SATIVA AND INDICA: MONSTROUSLY MISUNDERSTOOD
Sometimes, marijuana makes your mind race. Sometimes, marijuana makes you glued to the couch. It’s always been assumed that Indicas are responsible for the more sedative effects, while Sativas are responsible for the more upbeat and energising effects. Indeed, this has been cemented into Cannabis lore around the globe; the public and the industry has decided that this is a straightforward, black and white, linear spectrum:
“Indicas are relaxing and Sativas are upbeat, while hybrids are anywhere in between.”
Often, as science goes, archaic research that was done with subjective observation and less data has to give way to new information obtained with objective observation and more data. During the inception of fields like taxonomy, scientists had nothing but their observational skills to go on when making distinctions like “Indica” and “Sativa”. Today, we have tools like genetic and phytochemical (plant biochemistry) analyses that even the smartest of revolutionary biologists of the 18th century could not begin to imagine. As a result, the scientific concepts need to evolve and grow over time or be revised altogether in ways that better represent the truth.
As always, in truth, things are just not quite so simple. ‘Simple’ doesn’t have to be a bad thing. We don’t always need to go down the most complicated route and split hairs everywhere. Simplification is great if it conveys the necessary information. However, if it seriously compromises accuracy, like in this case, it needs to be called out and replaced with a better system that is more accurate. To jump the gun and not beat around the bush, the main point we are conveying here today is this potentially controversial bit of information:
“The division between Indica and Sativa as it is represented in popular culture is woefully inaccurate. Indica does not equal a lazy, sleepy, relaxing couchlock high, and Sativa does not equal an upbeat, energetic high.”
However, many of us may have experienced that strains labelled as Sativa often do have a racier, upbeat, and headier kind of high, while strains labelled Indica have a more relaxing, lazier, and more ‘couchlock’ kind of high. What’s going on here? It’s something incredibly easy to explain. It’s not that Sativa labelled strains have a racier or more upbeat high – it’s that strains with a more upbeat and racy high are labelled as Sativa, and likewise for Indica. It’s a small but subtle and important difference that has a lot of ramifications.
Someone grows a plant, consumes the produce, and then, based on how the high is, they label and sell it as ‘Indica’ or ‘Sativa’ or the extremely ambiguous ‘hybrid’. However, Indica and Sativa are not terms that are limited to, or even accurate at describing the high. They are scientific terms that describe much more – including the morphology, genetic markers, geographic origin, and more.
It’s like finding two dogs; the first one has a large, bushy coat, while the second has a thinner, less dense coat. Saying that the first dog is more wolf than the second one on the basis of this criteria alone is a flawed statement. (If you want to understand more about this analogy, we have an entire article where we discuss Cannabis, wolves, dogs, strains, and breeds and their relationships.)
Moving away from ‘some random thing that some guy said somewhere based on his experience’, Dr. Ethan Russo, MD, a board-certified neurologist, psychopharmacology researcher, and Medical Director of PHYTECS, a biotechnology company researching and developing innovative approaches targeting the human endocannabinoid system, had some choice words to say on the topic.
“There are biochemically distinct strains of Cannabis, but the Sativa/Indica distinction as commonly applied in the lay literature is total nonsense and an exercise in futility.” 1
Let’s take a brief look at the scientific and biological underpinnings of this distinction, jump into how it got to where it is today, and what this means going forward. Whether you think it’s an “Indica” or a “Sativa”, get out some thought provoking bud for this one.
The Origins of Classification and Confusion
It’s possible to go into extreme detail and get incredibly nerdy and specific about this, but here’s the sparknotes version:
The classification system that exists for life (called binomial nomenclature) on Earth was developed in the 18th century. It divides living organisms into smaller and smaller categories until we are left with categories that only have one individual species. When it was designed, there was one major clear, definitive criteria that all scientists agree on: if two animals/plants/organisms could mate and produce fertile offspring, they’re of the same species. If they could not mate and could not produce fertile offspring, they definitely cannot be classified as the same species. For example, humans and chimpanzees cannot mate and produce offspring at all, and are clearly different species. Tigers and lions can mate to produce ligers (interesting hybrids between tigers and lions), but the resulting ligers are not fertile – they cannot produce their own offspring. It’s the same with horses and donkeys; they can be made to mate and give birth to a mule, but the mule is sterile and cannot produce offspring of its own.Therefore, tigers and lions are different species, as are horses and donkeys. On the other hand, wolves and dogs can mate to produce wolfdogs, which are fertile and can produce their own offspring by mating with other dogs/wolves/wolfdogs; therefore, wolves and dogs are the same species.
It becomes less concrete going forward. As we established, if they can’t reproduce, it’s quite simple (as far as we are concerned), and they’re different species. However, if they can reproduce and produce fertile offspring, such as wolves and dogs, does it stop there? Is that the extent of the classification? What if they can reproduce and produce fertile offspring but still exhibit a large number of differences among populations, such as different dog breeds, or various wolf species, or different marijuana strains? Anyone can tell that a Boxer is inherently hugely visually different from a Pug, which is inherently different from a wolf, even though they can all produce fertile offspring if they were to mate. Do we continue splitting hairs and create categories of subspecies to divide them further? What are the criteria for distinguishing one subspecies from another? The fact of the matter is, once we go beyond the species level in terms of specificity, there is no concrete standard or answer for any of these questions. Worse still for us modern day humans, in the ‘exploratory age’ of plant taxonomy scientists often were forced to come to conclusions on the basis of very limited material. 2
Basically, in the 18th century, the taxonomic classification system (bearing its limitations as described above) that we use today was first created. Since then, the Cannabis plant has been further classified at the species level in three ways: Cannabis sativa by C. Linnaeus in 1753, Cannabis indica by J.B. Lamarck in 1785, and the addition of Cannabis ruderalis by D.E. Janischewsky in 1924. Remember that as per taxonomy, two different species should not be capable of producing their own fertile offspring.
Initially, Cannabis sativa represented the non-psychotropic hemp (the kind used to make rope, not dope) that had made its way from Asia to Europe through trade and travel. This was the only kind of Cannabis known at the time to the Western world, and was classified by Carolus Linnaeus in 1753 under the name Cannabis sativa. In 1785, J.B. Lamarck classified a second species which he called Cannabis indica, or ‘Cannabis from India’, in response to the recent arrival of highly psychotropic Cannabis into Europe from India and the surrounding regions of Southeast Asia and even South Africa. In his words, “C. indica produced a strong odor, and caused intoxication when smoked in a pipe.” In the 20th century, the Cannabis ruderalis species was identified and observed to be distinctly different from Indicas and Sativas in terms of how it grows, but perfectly capable of reproducing with them. It is not as relevant to what we are looking at today, and won’t be addressed in great detail, but the conflict began here. First and foremost, the classification of Sativa, Indica, and Ruderalis as different species is today globally regarded as inherently flawed for the following simple reason: All of these – Sativa, Indica, and Ruderalis – are capable of mating with one another and producing fertile offspring. Therefore, they are definitely members of the same species.
Timestamps of Classification
Let’s dive a little further into this. So, we have Linnaeus first identifying the hemp variety of Cannabis as Cannabis sativa in 1753.
Fig. 1: Industrial hemp imported from Asia is classified as Cannabis sativa in 1753.
Then Lamarck came along in 1785 coined the term Cannabis indica, describing the types of Cannabis plants originating in India and Southeast Asia that had psychotropic effects. He noted that these were more ‘velvety’, which describes the trichomes (or as I’ve heard some incorrectly refer to them, the ‘crystals’) on the plant matter that contribute to the psychotropic effects. The plants that Lamarck christened Cannabis indica was a description of thin leaved psychotropic varieties of Cannabis from the Indian and Southeast Asian region. This was the first time that psychotropic Cannabis was recorded in history as being introduced to the European subcontinent.
Fig. 2: J.B. Lamarck classifies psychotropic varieties from India as Cannabis indica, and continues to refer to industrial hemp as Cannabis sativa.
However, in modern vernacular, Indicas refer to short, squat plants that have broad leaves and dense bud structure; a quick google search will show you scores of articles and images defining Indicas as fat leafed, stocky marijuana plants with sedative effects. How did we come from Lamarck’s definition of Indica as ‘thin leafed, psychotropic varieties of Cannabis’ to the modern understanding of Indica representing fat leafed, squat, dense structured varieties of Cannabis?
Afghanistan Enters the Fray
Today is not the first time this difference is being noted or identified. Between the 1940s and the 1990s, a deeper dive was done into the indigenous Cannabis gene pool in various countries by various scientists. There was a reasonable amount of conflict between Lamarck’s demarcation and the findings of these scientists, as well as a significant amount of variation between how different scientists chose to report their findings and apply nomenclature to Cannabis varieties. The crux of the issue is that Lamarck never took varieties from Afghanistan into consideration, as he and the bulk of Europe were completely unaware of their existence at the time. When stumbled upon by various scientists at various points in the 20th century, the Afghani plants were observed to be different from the varieties that were described by the literature at that point. They were fat leafed, much more squat and compact in comparison to the narrow leaf varieties described up till that point, and they had a notably denser layer of trichomes on the flowers and leaves. One of the more popular of the many scientists that made this observation, Richard Evans Schultes, assigned these Afghani plants to C. indica in 1974. 3 L.C. Anderson made the same categorisation in 1980, and went a step further, assigning narrow leaved plants from India to C. sativa. 4 Ironically, these were the exact types of plants that Lamarck called C. indica back in 1785. Anderson also made the popular line drawing that can now be seen in any ‘indica vs sativa’ google search in the world. We can start to see a deviation from the formal initial classification here.
Fig. 3: The artwork drawn by L.C. Anderson in 1980 that is very popular and persistent to this day.
In 1981, Robert Connell Clarke referred to plants from Afghanistan “as type examples for Cannabis indica”. In 1982, Cherniak assigned Cannabis sativa to plants of South Asian heritage (Nepal, Burma, Thailand), and their descendants in Columbia, Jamaica, and Mexico. He applied the name Cannabis indica to plants fromAfghanistan. His classification gets a bit muddled, because he also categorises plants from India as Cannabis indica.
Fig. 4: In the 20th century, psychotropic Cannabis from Afghanistan is classified as Cannabis indica, and psychotropic Cannabis from India is classified as Cannabis sativa.
At this point, scientists largely agreed that Indica and Sativa were two different species: C. indica, with fat leaves, relatively short height, higher trichome density, more bud density, and a shorter flowering cycle, and C. sativa, with longer, narrower leaves, significantly more height, less trichome and bud density, and a longer flowering cycle. The earliest vernacular use of the terms Sativa and Indica show up in a Dutch seed catalog in about 1985.
With the research and science available at the end of the 20th century, all that was certain was that Cannabis strains cultivated for fiber and/or seed production (from here on referred to as hemp) are commonly differentiated from strains cultivated for medicinal or recreational use, but the evolutionary relationships between these two groups and between cultivated and wild or naturalized (feral) populations was not well understood. 5
Cannabinoids, Phytochemistry, and Genetics
Biochemical research was quite an eye-opener in this field. Most of it suggested that native populations (original indigenous plants in/from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, India, Cambodia, and Thailand) showed a large degree of alignment within their populations. Plants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan showed clear similarities across the populations in terms of THC to CBD ratios, having a much greater proportion of CBD than the Indian, Cambodian and Thai populations. 6 7 Likewise, narrow leaf varieties from India, Cambodia, and Thailand also showed great similarities in terms of both plant growth structure, leaf width, and cannabinoid ratios. Within populations, there is variation in the amount of THC and/or CBD, but not a big variation in the ratio.
An analysis of a wide variety of genetic research by various scientists leads one to a common conclusion:
Research supports the classification of “Sativa” and “Indica”, but not their nomenclature. 8 They are better described as subspecies of a single species, Cannabis sativa. “Sativa” differs chemically and genetically from “Indica”, but their ability to breed and produce fertile offspring demands that they be members of the same species. The Sativa subspecies (Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa) refers to narrow leafed, tall varieties, and includes both psychotropic varieties of Cannabis and industrial, non-psychotropic hemp. The Indica subspecies (Cannabis sativa subsp. indica) refers to wide leafed, relatively short varieties with more of a pyramid structure, dense bud structure, and larger/denser trichomes. Psychotropic Sativas typically have a much higher ratio of THC to CBD (High THC, low CBD), while Indicas have a lower ratio of THC to CBD (High THC, relatively high CBD).
However, the catch here is that this distinction only and solely exists for indigenous, non-hybridised populations.
The Implications of Hybridisation
Widespread crossbreeding and introgression make it challenging to identify differences between the narrow leaf biotype (“Sativa”) and the wide leaf biotype (“Indica”). The biotypes show differences in cannabinoids, terpenoids, and genetics, which are not reproduced or present in modern hybrids described as “Indica” or “Sativa”.
The same genetic tests, when conducted on flowers from dispensaries or plants of unknown geographical origin, informally categorised as “Indica”, “Sativa”, or some kind of hybrid, show wide results that are all over the place with no congruence or reproducibility. There is no shortage of studies on this topic. The only common thing between these studies is how varied and scrambled the results are.
In flower samples from dispensaries, Cannabis cultivation facilities, and contraband seizures, there was no correlation whatsoever between factors like leaf size and plant structure and cannabinoid content or ratios. Some flowers from wide leaf varieties showed a massive THC to CBD ratio and others from narrow leaf varieties showed much lower THC to CBD ratios – effectively a reversal from the genetic analyses of indigenous Indica and Sativa subspecies.
