Cataract Kush and Galaxy Walker OG: myrcene versus nerolidol within the same THC range

How do these two strains really differ?

The leading terpene and the state of documentation of the composition. 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 within 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. Therefore, the difference does not lie in the fact that one dried flower contains 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 sales data, 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 characteristic.

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, while Galaxy Walker OG comes 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 its continuation would be guessing based on the 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. Therefore, it is a weaker signal than it seems, because such a wide family does not define sibling relationships. The field of kinship between both sides of this pair remains empty, and this is a correct result, not a gap in the data.

The quality of the origin record is different, though. The pedigree of Cataract Kush notes the seed bank with the breeder DNA Genetics. For Galaxy Walker OG, the same two parent names are provided by two commercial sources describing the Tilray position, and the producer's pages with such information could not be found.

How well documented are both profiles?

Unevenly, 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 it 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 descriptions of the genetics also diverge: sometimes indica, sometimes hybrid. Neither of these two versions is confirmed because 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 align.

This is why we do not provide shares in percentages. I summed them up in the list from which they come: for Cataract Kush, it totals 94 percent, while for two of the four positions of Galaxy Walker OG, it totals 102 percent. A result above one hundred is not a 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, some with a lower, some with a higher nominal declaration. 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, after accounting for 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 this range appears with both names because the list has gathered several entries under one name. Therefore, the same number on both sides of the comparison does not say anything about the difference between the strains.

The registration name does not distinguish them either. The entry is recorded as Cannabis flos with the producer's name and declared content, without the strain name, which means that the lower entry from S-LAB sounds the same for both. The strain name lives in the commercial material, not in the registry, 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 deviate from it. That is why we do not quote it separately: the bare number returns exactly to where all the caution originated, which is the impression of measurement. Two packages under the same trade name may come from entries with different declarations, and the decisive factor is the record on the package, not the strain name.

What is known, and what is not known about the effects of both 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 dried flower. The rest, meaning the descriptions of effects associated with the strain name, is either seller material or patient reports.

On the side of Cataract Kush, myrcene is listed first, and the most has been gathered about it. In mice, after intraperitoneal injection, a decrease in locomotor activity and an extension of sleep induced by pentobarbital were described (PMID:12587690), in another mouse model, a weakening of pain responses, alleviated 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 dried 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 ingredient, three versus two. Neither side has evidence of effects in humans, so transferring conclusions from one strain to another would have no basis.

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

Equally fast or equally slow, because 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 stated honestly is the ranges describing the method of administration, which are the same for both names.

The route of administration determines the course more than the variety 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 raw material first passes through the intestine and liver, so the first sensations are awaited from half an hour to two hours, and the episode can last six, sometimes eight hours. Hence the most common mistake with oral administration: anyone who thinks nothing is happening after thirty minutes and takes another dose will receive both doses at once. The above ranges describe the route of administration, not this variety; pharmacokinetic studies for a single cultivar have not been published.

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

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

Individually, nothing has been reported for any of them, as the reporting system does not use the strain name. On both sides of this pair, there are four registration entries from three manufacturers, and the report is linked to a specific product and batch number, not the trade name.

Reports of adverse effects are collected for medicinal products with a batch number, not for the strain name, so the following pertains to hemp dried flower as a group of raw materials. The most frequently reported symptoms are dry mouth, red eyes, and increased heart rate. Dizziness upon rapid standing, daytime drowsiness, and temporary worsening of short-term memory are less frequently described, 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 just the description of the plant. We do not provide the frequency of these symptoms numerically, as public compilations for hemp dried flower in Poland do not separate them by individual products.

Comparing the number of reports for two trade names would thus be comparing the popularity of entries in the registry, not the safety of one plant against another. Under each of these names are four entries and many batches, so a symptom attributed to a strain name essentially 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?

Uneven and variable. In the registry 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 the data was collected, not the property of the strain or the decision of the attending physician.

Availability changes faster than any text about the strain. The permit for admission has its deadline, the manufacturer withdraws an entry or changes the supplier of the raw material, and the pharmacy orders what is currently available in the warehouse. A compilation 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 same three manufacturers are on both sides, so the absence of one entry does not predict anything for the other, even from the same manufacturer.

We maintain the current status of the entire cluster in the compilation of strains currently available in pharmacies, and the separate pages of both strains elaborate on their profiles more broadly: the strain page Cataract Kush oraz strona odmiany Galaxy Walker OG. We describe the profile components along axes: myrcene i nerolidol. Galaxy Walker OG also appears in comparison with the strain Lilac Diesel, where on the other side stands terpinolene instead of myrcene.

A completely different category, which can be confusing when searching, is the store category dried flower from industrial hemp 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 both sides of the same parent, OG Kush, but the other parent is different: LA Confidential versus Skywalker OG. The common part of the pedigree also includes other names in this cluster, so it does not make these two strains siblings by itself.

Which of them is stronger?

According to the declarations, neither. The THC content describes the same range of 16.2-24.2% for both names, as there are four registered entries for each with two different nominal declarations. Comparing strength would require a comparison of specific packages, not trade names.

Does the difference in profile translate to different effects?

It is unknown. The studies that can be cited concern individual components given to mice, not dried flower with a specific profile. Transferring their results to the entire strain would be a conclusion that none of these publications support.

Why don't you provide the percentages of the profile shares?

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

Which of these two strains is better documented?

Neither, though for different reasons. The composition of Cataract Kush is described by one source and cannot be compared with anything. 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 dried flower from industrial hemp with cannabidiol is a different product from a different category and does not share registration with these entries.

Hemp flower is a pharmaceutical raw material dispensed by a doctor's prescription in the Rpw category. The material is for informational purposes only and does not replace medical advice or the decisions of the attending physician. Editorial text: redakcja ubucha.pl.