Pine next to terpinolene: Island Sweet Skunk and Lilac Diesel under the same registration name

How does Island Sweet Skunk differ from Lilac Diesel?

The leading terpene and origin. In Island Sweet Skunk, pine takes the first place, while in Lilac Diesel, it is terpinolene, and these are two completely different scents. The first strain has an undefined pedigree, while the second has been described by the breeder with respect to four parental lines. The declared THC content is the same for both.

The priority of the terpene is not a minor editorial detail, as it begins every strain description and organizes it in pharmacy listings. Pine is responsible for the scent of conifer needles and freshly cut wood, while terpinolene adds a floral note with a sour accent. On this one point, both plants diverge the most, as no other field in the available data distinguishes them as clearly.

The second difference concerns origin. Lilac Diesel has a pedigree announced by the Ethos Genetics breeding, leading to four lines: Silver Lemon Haze, Forbidden Fruit, NYC Cherry Pie, and Citral Glue, with public descriptions stating it as a cross of crosses, not a simple combination of four plants. In contrast, the pedigree graph of Island Sweet Skunk carries the value undefined. This is not a gap to be filled: available descriptions attribute two mutually exclusive versions of origin to this strain, one leading through Skunk #1, the other through the haze line, and the breeder has not confirmed either.

The third difference is formal and says more about the market than the plant. The genetic label for Island Sweet Skunk states sativa in one source, hybrid in another; for Lilac Diesel, there are as many as three variants of the same category in circulation. This is a commercial description, not a result of laboratory designation. The full profiles of both plants stand separately, in the text about Island Sweet Skunk and in the text about Lilac Diesel.

What connects these two strains besides sharing the same pharmacy shelf?

Manufacturers and registration name. Both strains are supplied to Polish pharmacies by the same three companies: S-LAB, Synoptis Pharma, and Tilray. Both go under the same medicinal product names, both have the same declared THC content range, and for both, two sources provide different compositions.

The registered name does not belong to the strain, but to the manufacturer. Under the entry Cannabis flos S-LAB, both plants are listed; the same applies to the entries for Tilray and Synoptis Pharma. The patient learns which strain they received only from the packaging label, as the product name itself does not clarify this. Registered names carry a number, but we present them here without this component, as such a number is a value declared by the manufacturer, not measured in the batch.

This is where the range comes from, which looks the same for both: THC is within the range of 16.2-24.2%. This is not a discrepancy of a single declaration. Separate registered entries exist for nominal values of eighteen and twenty-two percent, each with its own permissible deviation from the declared value. The first gives 16.2-19.8%, the second 19.8-24.2%, and the combination of both results in this wide range. The same arithmetic applies to each of the two strains, so the number does not distinguish them in any way.

The set of compounds is also common. Seven names are repeated in the descriptions of both strains: bisabolol, humulen, caryophyllene, limonene, myrcene, pinene, and terpinolene. Island Sweet Skunk adds nerolidol and ocimene, while Lilac Diesel adds linalool. However, this commonality is a community of two uncertain lists, not two measurements, as the sources differ in composition for both strains. Which entries are currently available in the market is shown by a summary of available strains.

What exactly do the sources state about the composition of each of them?

Two Polish databases describe both strains and provide a different set of compounds for each. For Island Sweet Skunk, the discrepancy includes four names, and for Lilac Diesel, also four, although not the same ones. None of these descriptions result from batch testing, but are transcribed tables from the supplier.

For Island Sweet Skunk, the sources differ in composition in four places: humulen, limonene, myrcene, and ocimene appear only in one of the two descriptions. Common are pinene, caryophyllene, terpinolene, nerolidol, and bisabolol, with the order also not being the same, as one database lists names alphabetically while the other in an order it considers descending.

For Lilac Diesel, the sources also differ in composition, but the differing quartet looks different: bisabolol, humulen, limonene, and myrcene appear on one side. On both sides are terpinolene, caryophyllene, pinene, and linalool, with terpinolene being mentioned first in both descriptions, which is the only point where both sources agree unconditionally.

We do not provide percentage shares for these names, and the reason is mathematical. For the entry Island Sweet Skunk, the numbers listed by the database sum up to 88 once and to 67 another time; for Lilac Diesel, it comes to 58. Three different totals for two plants from the same source mean that it is unclear what these shares refer to. As long as the total remains unknown, the percentage placed next to the compound name is a typographic embellishment, not a result of batch testing.

