Short answer. Treat "A x B" as a claim and attach the strongest evidence you have. A name alone is L0. A sourced community report is L1. The certified breeder's own statement is L2. An archivist-accepted document from the time (catalogue, dated post, patent, lab certificate) is L3. A genomic report consistent with the parent-child relationship is L4. Crosses recorded on GenetixBay as they happen carry a separate "witnessed" flag.
What's happening
Cannabis lineage history is mostly oral. Genetic studies show names and reported ancestry often don't match the DNA [3]. GenetixBay doesn't try to declare one "true" story. It records each claim, who made it, the evidence attached and any conflicting claims, in an append-only history (platform spec §6) [1].
The evidence ladder
| Level | Name | What it takes | Who can set it |
|---|---|---|---|
| L0 | Unverified | A name or anonymous assertion | Anyone |
| L1 | Community reported | A member's claim with a source: dated forum post, photo of an old pack | Rep ≥25 |
| L2 | Breeder reported | The certified breeder of the line asserts it | GB-BRD owner |
| L3 | Documented | A GB-DOC accepted by an archivist: era catalogue, patent, plant breeders' rights filing, lab certificate (for chemotype claims) | Archivist (rep ≥500 or staff) |
| L4 | Lab-confirmed | Genomic report attached, parent/child relationship consistent | Staff archivist with lab report as GB-DOC |
Rules to know [1]:
- A record shows the highest accepted level, with the number of conflicting claims beside it.
- Levels change only through events; nothing is deleted.
- A verified breeder account is shown separately from verified genetics. A certified breeder can still make an L2 claim that turns out wrong.
- Witnessed lineage (witnessed=true): when both parents are GB-IND/GB-CUT records and the pollination event is logged on the platform at the time, parentage is machine-verifiable within the platform's records. It is a distinct flag, not a substitute for L4 DNA confirmation.
What makes good evidence
| Evidence | Strength | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Name on a menu or seed shop page | Weak (L0-L1) | Copies spread errors |
| Dated original forum post by the breeder, at the time | L1-L3 depending on acceptance | Archive the page (snapshot) and record the URL and date |
| Photo of an original pack or catalogue | L1, L3 if accepted with provenance | Show date, batch, maker |
| Breeder's own journal with dated photos | L2, stronger if logged live | Live GenetixBay journals carry server timestamps |
| Patent or plant breeders' rights filing | L3 | Formal, dated public record |
| Lab certificate of analysis | L3 for chemotype claims only | Not evidence of parentage; labs vary [5] |
| Genomic parentage report | L4 | Must show consistency for the specific parent and child samples [2] |
Step by step: documenting a new cross (BRD-510 practical)
- Before pollinating, make sure both parents exist as GB-IND or GB-CUT records with photos.
- Log the
pollinationevent on the day: female ID, male ID, date, branch. - Create the GB-BAT at harvest: seed count, feminised/regular, storage.
- Attach tests as GB-DOCs: germination, sex check, chemotype.
- Register the GB-GEN with LIN claims to the parents (L2 as a certified breeder, plus the witnessed flag).
- Optional L4: send leaf samples from the parents and several offspring to a genotyping lab; attach the report.
Step by step: documenting an old (heritage) line
- Collect every source: dated posts, catalogues, magazine articles, interviews, pack photos.
- Separate first-hand (the breeder, at the time) from second-hand (later retellings).
- Submit each as a separate claim with its own evidence. Conflicting claims sit side by side.
- Request archivist review for L3.
- If living material exists, compare its DNA to other samples sold under the same name (see genotyping).
Disputes
Any member with rep ≥25 can dispute a claim with a reason and evidence. The claimant has 14 days to respond; a three-person panel rules upheld, overturned or unresolved. Losing claims are marked disputed or superseded, never deleted, and there is one appeal [1].
Common mistakes
- Treating a lab THC certificate as proof of parentage.
- Citing a seed shop's description of someone else's line.
- Uploading screenshots without URL and date.
- Raising your own line's level by repeating your own claim across accounts (this is a moderation offence).
Evidence
- Claims-and-evidence structure: GenetixBay policy [1].
- DNA parentage analysis principles: Established [2].
- Mismatch between names and DNA: Supported [3].
- Naming and publication principles: Established [4].
