"rasta" Strain

Can anyone give me some insight here

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1461416.htm

And is it just me or is some of the information in the article a little skrewy?

;)

lol.. I think their missing ALOT there..

Indica isn't the " sub-species that is used for rope-making." lol It's hemp.

Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica are the ones wich contain the most THC, and they found some other plant species that's called Ruderalis or something..

So, there are now, hemp, sativa, indica, rueralis and now also rasta.. That's not three as far as I can count... They don't know everything at those facilities at all....:p

their are three strains, hemp is actually low LOW grade sativa

Ruderalis yes is a strain known for its immunity to photoperiods, rather it flowers on a schedule. Thus the creation of strains like lowryder.

I was more wondering aobut htis strain they speak of a, fourth strain. The entire article was flakey so i was wondering if anyone heard it from somewhere else.

Rasta is a real strain.. I think.. All the info I've seen on it is a little bit faded and stuff.. But try google'ing it..:p

Not sure .. Think there is SOMETHING about it here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis

edit: don't think there is anything after all..:p

Sativa, indica, for sure. Ruderalis may or may not be a separate species; there's ongoing discussion about that. Rasta appears to be a third species though. It looks like a thin-bladed Indica, and supposedly has high THC levels. Hemp is just shitty (for getting high anyway) sativa.

ruderalist is completely its own, it doesnt fallow photo periods it would be absurd to relate that to sativa and indica.

Logically, what you say may be true. But species and subspecies and such are determined by genetics, and ruderalis could simply be sativa with a deviant gene or something. I'll let the geneticists figure it out. Ashkenazi Jews tend to have some genetic diseases (from inbreeding in the distant past) and the average Ashkenazi Jew appears to be significantly smarter than your average non-Ashkenazi (they are the smartest ethnic group in the world), but that doesn't mean they're a different species; they're still homo sapiens. Ruderalis may have a similar genetic deviancy from normal sativa, but that doesn't necessarily make it a different species.

Complications arise because the lines between strains has been severly blurred. Over years of cultivation i doubt their is a "pure" sative or "pure" indica. This completely blends the boundries of their individual species. But taxonomy is subjective and is an interpritive science.

Ruderalis is smaller then indica and sative it does share similar stages and is much more durable. It is just two abstract for me, personally, to see it as a subspecies of sative. Sub species should be like Blueberry, skunk, S.A.G.E. so on and fourth. While ruderalis is an entire batch of genetics, like all indica strains or sativa strains.

Either way ruderalis shows some great potential for breeding in the future. Both for industrial and recreational purposes.

And on the topic of "rasta" i checked it out on the wiki;

" Cannabis rasta is purported to be a new species discovered by Simon Gilmore of the Canberra Insitute of Technology. Gilmore ran DNA analyses of 196 sample plants by their mitochondria and chloroplasts. He drew these plants from sources grown for drugs and hemp as well as wild specimens from Europe, Asia, Africa, Mexico, and Jamaica.

The study results revealed three distinct "races" of cannabis according to their DNA. Plants from central Asia were predominantly Cannabis indica, while those from western Europe were primarily Cannabis sativa. Samples from south-east Asia, India, Africa, Jamaica and Mexico showed a predominance of the rasta variant. In appearance it is similar to the sativa species, but generally contains higher levels of THC.

Because the study was of DNA rather than a formal taxonomic study, "Cannabis rasta" is not an official species. It appears to be identical to the narrow-leafed drug biotype of Cannabis indica. "

You seem to be missing the point of the term "species". If two members are of the same species, that means they can be bred and reproduce together. So, if a female sativa plant and a male ruderalis plant, for example, can be bred together, then they are merely subspecies of a single species. If they can't, then you can call them separate species, according to the commonly accepted definition among biologists.