Pakistan (n = 19): 35.7 + 16.1/48.2 = 1.07, South Africa (n = 6): 75.6 +
16.0/8.5 = 10.78, Jamaica (n = 7): 77.5 + 13.4/9.1 = 9.99, Burma (n = 5):
15.7 + 67.9/16.34 = 5.12.
Mobarak et al. ( 1978 ) analyzed hashīsh from“Kandeh in Petschtal,” a.k.a.
Kandai in Pech River valley—just 55 km from where Vavilov collectedC. indica
var.afghanica. They report THC + CBN/CBD as 8 + 14.4/11.6 = 1.93. Martone
et al. ( 1990 ) analyzed THC+CBN/CBD in hashīsh seizures, including Afghanistan:
4.45 + 0.36/1.73 = 2.78 and India: 4.48 + 0.40/1.59 = 3.07.
Researchers after Hillig and Mahlberg faced greater difficulties parsing hybrids
from their studies. Mahlberg and Hillig collected germplasm during the 1970s–
1990s. Since then, unadulterated landraces have become needles in haystacks. For
example, de Meijer and colleagues recently reported Afghani plants with extremely
high THC/CBD quotients (e.g., 683.7 and 516.6, Onofri et al. 2015 ), or extremely
low THC/CBD quotients (e.g., 0.04, Meijer et al. 2009 ). These results depart from
an earlier study by Meijer et al. ( 1992 ), where THC/CBD quotients for Afghani
plants averaged around 3.1 (Meijer et al. 1992 ).
Researchers in Holland analyzed 11 strains in a non-CGE study (Fischedick
et al. 2010 ). No provenance was provided, partially due to proprietary rights. Also,
the operational gray-zone of Dutch coffeeshops (“legal front door, illegal back
door”) impedes information transfer regarding passport data and provenance. Six
strains were considered nonhybridized“Indicas”: “AD,”“AF,”“AM,”“AN,”
“AO,”and“Bedropuur.”All six were essentially devoid of CBD. This was a major
departure from studies of Afghani landraces collected in the 1970s–1990s, which
had significant CBD levels. The lack of CBD in 21st century“Indicas”is incon-
sistent with Afghani landraces from the 1970s–1990s.
The same group (Tejkalováand Hazekamp 2014 ; Tejkalová 2015 ) conducted an
enlarged study of“typical representatives” of “Sativa” (n = 44) and“Indica”
(n = 77). They obtained samples from Dutch coffeeshops and proprietary sources
(Bedrocan BV, HempFlax BV), with limited information regarding provenance.
They used a multivariate clustering method, Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
The PCA scatterplot clearly discriminated“Sativa”samples from“Indica”samples,
but THC and CBD did not provide discriminatory value (i.e., the PCA weights or
eigenvector values for THC and CBD did not discriminate between“Sativa”and
“Indica”).
Hazekamp et al. ( 2016 ) adjusted their sample size to“Sativa”(n = 68) and
“Indica”(n = 63), obtaining samples from the same sources. This time they pre-
sented a PCA scatterplot as well as numerical means. They found no significant
differences between“Sativa”and“Indica”in either THC or CBD content.“Sativa”
THC/CBD means 12.74/0.38 = 33.5; “Indica” THC/CBD means 13.71/0.30 =
47.7.
Elzinga et al. ( 2015 ) analyzed 35 strains obtained from“chemotypical medicinal
cannabis dispensaries.”They assigned strains to“Indica,”“Sativa,”or“Hybrid”
based on reports by the Leafly website. Instead of THC/CBD ratios, they presented
“average THCmax%”for each strain.“Indica”(n = 13) averaged 17.30%, and
“Sativa”(n = 5) averaged 13.84%. For CBD they offered only summary statistics
110 J.M. McPartland