Cannabis shoppers now will readily throw about the terms “sativa,” “indica,” and “hybrid” when discussing a strain’s psychoactive effects. But the science does not agree that these distinctions can accurately predict how a strain will make us really feel.

Are you an “indica” particular person, the type who prefers the chiller, sedating effects of weed? Or are you a “sativa” particular person who smokes weed to remain awake throughout Netflix binges or all-evening video game sessions? Or perhaps you like to stroll along the middle path by sticking to “hybrids?”

Nicely, I got some terrible news for you: You are applying these terms all incorrect.

The history behind how we got to this trio of indica, sativa, and hybrid is extended and difficult. So, right here are the Cliff Notes.

A Crash Course in Cannabis Classification History

Way back in the 1700s, a French biologist named Jean-Bapiste Lamarck produced a way to categorize just about every living point on Earth. Of all the organisms on our planet, Lamarck was the most fascinated by plants. At 1 point, he traveled the globe and collected thousands of plants to study and add to his huge, private collection back in France. And yes, Lamarck studied cannabis throughout 1 of these trips. (Even though we have to wonder… just how significantly studying did he truly do, eh? Eh? Are ya with me right here?)

Lamarck believed that weed originated in India (which may possibly be incorrect but far more on that later), and the cultivars that spread via Southeast Asia, China, and the Middle East are descendants of the original Indian plant. Therefore why he known as the weed that got individuals intoxicated Cannabis indica — “indica” referring to India.

Gallery — This Is What Reefer Madness Propaganda Looked Like

He also identified a second variety of cannabis, which he known as Cannabis sativa. “Sativa” usually refers to any plant species that was cultivated and bred by humans for agricultural or industrial purposes. Cannabis sativa, Lamarck argued, was bred to create textiles, ropes, and supply fibers for other makes use of. But  it didn’t get any individual higher. In other words, what he known as Cannabis sativa we know by a far more popular name now: Hemp.

Cannabis indica and sativa, Lamarck showed, could be distinguished by their outward physical traits. Sativas grew extended and thin stalks with extended, thin leaves. They also didn’t create as quite a few flowers as the shorter, bushier indica. To Lamarck, the distinction in sativa’s height and stature was proof that Cannabis sativa was meticulously bred more than generations to optimize fiber production.

Someplace involving the 1800s and the 1900s, other biologists (and later, underground weed growers) began applying “sativa” to refer to extended, spindly cannabis with extremely higher THC content material. “Indica” became the popular term for the less difficult-to-develop, greater-yielding weed plants. And at some point, if the two varieties of weed crossbred, their offspring had been dubbed “hybrids.” 


Our understanding of the cannabis plant proves this is not precise any longer

Why These Distinctions Do not Apply Now

Lamarck’s classification method set the globe typical for almost two centuries. His method was ultimately overturned close to the finish of the 20th century, when scientists could delve deeper into an organism’s origins by studying its genes.

Neither Lamarck’s classifications — which had been primarily based on his incomplete understanding of cannabis’s evolutionary origins — nor the each day toker’s vernacular accurately describe today’s weed. For starters, a study group led by Dr. John McPartland at the University of Vermont announced this Could that cannabis probably originated in Tibet, not India. (To be fair, far more research would be required to confirm McPartland’s findings.)

Additionally, Dr. McPartland has — considering that the early 2000s — proposed totally new strategies to classify cannabis primarily based on the newest and most precise science. Below his most up-to-date method (which was created with the aid of other weed taxonomists), what laypersons contact “sativa” is truly Cannabis indica, as these strains can be traced back to India. And what people contact “indica” is truly Cannabis afghanica, referring to strains traced back to Central Asia. Cannabis sativa, on the other hand, refers to crossbred strains with European or East Asian origins, considering that these regions imported their weed from India or Central Asia.


If that sounds confusing AF, that is since it is – if you are accustomed to the present sativa/indica/hybrid nomenclature. That confusion almost certainly explains why, in spite of McPartland’s study, his method hasn’t caught on in well-known culture or in the weed market.

Second, while there are some genetic variations involving the bushier plants and the taller, thinner ones, these variations are largely morphological. In other words, the variations lie in how we describe these plants’ structures rather than what types of psychoactive effects they can create.

Dr. Ethan Russo, a renowned cannabis physician and an associate of McPartland’s, described it to Leafly this way: “The way that the sativa and indica labels are utilized in commerce is nonsense. The clinical effects of the cannabis chemovar have nothing at all to do with regardless of whether the plant is tall and sparse versus brief and bushy, or regardless of whether the leaflets are narrow or broad.”

The “chemovar” that Russo referred to is a portmanteau of “chemical” and “cultivar,” which means a plant cultivar identified by its chemical elements rather than how it seems to the naked eye or exactly where it originated. In truth, this new way of searching at weed — basing a strain’s identity solely on its cannabinoid and terpene contents — may possibly quickly develop into the new way of classifying cannabis. 


Earlier this month, Leafly unveiled a colour-coded version of this chemovar classification method applying years of lab information on different strains collected in legal states. The days of cheeky strain names like “Alaskan Thunderfuck” and “Charlie Sheen” would give way to… uh… truly, no one’s actually figured out how to rename weed strains/chemovars. But.

Why repair today’s advertising-primarily based indica/sativa method if it ain’t broke? That is the point: It is broken — and it is been broken. There are individuals who get couch-locked from so-known as “sativas,” and other folks who get wired when they smoke “indicas.” There are also shoppers who develop into energetic or sleepy from the very same strain of weed, based on when or exactly where they smoke it. Some people usually really feel sedated no matter the solution, when other folks usually expertise anxiousness regardless if they puffed an “indica” or “sativa.” 

Essentially, weed can — and will — influence every person differently. Rather than classify weed items primarily based on subjective effects, men and women really should establish what functions finest for them with a mixture of strain identity, cultivator supply, and cannabinoid and terpene contents for that certain solution batch. (Chemical contents will usually differ amongst batches.)

Gallery — The Magic of the Cannabis Plant

Also, due to the intense widespread crossbreeding of weed considering that the ‘60s counterculture revolution, fairly significantly all of today’s industrial weed are hybrids. And if they’re pretty much all hybrids, the sativa/indica designations are meaningless.

For quite a few of us, “sativa” and “indica” have develop into mainstays in the cannabis neighborhood. But the terms do not make sense, and they’re not valuable, either. A lot of cannabis shoppers incorrectly assume that a strain’s identity alone determines what type of higher it gives. In reality, a strain’s cultivation situations (e.g. nutrient feeds, watering methods, when and how it is harvested) are just as critical — if not far more critical — than its genetics. 

Stick to Randy Robinson on Twitter