this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)

Trees

6666 readers
46 users here now

A community centered around cannabis.

In the spirit of making Trees a welcoming and uplifting place for everyone, please follow our Commandments.

  1. Be Cool.
  2. I'm not kidding. Be nice to each other.
  3. Avoid low-effort posts

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This plant of a friend seems to only produce calyxes. Is this a genetic thing or could it also be due to some kind of stress? If it is because of genetics, do you think this could be worth saving by taking a cutting?

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Cannabis growers tend to use the words bract and calyx interchangeably. In actuality, the little oval shape with hairs coming out is actually a bract. In cannabis the actual calyx is a sheath of cells around the thing that becomes the seed once fertilized.

A cannabis flower is just a collection of bracts. We tend to colloquially call the fat pair of little bracts that form at the base of the buds where they branch into leaves, the calyx

Bract

[–] [email protected] 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

The bract is the outer leaves, whether the plant is seeded or not the calyx expands.

When someone says it’s a bract, it’s usually wrong, the term is calyx, but bract CAN be used since the petals in the outside aren’t usually pulled away, but on the ripe ones, they are.

https://herb-platform-images.imgix.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/27182640/Cannabis_Calyxes_The_3.jpg?auto=format&fit=clip&ixlib=react-8.6.4&h=448&w=816

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, super common argument, old heads especially. That image is at least a decade old and has served well!

Most scientific studies and even most modern literature identify that structure in the image as the bract. Whereas the cannabis calyx is a few cells thick and covers the seed, part of the perianth. it's not visible until a seed has expanded.

Lemme give you an example:

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.00350/full

It's funny tho, this study calls out the argument.

Argument

Despite all this you still see it both ways, or bract (calyx)/calyx(bract). Calyx was the term for a long time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

It’s not an argument, only cannabis growers (incorrectly) call it a bract, it’s a calyx by plant nomenclature.

Maybe don’t just read cannabis material? You can learn a lot more from general botany. Uneducated growers have been calling it incorrectly for so long, that people following along are now incorrectly saying it’s the correct term. And people like you perpetuate it. New growers see old growers using it, reference that, and now you’re quoting it like it’s gospel.

It’s a calyx, the bracts protect them, sorry dude.

Edit, holy fuck dude, read your own link, picture from it

https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/447153/fpls-10-00350-HTML/image_m/fpls-10-00350-g002.jpg

The bracts are below the singled flower (calyx)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Actually, we're having an argument about it right now!

Cannabis growers, botanists, scientists. As research on the plant has been allowed in the last decade, these specfic structures have been defined, that's why it's the modern definition.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Your own fucking link says you’re wrong dude….

https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/447153/fpls-10-00350-HTML/image_m/fpls-10-00350-g002.jpg

You’re just wrong, there’s no argument, the only source of it being a “bract” is uneducated old heads. And you are proof of it, and you are still trying to perpetuate the wrong term. It’s never been a bract dude.

It’s been defined by those people for thousands of years, what’s this about modern…? The old heads that were wrong and have tried changing it? But scientists and botanists just point to the thousand year old definition, and say, no, you’re fucking wrong.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Wow this argument is making you really mad, the paper addresses that in the beginning, you'll notice it's tracking the growth of the initial structure, they are defining the type of bract it is.

They are purposefully avoiding calling the "flower" anything because of the debate between calyx and bract (what i was trying to say). In this they are being extremely specfic about structures and are defining a bract primordium and a perigonal bract.

That's in the bit you cut out.

Bottom

They give it away with the term perigonal bract, that's the part most of the inflorescence grows on, aka the trichomes.

Edit: check out the wiki on the hemp species of plant, I know WP isn't exactly a perfect source, but like this is what we know now that we've studied the biology of the plant:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabaceae

Calyx

[–] [email protected] 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

They use the same term for entire growth process dude….

The call it a flower, because a flower includes the calyx, like explained by my multiple images.

Not once does your link show any part of the flower as a bract, it’s always underneath the flowers.

I didn’t leave anything out, it’s an image. I come choose any from any part of the growth, and they all show the same part of branch being the bract. Which isn’t related to flowers.

A solitary flower should have a bract itself…? No? Because how can it exist if you’re saying the outside is the bract…? Your article literally shows the opposite of what you’ve claimed in your original image…. This is how stupid the argument is. It’s not a bract….

I love how you can’t provide anything that says a bract is part of the flower (other than the whole incorrect thing) or what the calyx is. And everything you’ve provided has said something different… pick one dude and stick with it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I just proved you wrong with your own gotcha example and additional literature, but yeah, this is the nature of the calyx/bract argument.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

The additional stuff says different than your other two sources…? Sure that proves me wrong? and what gotcha example?

Your paper shows a bract under the flower structure itself, like my image. So how does that make the outer flower coating a bract…? Please explain with your own words instead of copying pasting others.

Because it seriously looks like you’re just regurgitating information without understanding it. Every source you’ve provided has said and shown something different dude…

Again, no argument, just someone being wrong. It’s like when a flat earther tries to “explain” or argue their side. Sure you can call it what you want, but you’re still never going to be correct…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago

Man, I'd swear that's the definition of an argument!

Well, this has been an excellent argument. Thank you for the time!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Excessive ruderalis trait, is the plant an auto by chance?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago

I don't think so. But maybe the seeds have gotten mixed up so it is not impossible

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Do you know the genetics of the plant? That looks like a "grinspoon" or "string of pearls" mutation. There's another version called willowing, but the leaves are twisted when it's that.

Check out the Dr. Grinspoon strain. That thing might be a pain to trim, but it should smoke great!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago

Oh yeah, I have heard of Dr. Grinspoon. I think the strain is called Durban Dew by dutch passion and usually it doesn't do this