Cataract Kush and Galaxy Walker OG: myrcene vs nerolidol with the same THC range

• Profile. Cataract Kush leads with myrcene, Galaxy Walker OG leads with nerolidol.
• Availability. Both are supplied by S-LAB, Synoptis Pharma, Tilray, so one order can cover both.
• Origin. The lineage of both is established.
• What this table does not say. It does not include the declared content as a single number or price. Which strain is suitable for whom is determined by the attending physician, not by the feature comparison.

What do these two strains really differ in?

In the leading terpene and the state of composition documentation. In the list for Cataract Kush, myrcene takes the first place, while for Galaxy Walker OG, it is nerolidol. Both sides have their THC content described in the same range, and they are supplied to pharmacies by the same trio of producers, so the difference cannot be reduced to a number on the package.

The ingredient list of one of them is entirely contained within the list of the other. For Cataract Kush, the source lists six items: myrcene, caryophyllene, limonene, pinene, linalool, and humulene. For Galaxy Walker OG, the same six plus bisabolol and nerolidol. The difference is not that one strain has something that the other does not, but rather in the order of shares and the two additional items.

This order is not a measurement of the batch that the patient receives at the pharmacy. It is a ranking from the sales summary, not the result of an analysis of a specific package. The aroma description for Cataract Kush leans towards earthy and herbal, with sweetness and a woody note; for Galaxy Walker OG, the description is spicy and piney, with a minty accent. Both come from the seller, not from an analytical sheet, so they are closer to a commercial label than to a strain feature.

What connects them?

A common parent and a common pharmacy shelf. The pedigree chart places OG Kush on both sides: Cataract Kush comes from a cross with LA Confidential, Galaxy Walker OG from a cross with Skywalker OG. Both reach Polish pharmacies from the same three producers, with four registration entries for each name.

However, the common branch breaks off one generation higher. In the same chart, OG Kush has an origin marked as unknown, and neither LA Confidential nor Skywalker OG have their own pedigree entries. This line does not lead further than the name of the common parent, and adding a continuation would be guessing by name.

The same parent also appears in the cluster outside this pair: OG Kush is also in the pedigree of Chemango Kush and Girl Scout Cookies. This is a weaker signal than it seems, as such a wide family does not define siblings. The field of kinship for both sides of this pair remains empty, and this is a correct result, not a gap in the data.

However, the quality of the pedigree record is different. The pedigree of Cataract Kush is noted in the seed database at the breeder DNA Genetics. For Galaxy Walker OG, the same two parent names are provided by two commercial sites describing the Tilray entry, and the producer’s sites with such information could not be found.

How well documented are both profiles?

Inequally, and this is the most interesting difference here. The composition of Cataract Kush is described by one source, so there is nothing to compare it with. The composition of Galaxy Walker OG is described by two sources, but they differ from each other, so a comparison exists and reveals a discrepancy.

The discrepancy can be named by the ingredients. One of the two sources lists humulene, linalool, and pinene for Galaxy Walker OG, while the other does not mention them at all, and the genetic descriptions also diverge: once indica, once hybrid. Neither of these two versions is confirmed, as confirmation would require two records stating the same thing.

For Cataract Kush, the problem is the opposite and not any smaller. The record comes from one list, and no one has independently repeated it, so the lack of contradiction does not mean agreement between two sources, only the absence of a second voice. This results in a pair where one side has an unverifiable description, and the other has two descriptions that do not converge.

Hence, we do not provide shares in percentages. I summed them in the list from which they come: for Cataract Kush, it comes out to 94 percent, and for two of the four entries of Galaxy Walker OG, 102 percent. A result above one hundred is not rounding, but proof that the denominator of this table is not the entirety of the sample.

Where does the identical THC content range on both sides come from?

From the composition of two separate declarations, not from the range of one. On each side of this pair, there are four registration entries from three producers in the list, some with lower, some with higher nominal declarations. The range given with the full name includes both, so it is broader than any single record.

