A Brief Trip Through Cannabis Classification
There are many different ways to describe cannabis varieties – some scientific, some historical, and some colorfully imaginative.
Some descriptive terms are more fact-based than others or are used erroneously.
But confusingly, even language that is scientifically accurate is not necessarily relevant or helpful to someone who wants to predict the effects of consuming a particular plant.
The Indica-Sativa-Hybrid Mess
For example, the popular indica-sativa-hybrid terminology that is often used in cannabis product marketing is based upon cannabis taxonomy: the botanical classification of plants.
While this system traces genetic lineage and defines the plant’s genus, species, and so on, the cannabis marketplace uses the terms “Indica,” Sativa,” and “Hybrid,” as a code to describe how growers believe a particular plant will make someone feel.
However, botanical categorization is heavily based upon the physical characteristics of plants, which is no longer a reliable way to predict a particular plant’s effects.
And genetically speaking, just about everything on the current cannabis market is a hybrid.
Because of all this, cannabis researchers generally agree that indica-sativa-hybrid terminology and “strain names” have been misused and cannot be relied upon at all to reliably predict the effects of a given plant or product.
The Shift to Chemotypes
Some cannabis clinicians feel that instead, cannabis consumers should look to chemotypes: a classification system based on chemical composition.
Though the chemical composition of an individual plant can vary based upon the growing conditions, there is a strong genetic influence on the cannabinoid content and other elements.
The current chemotype system includes these categories, along with example varieties grown by East Fork Cultivars:
Type I: THC-Dominant – Wedding Cake
Type II: Mixed Ratio THC and CBD – ACDC Cookies
Type III: CBD-Dominant – Blue Orchid
Type IV: CBG-Rich – The White CBG
Type V: Cannabinoid-Null – N/A
East Fork is known especially for our Type III and Type II cultivars, prioritizing and showcasing the benefits of CBD.
We’ve continued to breed new and useful Type III and II varieties, and more recently, we’ve begun growing more Type I cultivars for end use rather than just breeding purposes.
We’ve also ramped up our production of Type IV CBG-rich cultivars, to very positive feedback. CBG has tremendous potential, and we’re excited to see continued research on this “Mother cannabinoid.”
We have not yet grown any Type V plants – cannabis without any cannabinoids – any don’t currently have plans to do so.
One reason for growing Type V cultivars could be for mass terpene extraction without the legal complications of THC. However, East Fork already maintains an extensive terpene library distilled and extracted from our plants.
Are Chemovars the Future?
Undoubtedly, the current chemotype system is an improvement upon misinformation. However, it remains fairly basic at this point.
Plant chemotypes are generally defined by the most dominant compound a plant produces, so the current cannabis system is based upon cannabinoid content only.
This is a weakness of the system, as researchers have highlighted the importance of terpenes and other key components of cannabis in contributing to its effects in people.
Also, while the current system accounts for cannabinoid ratios, it doesn’t consider potencies – which is an important aspect of experience.
Some have proposed using the concept of chemovars – ”chemical variations” – to help consumers more accurately select cannabis types for different effects.
This approach would further define the main four chemotypes into subgroups based upon major and minor cannabinoid profiles, and potentially the associated dominant terpenes as well.
Though this system is not yet developed enough for consumers to use, it holds promise. In practical usage, it would group varieties by important similarities such as concentration of the dominant cannabinoid(s), and the few most abundant terpenes.
Uniting the Elements
Interestingly, such a system may end up uniting pieces of the botanical taxonomy and marketplace slang with elements of chemotypes.
A recent study found that while the “Indica” and “Sativa” labels on cannabis for sale had no overall correlation to their genetic or chemical makeup, the labeling did statistically correspond to genetic variations for four specific terpenes.
The researchers identified three regions of the Cannabis genome associated with the four terpenes most strongly associated with Sativa–Indica labeling, and concluded that “Cannabis labeling is… probably driven primarily by a small number of key terpenes whose concentrations contribute to the characteristic aromas commonly associated with Sativa and Indica.”
In other words, certain terpenes – and their genetic links – offered the most evidence of a connection to the perception of “Indica” and “Sativa” effects described by the marketplace terms.
This development offers the exciting possibility that the complex cannabis plant can yet be decoded enough to categorize in a much more helpful way for consumers.
The researchers concluded, “that a practical and reliable classification system for Cannabis that is consistent with contemporary understanding of the terms ‘Sativa’ and ‘Indica’ may be achievable by quantifying a small number of terpenes and/or genotyping genetic markers associated with key Cannabis aromas.”
While a robust classification system is still in the future, there is no question that it must take multiple elements of the cannabis plant into account.