Trying to identify how “Sativa” or “Indica” a strain is is a lot like trying to identify how “wolf” a dog breed is. Different dog breeds have varying combinations, extents, and expressions of “wolf” elements or characteristics. They’ve been crossed, backcrossed, and bred so much that there is absolutely no useful or objective way to identify whether one dog breed is more wolven than another. If we were to call a German Shepherd as 50% wolf and a Siberian Husky as 75% wolf, that would be completely ambiguous, it would have no objective basis, and it would further our understanding of these breeds by a factor of zero. While it is not wrong to say that Wolves are generally more aggressive, wary of humans, and pack-like in their behaviour than domestic dogs, it’s impossible to say that an aggressive dog is more wolven or less wolven than a less aggressive one.
Similarly, the sheer extent of hybridisation in modern marijuana has resulted in the complete loss of utility and purpose of casual titles like “Indica” and “Sativa” in commercially available flower samples. While Indicas and Sativas do continue to exist in indigenous populations in their region of origin as examples of the subspecies, the terms have no relevance and no value in the commercial, modern marijuana marketplace – definitely not in the way that they are used today.
There is science that suggests some amount of correlation between terpenes (compounds responsible for the various smells and flavours) and psychotropic properties exists, but lots of the science is conflicting and not reproduced in similar studies. This further suggests that the hybridisation in commercial marijuana is incredibly extensive, and that more studies need to be conducted before arriving at a scientific consensus.
But what about the high?
The common argument against the information and view provided in this article is something along the lines of: Most strains labelled Indica are sedative and most strains labelled Sativa are racy/upbeat. How can you explain this?
As mentioned earlier, the reason that most plants labelled as Indica have sedative effects and most plants labelled as Sativa have upbeat/racy effects is because, far more often than not, the plants are labelled as Indica or Sativa after being grown and consumed, and not before. The terms Indica and Sativa in the common vernacular have come to represent a type of high and not two different subspecies of the same plant.
In science speak, the term used to describe the high is chemotype. The chemotype refers to the phytochemical composition, or in simple terms, the amounts of various cannabinoids and other plant compounds that come together to give the plant the high that it has. Indica and Sativa, in scientific literature and taxonomy, are not distinguished from one another by just chemotype. Lots of factors, including geographical origin, morphology, chemotype, and thanks to more recent scientific advancements, sections of genetic code, come together to distinguish the two subspecies of Indica and Sativa from one another. In modern Cannabis culture, using just the high to label one as Sativa and one as Indica is like looking at two dogs and saying one has more fur and is therefore more wolf-like than the other. There are so many other criteria that come into play.
While the terms Indica and Sativa are used to largely describe the types of high, the terminology itself is technically incorrect.
Modern science also suggests that today, in commercially available marijuana of 2025, there is little to no reason to believe that something with a more couchlock kind of high is Indica dominant, or that anything with a more upbeat high is Sativa dominant. These labels are used to describe the high and effects, but taxonomy deals with far more than just that. Plants with narrow leaves are not necessarily Sativa dominant, and plants with fat leaves are not necessarily Indica dominant. The words Indica and Sativa have a taxonomical and scientific meaning, and their usage in common vernacular disregards that completely and assigns a completely ambiguous and incredibly flexible meaning to both of them.
Super Silver Haze is not a Sativa. Kosher Kush is not an Indica. Sativas and Indicas have long ceased to exist in the modern ganja scene. Extensive cross-breeding between “Sativa”and “Indica”in the past 40 years has rendered their distinctions almost meaningless in today’s marketplace. Plants should be identified by their chemical fingerprint, ideally a series of cannabinoids and their relative percentages, rather than characterizations such as “Sativa-dominant”, “Indica-dominant”, or a whimsical strain name of an individual’s choosing.
- 1 The Cannabis sativa Versus Cannabis indica Debate: An Interview with Ethan Russo, MD
- 2 : Cannabis Confusions – PMC
- 3 Cannabis: an Example of Taxonomic Neglect
- 4 Leaf Variation Among Cannabis Species from a Controlled Garden
- 5 A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)
- 6 Characterisation of Cannabis accessions with regard to cannabinoid content in relation to other plant characters
- 7 Constituents of Cannabis sativa L. XI: Cannabidiol and Cannabichromene in Samples of Known Geographical Origin
- 8 Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica versus “Sativa” and “Indica”