The calculation looks the same on both sides. The lower declaration gives, considering the allowable deviation of the producer, a THC content in the range of 16.2-19.8%, the higher 19.8-24.2%, and combined they give 16.2-24.2%, and such a range appears with both names because the list has gathered several entries under one name. The same number on both sides of the comparison therefore says nothing about the difference between the strains.

The registration name also does not distinguish them. The entry is recorded as Cannabis flos with the producer’s name and declared content, without the strain name, so the lower entry from S-LAB sounds the same for both. The strain name lives in the commercial material, not in the register, and it creates the impression that one is choosing between two different medicines.

The number in the entry name is a declared value, and the allowable deviation describes how far the actual content in the series can stand from it. Therefore, we do not quote it separately: the bare number returns exactly to where all the caution came from, which is the impression of measurement. Two packages under the same trade name may come from entries with different declarations, and the record on the package, not the strain name, determines this.

What is known, and what is not known about the effects of both these strains?

No clinical study has been published for either of them. Only studies on individual components of the profile can be cited, conducted on mice and with administration that has little in common with vaporizing the flower. The rest, i.e., descriptions of effects with the strain name, are seller material or patient reports.

On the side of Cataract Kush, myrcene is first in the list, and it has been the most studied. In mice, after intraperitoneal injection, a decrease in motor activity and an extension of sleep induced by pentobarbital were described (PMID:12587690), in another mouse model, a weakening of pain responses, reversed by naloxone (PMID:1983154), and in a study with inhaled vapors, an anxiolytic effect in females (PMID:39728677). In humans, it has not been shown that myrcene alone alleviates insomnia at doses typical for inhaling flower. The direction of the effect in rodents depends on the route of administration and sex: after intraperitoneal injection in 2002, a slightly anxiogenic effect was described, and after inhalation in 2024, an anxiolytic effect in females. These two results do not cancel each other out; they show that the conclusion depends on conditions that no popular strain database provides.

On the side of Galaxy Walker OG, nerolidol takes the first place, and there are two studies on it, both on mice. The first describes fewer abdominal cramps after acetic acid and lower levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (PMID:26791997), the second a longer latency to seizures induced by pentylene tetrazole after oral administration (PMID:42447923). It has not been shown that nerolidol alleviates anxiety or insomnia in humans; both available studies concern rodents and describe analgesic, anticonvulsant, and antioxidant effects, not sleep or mood.

Thus, the entire difference in the state of evidence comes down to the number of studies on the leading component, three versus two. Neither side has evidence of effects in humans, so transferring the conclusion from one strain to the other would have no basis.

How long does it take for one to start working, and how long for the other?

Equally fast or equally slow, as the speed is determined by the method of administration, not the name on the package. For neither of these two strains is there a specific pharmacokinetic measurement, so the only thing that can be honestly provided is the ranges describing the method of administration, which are the same for both names.

The method of administration determines the course more than the strain itself. After vaporization, the substance passes from the lungs to the blood almost immediately, so the first sensations appear after a few minutes, the intensity increases for another ten to thirty minutes, and the whole effect lasts for two to four hours. After ingestion, the material first passes through the intestine and liver, so the first sensations are waited for from half an hour to two, and the episode lasts six, sometimes eight hours. Hence the most common mistake with oral administration: anyone who thinks after thirty minutes that nothing is happening and takes another dose will receive both doses at once. The above ranges describe the method of administration, not this strain; no pharmacokinetic studies for a single cultivar have been published.

The difference in the profile does not change anything in this calculation, as no one has measured the duration of effects separately for flower with myrcene in the first place and separately for flower with nerolidol. Anyone looking for a resolution between these two names will not find it in the time course.

What adverse effects have been reported for each of these two strains?

Separately, nothing has been reported for either, as the reporting system does not use the strain name. On both sides of this pair, there are four registration entries from three producers, and a report is associated with a specific product and batch number, not with the trade name.

