Afghani#1: inquiry about genes, pics and report

im sure its 100% indica, i think its supposed to be the closest strain to an original afghani.

thanks for answering guys! but u gave me opossite answers! so i'm not sure what to think.. The thing is that i'm fed up with skunks, nowadays everything has been crossed with skunk, i understand  sensi seeds is not gonna sell it's landraces, that's completely understandable, but it would be better if in this case for example they just crossed the afghani strains with another indica, instead of skunk... according to the description on the website, it's supposed to be a 100% indica, but sensi seeds never specifies the percentage of indica/sativa, so, who knows... Regards from argentina!

A few grow reports recently have shown Afghani with a greater height jumps and slightly slimmer leaves than one might expect from a 'pure' Indica. The buds at the end of those grows are solid, clustered Indica tops.

Afghani #1 has no Skunk in it, as far as I know or can tell from growing.
Shiva Shanti 1, for instance, does have a good portion of Skunk in its makeup (along with two Afghanis), and the difference between this and A#1 is quite clear. 
Shiva Shanti grows taller and while the buds are Indica solid, they have inherited a lot of Sativa 'run' from the Skunk parent and take up more of the stem. They're neither airy nor fluffy, but they are not distinct clusters in the same way as A#1. The pistils on Shiva Shanti are longer and silkier like a Sativa and more numerous (due to the fact that the calyxes are smaller on average, therefore more of them make up a given bud)

Afghani #1 is made from at least two different Afghanica parents, possibly more.

I think the mistake here is thinking that Afghani cannabis comes in only one form, or indeed is a land-race. Afghanis strains that have filtered through to the west (and the majority that are farmed in their land of origin) are cultivars, not land-races.

This means they have been selectively bred for generations (or decades, or centuries) to enhance the traits that are most valued by the growers in their local area, while also responding to the different climates in those areas. Plants with desired qualities that express themselves most successfully in a given climate are the ones that are used to make seed stock for the next year.

Land-races are wild, uncultivated strains of cannabis that are typically very low in THC.

Broadly speaking, much of the cannabis grown in Afghanistan is for a similar purpose - making hashish (I don't think Afghanis smoke much charas tabak as they call herbal cannabis. they say it "sickens the lungs and maddens the brain"). Therefore, many of the qualities farmers select for are the same, or have been laid down since time immemorial. This means a majority of Afghani cannabis shares a majority of traits.

However, it doesn't mean that every Afghani genotype is the same kind of stocky, wide-bladed, dark green classic Indica.
Afghanistan is enormous, with a range of climates and (especially in the Kush) micro-climates. More than half of the country is part of the Hindu Kush mountain range, and most of the famous cannabis-growing regions are here, but of course weed is grown all over the country, including the plains further to the south.

The real bottleneck of Afghani genotype is here in the west, where only a few particularly successful lines have come to form the basis of most Indica hybrids.
There is a lot more to be found in the country of origin, dozens, if not hundreds of local variants in form and flavour. Through decades of collecting, and the merging of the Sensi Seed Club with The Seed Bank around 1990, Sensi Seeds has a wider Afghanica collection than anyone we’re aware of (outside Afghanistan itself).

One problem in the cannabis community in general is that virtually every line that is thought of as a distinct variety is subjectively identified through groups of observed features, rather than true genetic traits. Real genetic analysis of different cannabis genotypes is just beginning, and until now we've been relying on outdated (and often half understood, due to the underground nature of this community) taxonomy.

It's a subject for a much longer post, but the distinctions between Indica and Sativa, as used in the medicinal/psychoactive cannabis community are becoming next to meaningless.
 
The only really relevant thing a strain's leaning towards 'indica' or 'sativa' has to tell the grower is how much height it's likely to gain in flower, how long flowering takes and a rough guide to the yield. Even those three things are quite subjective (depending on grower, environment and each individual plant-from-seed) and everything else - potency, nature of effect, flavour, general appearance - are extremely subjective.

Robert Connell Clarke (author of Marijuana Botany and Hashish!) opines that there's no such thing as a THC-rich Sativa; if it produces resin, it's either a broad bladed Indica or a narrow bladed Indica. 

This seems accurate,  but the distinction is at least partly based  on the taxonomy of Lamarck and Linnaeus.