Table of Contents
A recent LinkedIn thread highlighted growing frustration with the absurdity of many cannabis strain names. As the industry matures, establishing a rational taxonomy and classification system is becoming crucial.
The Time is Now for Sensible Cannabis Taxonomy
As the cannabis industry continues its meteoric growth into the mainstream, a rising chorus of voices argues for the establishment of a rational, scientifically-grounded taxonomy and classification system for categorizing the plant’s diverse varieties. From medical efficacy to consumer education to interstate commerce, the lack of standardized frameworks for discussing and regulating cannabis poses a mounting hindrance to further progress.
“Strain names mean absolutely nothing to me anymore,” said John Nathan, CEO of Massachusetts cannabis company Bay State Extracts, in a recent LinkedIn discussion highlighting some of the taxonomy troubles facing the industry. Nathan described his disillusionment with ever-more fanciful and obscurantist strain monikers based on pop culture trends and shock value rather than identifiable properties.
A Marketing and Messaging Minefield
For those like Nathan on the business side of the nascent cannabis trade, the explosion of exotic strain names – from “Zombie Muffins” to “Tittysprinkles” – has created a marketing and messaging minefield. Faced with promoting products labelled with such cartoonish or unsavory titles, many companies opt not to share strain names at all in their consumer messaging.
Medical cannabis patients and adult-use buyers encounter similar confusion navigating the crowded shelves of dispensaries filled with strangely-named varieties. With little authoritative information linking cryptic strain names to expected effects, flavors or benefits, purchasing decisions become guesswork.
This confusion stems directly from the lack of an orderly, scientifically rigorous taxonomy for classifying different cannabis varieties in a way that provides meaningful guidance to consumers. Central questions of categorization remain unsettled, including:
Sativa vs. Indica vs. Hybrid – This traditional delineation between “up” and “down” varieties has proven unreliable as a predictor of actual effects.
THC vs. CBD – The relative proportions of key cannabinoids offer some guidance on likely effects, but fail to capture the plant’s full complexity.
Strain Lineage – Tracking ancestry back to “landrace” varieties provides context for breeders but little consumer insight.
Without consensus standards for documenting and communicating what distinguishes any given cultivar, extravagant names and apocryphal backstories have rushed in to fill the vacuum.
The Call for Sensible Taxonomy
In online discussions and industry conferences, a consensus has emerged that the cannabis industry urgently requires exactly what the Cannabis Framework Project set out to achieve; the establishment of a sensible taxonomy firmly rooted in legitimate plant science.
Only by cataloging, analyzing and organizing the dizzying array of existing varieties against a backdrop of real biochemical, genetic and agronomic data can accurate systems emerge for grouping plants by medical usage, quality consistency and more.
“Properly categorizing cannabis requires studying growing conditions and techniques alongside chemical composition,” Hippy explained, familiar with the work underway to map the gaps preventing sensible cannabis taxonomy. “Factors like terpenes, nutrients, lighting, growing medium, watering techniques, elevation, region and more allow strains to be grouped by potential medical usage and psychoactive effect."
Essentially, the cannabis plant needs a taxonomy as orderly and useful to consumers as existing systems for categorizing wine, coffee, hops or any other agricultural product. Just as labels like “IPA,” “light roast” or “Merlot” instantly convey critical data, cannabis needs reliable terminology allowing medical patients and casual consumers alike to understand a product before purchase.
The Path to Legitimacy and Unity
Establishing such a rational taxonomy would mark a major milestone in cannabis’ journey from the margins of society toward mainstream acceptance and legitimacy.
Standardized labeling protocols would facilitate interstate commerce, international trade and reliable clinical research. In turn, preserved genetic lineages would still honor pioneering breeders and seed hunters. Most importantly, medical patients and adult consumers alike could make informed decisions and confident purchases.
For this to become reality, the industry must prioritize factual precision over myth and hype moving forward. Through dedicated analysis of cannabis genetics, composition and agronomics, the true spectrum of this complex plant can be mapped scientifically and categorized methodically.
Hand in hand with more sophisticated analytics, the inconsistent “hazy” status quo can give way to clarity. Order can emerge from chaos just as legitimate medical potential can displace cultural stigma. Perhaps most transformative, the entire cannabis supply chain from farmers to producers to retailers can begin speaking about products in a unified vocabulary that informs users rather than confusing them.
Barriers and Bottlenecks
Yet significant obstacles remain before consistent cannabis taxonomy becomes reality. Even basic questions of defining individual cultivars lack consensus, before even delving into proper documentation of lineage, genetics, and measurable qualities.
At present, a major bottleneck exists around data and analytics. While sophisticated labs employ cutting-edge chromatography, mass spectrometry, genetic sequencing and more to profile cannabinoid and terpene contents down to parts per million, no infrastructure exists to centralize, standardize and compare findings across the still-nascent industry.
Field-level agronomics and environmental factors remain similarly uncodified into any usable format for classification purposes. Inconsistencies in data collection, measurement standards and reporting methodologies effectively silo much of the existing research.
Establishing universal standards for cannabis analytics will thus be a critical first step toward enabling data-driven taxonomy. Multidisciplinary collaboration will be essential, requiring botanists, chemists, growers, regulators and data architects to align around shared protocols.
From there, massive amounts of reliable new data can fuel development of robust classification models. Machine learning algorithms can map connections and clusters across millions of data points from lab reports, field studies and commercial production.
Turning cannabis taxonomy into an “operating system” for the entire industry will require broad buy-in and participation. But the long-term gains for medical efficacy, consumer trust and business efficiency make the investment worthwhile for all stakeholders.
The Destination is Clear, the Route Uncertain
Universal agreement exists on where the cannabis industry needs to arrive in its pursuit of legitimacy – a future where discussing, labeling and regulating cannabis relies on hard science rather than inventive nicknames and stoner lore.
The route to reach this destination remains unfinished, winding through gaps in research, commercial obstacles and lingering cultural attitudes.
Yet pioneers from across cannabis science and business see a turning point approaching as momentum builds for sensible taxonomy. The structures and leaders that emerge to galvanize unified standards around documenting, analyzing and categorizing cannabis varieties will play a pivotal role in driving the next chapter of growth for the industry.
With so much potential to unlock – better clinical applications, streamlined interstate commerce, demystified consumer experiences – the greatest hazard may be maintaining the status quo of inconsistency and confusion. The time for cannabis to adopt the marking of an established agricultural sector draws near. But the window for bold ideas and visionary projects remains open.
Cannabis Framework Newsletter
Join the newsletter to receive the latest updates in your inbox.