Reports of adverse effects are collected for a medicinal product with a batch number, not for a strain name, so the following pertains to cannabis flower as a group of raw materials. The most commonly reported effects are dry mouth, red eyes, and increased heart rate. Less frequently described are dizziness upon rapid standing, daytime drowsiness, and temporary worsening of short-term memory, as well as anxiety that increases with dosage. A separate issue is medications taken concurrently, especially sedatives and those affecting coagulation: their assessment requires knowledge of the entire list of preparations, not the description of the plant. We do not provide the frequency of these symptoms numerically, as public compilations for cannabis flower in Poland do not separate them by individual products.

Comparing the number of reports for two trade names would therefore be comparing the popularity of the entry in the list, not the safety of one strain against the other. Under each of these names stand four entries and many batches, so a symptom attributed to the strain name actually describes one package. What happens when taking other preparations concurrently is determined by the attending physician, who knows their full list, not the commercial description of the strain.

What is the availability of both strains in pharmacies?

Inequally and variably. In the list from which this data comes, two of the four entries for Cataract Kush had high availability, while for Galaxy Walker OG, one entry out of four. This state describes the moment of data collection, not the property of the strain or the decision of the attending physician.

Availability changes faster than any text about the strain. The approval for admission has its deadline, the producer withdraws an entry or changes the raw material supplier, and the pharmacy orders what is currently in stock. A comparison that today shows two available entries on one side may show zero on both in a month, with no change in the plant itself. The trio of producers is the same on both sides, so the lack of one entry does not predict anything for the other, even from the same producer.

The current state of the entire cluster is maintained in the list of strains currently available in pharmacies, and separate pages for both of these strains elaborate on their profiles more broadly: the strain page Cataract Kush and the strain page Galaxy Walker OG. The individual profile components are described on the axes: myrcene and nerolidol. Galaxy Walker OG also appears in the comparison with the strain Lilac Diesel, where on the other side stands terpinolene instead of myrcene.

A completely different shelf, confusing when searching, is the store category hemp flower with cannabidiol: this is an over-the-counter product that is not a pharmaceutical raw material described on this page.

Frequently asked questions about these two strains

Do Cataract Kush and Galaxy Walker OG belong to the same family?

Partially. The pedigree chart shows the same parent, OG Kush, on both sides, but the second parent is different: LA Confidential versus Skywalker OG. The common part of the pedigree in this cluster also includes other names, so it does not make these two strains siblings by itself.

Which one is stronger?

By declarations, neither. The THC content describes the same range of 16.2-24.2% for both names, as there are four registration entries with two different nominal declarations in the list. Comparing strength would require comparing specific packages, not trade names.

Does the difference in the profile translate to different effects?

Unknown. The studies that can be cited concern individual components given to mice, not flower with this or that profile. Transferring their results to the entire strain would be a conclusion that none of these publications supports.

Why do you not provide shares in the profile in percentages?

Because the denominator is unknown. Summed shares from the same list give 94 percent for Cataract Kush and 102 percent for two entries of Galaxy Walker OG. A value above one hundred determines that this is not a share of the whole, so the number would appear to be a measurement, which it is not.

Which of these two strains is better documented?

None, though for different reasons. The composition of Cataract Kush is described by one source and has nothing to compare it with. The composition of Galaxy Walker OG is described by two sources, but they do not provide the same information. The lack of contradiction on the first side is therefore not confirmation.

Is either of them available over the counter?

No. Both are pharmaceutical raw materials dispensed by a doctor’s prescription in the Rpw category. The over-the-counter hemp flower with cannabidiol is a different product from a different shelf and does not share a common registration with these entries.

Cannabis flower is a pharmaceutical raw material dispensed by a doctor’s prescription in the Rpw category. The material is informational and does not replace medical advice or the decision of the attending physician. Editorial text: editorial team ubucha.pl.