev_willis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |