That would make sense, but not many breeders are actually aware that cannabis rasta is a different species so they also call consider them to be Sativa. I'm not sure the last part about the taxonomy of rasta being similar to indica. I think based on height, you could differentiate the rasta from an indica with narrow leaves. Mexican and african strains (considered sativa) also produce a high that is considered more 'trippy' and their buds look different than indicas (but probably not without exception. Such strains are more than likely actually rasta given this new information, but they do have much longer flowering times, up to 120 days compared to less than 60 for indica. (not sure if that's a taxonomy difference). Either way, the legal status of cannabis obviously impedes better understanding of this issue. The real experts on cannabis are breeders and they are usually not aslo scientists. Fasdl 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a reference for the actual published work? The New Scientist article implied that a paper was accepted for publication at Forensic Science International, but it does not appear to have been published in that journal, or anywhere else that I can find. Gilmore did publish in FSI in 2003 regarding genetic analyses in Cannabis, but that does not seem to be the subject of the New Scientist article. It appears that New Scientist is the only web source for this story (other outlets quote NS). -- Chondrite 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First the article states: "In appearance it is similar to the sativa species..."

Then it states: "It appears to be identical to the narrow-leafed biotype of Cannabis indica."

Which is it?

J. Crocker 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]