This topic is here to discuss Studies and Observations about Landraces.
what made them how they are?
what Factors are at play?
Also, how to preserve them best in our often limited Enviroment (to less Space, Money and Energy for propper preservation)
Imho Landraces are the best weed i EVER experienced, and its not easy to keep them alive unchanged ! So lets gather all our Knowledge here
Well let me toss my 2 cents into this topic for what it is worth.
That is a question that you can get different answers for. But I would say genetics, environment, and natural evolution all play a part in there creation.
As far as how to preserve them and keep them unchanged, only thing that comes to my mind is recreating the growing conditions and soil of that landrace strains to that of the region they are from.
Well I had kept my opinion to myself for so long because it’s controversial to popular belief…
I think it’s time to open up…
Evolution, they evolved to the environment they are in…
So even if we try to preserve them, we can’t. It will evolve to your environment in time…
Why preserve them, let nature take its path…
I bet the f2’s from landraces are not good as f1s…
The cycle will just repeat itself until they are well evolved to their current environment…
some say, everything is kinda Hybredized. Probably they read Robert Clarks Studies.
He implies that anything African and Southamerican is Hybrid , … and around India SE Asia is a pure Sativa… Pure Indica in midle East.
I looked around the Net, had problems to find anything other than Robert Clarke.
Well i finally found that sentence:
“the most loved Landrace Lines (among Landraces) are often Hermie.” Thats why biologists assumed inbreeding was a mayor Factor wich made the good Lines good. (cause a hermie pollen more often pollinates itselve)
So, these hermie lines are not pollinated as much by other lines
It leads me automatically to the Idea of Pure Strains are the best… And hybridisation is not good.
I found this Sentence in the book “Priniples of Plant Breeding - Secound Edition”
It includes Landrace Studies in the first Section.
This Book also mentioned: “Landraces show an Apperance, like if they stemm from a varying Landscape.”
So, dont imagine a super bottlenecked down Hermie Landrace?..
Ok Peoples
I found some Correlation emerges bewtween Location, and Effects .
Certain Locations seem to correlate with certain Effects.
I found these recurring anektotes after loong years of hunt for the unknown Tripweed i once smoked… you know, i was totally open, reading smokerports to figure out whatever Strain i may have once smoked. So, these smokereports are in no way found out, they are just what i found.
So i think its justified to look into Adabtation.
Je suis là pour ça! 
I’m not convinced that was the correct assumption on their part. Hermaphroditism isn’t an aberration in my mind, it’s survival mechanism. It’s obviously undesirable from a quality-uniformity standpoint, the good you mention, but it’s an indicator of a more diverse gene pool. If the biologist is trying to create an IBL tomato for example they’re after uniformity a farmer can borrow money for, an absolutely predictable product. A good example of the risk of that is the several occurrences of blight on potatoes. Something that had a chilling effect on my personal genetic background.
Imagine a disease or significant shift in weather like an ice age (an extreme example) that in a particular location decimates a population and perhaps for some reason it only effects males. The ability of dioecious plants to reproduce in individual isolation allows the continuation of the line. As we select away from that we move from diversity to homogeneity and we end up with enormous but bland beefsteak varieties that travel in trucks well but taste like acidic cardboard.
I don’t consider hermaphroditism an evolutionary eddy or vestigial expression like an appendix.
thats possible, and would be the opposite explonation, however, reading that book i felt like the author had propper writingskills, so im not just calling him “closeminded” .
but i was unshure aswell. the book is from 1920.
That’s actually optimistic, say one lone male survives in an isolated pocket in a region like India where every valley is a distinct system.
Then for the time, it’s a reasonable supposition.
Do keep in mind in the early 20th century marijuana was being pushed as being evil ie “Reefer Madness” so I would be wary of any info from that time period. Not saying all info from that time is suspect, but does need to be seen with a grain of salt.
i’m looking through my computer trying to find the source for this : “A modern commercial strain will revert back to it’s wild state within 50 generations.”
… Why am I looking for that? I’m not sure, but along the way I found these things:
Sativa means Cultivated
Ruderal means “grows on disturbed land, rubble”
… Those are from the McPartland article that I’m looking for…
Oh, here it is:
Cannabis Systematics at the Levels of Family, Genus, and Species
John M. McPartland
Abstract
New concepts are reviewed in Cannabis systematics, including phylogenetics and nomenclature. The family Can- nabaceae now includes Cannabis, Humulus, and eight genera formerly in the Celtidaceae. Grouping Cannabis, Humulus, and Celtis actually goes back 250 years. Print fossil of the extinct genus Dorofeevia (=Humularia) reveals that Cannabis lost a sibling perhaps 20 million years ago (mya). Cannabis print fossils are rare (n = 3 worldwide), making it difficult to determine when and where she evolved. A molecular clock analysis with chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) suggests Cannabis and Humulus diverged 27.8 mya. Microfossil (fossil pollen) data point to a center of origin in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Fossil pollen indicates that Cannabis dispersed to Europe by 1.8– 1.2 mya. Mapping pollen distribution over time suggests that European Cannabis went through repeated genetic bottlenecks, when the population shrank during range contractions. Genetic drift in this population likely initi- ated allopatric differences between European Cannabis sativa (cannabidiol [CBD]>D9-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]) and Asian Cannabis indica (THC > CBD). DNA barcode analysis supports the separation of these taxa at a subspecies level, and recognizing the formal nomenclature of C. sativa subsp. sativa and C. sativa subsp. indica. Herbarium specimens reveal that field botanists during the 18th–20th centuries applied these names to their collections rather capriciously. This may have skewed taxonomic determinations by Vavilov and Schultes, ultimately giving rise to today’s vernacular taxonomy of ‘‘Sativa’’ and ‘‘Indica,’’ which totally mis-aligns with formal C. sativa and C. indica. Ubiquitous interbreeding and hybridization of ‘‘Sativa’’ and ‘‘Indica’’ has rendered their distinctions almost meaningless.
Keywords: Cannabaceae; Cannabis sativa; center of origin; barcode; molecular clock; palynology
there are 3 different meanings for Sativa/Indica… 1: Fatness, 2: Species classification , 3: old Latin-meanings… haha
has anyone found these classifications by R.Clarke, or John Partland to be observable?
Those Books were just very hard to read without summary, just Raw, and probably over my Degree .
I found interesting to read that there were like different Stages of Domestication…
And also that Landraces often interpollinate with their “escaped from Plantation”/ or wild Relatives in the Region, thats about it.
The term sativa is a derivative of the Latin botanical adjective sativum , meaning cultivated.
The unique environment, soil, in which a specific kind of weed is produced… let’s call it flavor of place, or Terroir
I’m just now harvesting a northern Lao, some Congolese, and a couple Manipuri… each native to their name-places, and now grown for the first time in a whole new place.
Genetics + environment = phenotype
Absolutely true. For our case here it’s semantics. If we agree on what the words mean it’s easier to discuss between levels of personal background.
It’s more useful perhaps as a reference to the subjective scale of effect than the plant morphology.
Edit: I should say in my case, that’s how I think of Sativa/Indica.
That’s a word worth exploring.
This is an interesting document. Consider the use of the words “indicated”, “points to” “suggests” and suggestively “likely”. This is subtle bias leading the reader to alignment with the offered theory. It’s like a preface to a text meant to get you ready to accept the information. “Proves” is a word that demands what those words allude to, a quality argument.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong mind you, just pointing out the way clever use of language is used to push thoughts around. At this level of technical writing the promoted idea is usually attached in some direct way, usually financial, to the future prospects of the presenter.