Talk:List of cannabis strains

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2006. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Cannabis sativa.

* Super Super Dooper Super Names I Made Up just Now.com

Bulldozer Rocket Whateversoundscoolwhoscounting x Super Stuff

People, it takes time and space (for hunderds of plants just for seed production for all the in-between stages of making a new F1) where are you people during the cannabis cup or other known seedbank conventions or trade shows?

Developed Varieties' and 'Hybrids' refer to the same

Developed Varieties' and 'Hybrids are the same, why are there 4 lists where there should be 2?

(Sensi) Skunk, Super Skunk ect are not Sativa dominated!

Skunk, Super Skunk ect are not Sativa dominated, their indica dominated.

Clean Up!

First of all, can we not list random unknown strains? If its not a well known strain accepted by the mainstream community, please dont list it. Second, I have started adding lineages and re-organized the hybrid section according to the appropriate lineage (either balanced (50/50), indica dom, or sativa dom). Please help by adding lineages and moving strains to their appropriate categories. A lot of strains are misplaced. Thanks

--THC 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Indica distinction

Why isn't there a distinction between white indicas and non-white indicas? The white strains are significantly different in their growth, taste, and potency. Overgrow.com recognizes these strains as different, as does just about every seed bank.

Fdeel free to edit the page and write about it, SqueakBox 00:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Definetly, go for it. I wasn't aw
White Indica strains are indica x sativa hybrides, nothing more, nothing less. - Cannawrite, 20 Dec 2005

Strain Descriptions

I would like to propose adding strain descriptions. Color, texture, density, and a summary of the high could be included. Let's start with format/layout, and then we'll decide how to go about acquiring the information (first hand experience, or possible online or published sources). I welcome anyone to produce a layout for the description ], contribs) 22:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CEERAY

Changes as drastic as those warrant discussion here first. Just some basic wikipedia ethics. - Cobra Ky (talk, contribs) 02:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Only Cultivars

Lots of the strains listed under clone only cultivars, can be grown from seeds I don't understand the selection criteria for this category. Also if someone was unfamiliar with cannabis it would apear from this list that being a clone only cultivar precluded a strain from being sativa, indica, or a sativa-indica hybrid. This list should be changed to either separate strains based on whether they are sativa, indica, or hybrid, or separate strains based on propagation methods, not both. If the list was narrowed to just the sativa/indica distinction whether or not a strain was from a cultivar that could only be produced by cloning could be noted within the list just after the strain name.65.125.163.221 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Lots of Purple strains are not listed. Like Purple Princess prime time Purple and most of all O.G. Grandaddy Purple.--24.4.137.98 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC) -- edit Feb 19: some "seed also cultivars" removed from "clone only" to "unclassified".[reply]

Agreed. When I originally started the list it was organized into sativa, indica, and hybrid only. - Cobra Ky

(talk, contribs) 19:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cannabis strain guide link

would a link to this cannabis strain guide be acceptable? www.cannabishq.com/strains.html it has no ads, or popups and is nonprofit. it also contains many strains not listed here, which could be listed here. would a link to the the strain guide at CHQ be in the reference section if strains from CHQ were added to wikipedia's cannabis strains section? seems reasonable to me... Chq 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you originally posted this Q a week ago and no one has raised any objections, go ahead and add the link. If someone objects in the future they can discuss it here. It should go in the External links section until/unless it is used as a reference for content in the article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright well i'm going to add two strains landrace sativa: Swaziland - Swazi Red, Nigeria - Nigerian

So I will add the link to references, I will be adding more strains soon. I see that the references are in alphabetical order by the URL in that case mine would be the first one listed under references, but i'm afraid if i do that i'll get yelled at for spamming or whatever, so please let me know if the references are in fact listed by the url (in that order) because it looks that way to me, and if so my url, cannabishq.com would be in front of icmag.com becaue c comes before i. but if its not in alphabetical order based on URL and just randomly put up there, i understand not putting my in first position. thanks for letting me add my link either way. Chq 14:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shwag???

71.129.87.227 changed the title on one of the lists of strains to shwags. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cannabis_strains#Shwags Chq 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information on this page is disputable

If original strains , that were developed by the most reputable breeders in the world, are put on a 'schwag' list (even when these strains have been in existence for decades, and have a clear and undisputable record), and are replaced, in non-alphabetical order, with random (?) names , then I recommend this page be corrected or deleted.

- they were listed as schwag by someone fooling around, obviously they arent schwag strains...Chq 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Developed Varieties' and 'Hybrids' refer to the same

'Developed Varieties','Hybrids' and 'Blend' all refer to the same fenomena; man-made crossings.

Drastic action necessary

I propose that this article is either deleted or extensively rewritten, or at the very least has a prominent cautionary note. My reasons are as follows:

1. Very few strains originate from breeders who would be recognised as such by the mainstream horticultural industry - Breeder Steve is one of the few exceptions I can think of. Most breeders are little more than growers and to accept their information as reliable is remiss.

2. 'Strain Mystique' is created by seed vendors to sell seeds. Hype is rampant in the industry and not surprising when you consider that 'Super Silver Super Bud' is largely the same as last year's 'Silver Super Bud' but the breeder will be out of business if he doesn't shift a few thousand packs of this year's stock.

3. Growers buy into the myth a) to justify their costly purchases and b) appear knowledgeable in the community. Anyone who has followed a debate on what constiutes an IBL will know what I mean.

4. To say that strain so-and-so is 50% Sativa and 50& Indica when we only have a breeder's word for it, and the breeder probably got his stock from a source with equally dubious information is negligent IMHO.

5. A few strains do deserve mention - Skunk and Northern Lights for being part of the indoor revolution, Jack Herer, Haze for its growth characteristics, Blueberry for flavour and possibly some of the new dwarf varieties. Everything else, with very few exceptions, is simply a hotch-potch of the aforementioned varieties, and Wikipedia should

Entire list appears to be original research

This entire list seems to be original research. None of the references given seem to qualify as reliable sources. If any of the information is verifiable then citations to reliable sources should be added. Chondrite 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lowryder moved b/c IT CAN'T be cloned

i moved lowryder from Clone only list to the unknown cultivators list BECAUSE LOWRYDER CANNOT BE CLONED!!! ITS AUTOFLOWERING!