How do both strains smell and where do these descriptions come from?

From the seller's description, not from the laboratory. Island Sweet Skunk appears in the database as mango with mint and a resinous background, while Lilac Diesel is described as citrus with lavender and a sharp fuel note. Both records are sensory, made by a human on one batch, so they only roughly repeat.

The description of Island Sweet Skunk adheres to what is listed in the profile. The pine note follows pinene, the peppery note follows caryophyllene, and the sweet, fruity note follows ocimene and myrcene, with the latter two compounds mentioned by only one of the two sources. The skunky impression, from which the name derives, has no counterpart in the terpene profile: it is caused by sulfur compounds, which Polish databases do not list at all.

Lilac Diesel consists of two distant impressions. The floral, lavender side of the scent is sometimes associated with linalool, which is mentioned in this profile by both sources, while the sharp, solvent-like side is linked to the diesel strain family, from which the plant inherited the second part of its name. However, the name speaks of expectation, not composition: none of the compounds listed in the profile corresponds to the scent of elderberry, to which the first part refers.

None of these descriptions is a promise. The scent changes with the batch, with storage conditions, and with how long the dried flower has been open, and the most volatile compounds dissipate faster than the rest of the material. Two sources describing the same strain can provide a different set of notes, which is evident in both of these plants.

After how long do both strains start to take effect and how long does it last?

The same, because the course is determined by the method of administration, not the name on the packaging. Neither for Island Sweet Skunk nor for Lilac Diesel has a separate study on the duration of effects been published, so the only thing that can be stated honestly are the ranges described for inhalation and oral administration.

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.

For this pair, a simple conclusion follows: the difference in the terpene profile does not shift any of the above boundaries. The method of administration is determined by the attending physician, as both entries are dispensed by prescription, not chosen by the patient independently.

What has been demonstrated for pinene and terpinolene, and what has not?

Not much, and separately for each side. For pinene, there are two studies: one on mice, the other on cell culture. For terpinolene, there are also two, with the same level of evidence. None have been conducted on patients, and none concern the entire strain, only individual compounds isolated from it.

On the side of Island Sweet Skunk, there are two studies on pinene. Yang et al., 2016, Molecular Pharmacology, PMID:27573669, rodent model (mouse, oral administration): Orally administered (-)-alpha-pinene prolonged NREM sleep time in mice and shortened sleep latency (EEG/EMG recording), acting as a partial modulator binding directly to the benzodiazepine site of the GABA-A receptor, without affecting the intensity of NREM sleep or the duration of REM sleep. The second study is by Kim et al., 2015, The American Journal of Chinese Medicine, PMID:26119957, test tube model (mouse peritoneal macrophages, culture): Alpha-pinene reduced the secretion of IL-6, TNF-alpha, and nitric oxide in cultured mouse peritoneal macrophages stimulated by LPS, as well as the expression of iNOS and COX-2, by inhibiting the MAPK and NF-kB pathways. No anxiolytic or analgesic effects of pinene have been demonstrated in humans; available data only concern its effect on sleep in mice after oral administration and its anti-inflammatory action on mouse macrophages in culture.

On the side of Lilac Diesel, studies concern terpinolene. Ito and Ito, 2013, Journal of Natural Medicines, PMID:23339024, rodent model (mouse, inhalation): Inhaled terpinolene exhibited sedative effects in mice; the effect was also maintained in mice with impaired olfaction, indicating that the action occurred after the compound was absorbed into the body through the nose, not solely through the perception of smell. Okumura et al., 2012, Oncology Letters, PMID:22740904, test tube model (human K562 cell line): Terpinolene reduced the level of AKT1 protein and inhibited the proliferation of human K562 leukemia cells in culture; the study did not concern pain, sleep, or anxiety. No effects of terpinolene on pain, anxiety, or sleep have been demonstrated in humans or in any animal pain model; available data only include sedative effects after inhalation in mice and effects on the leukemia cell line in vitro.

Aside from these four studies, there remains the relationship of patients and the seller's material. Separate compilations of studies about pinenie and about terpinolenie are found in texts dedicated to these compounds.

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

Separately, nothing has been reported for either of them, as the safety monitoring system does not recognize strain names. Reports are attributed to the medicinal product with a batch number, and under the same registered name, both plants are listed here, so it is impossible to separate reports between one and the other.

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.

A varying number of reports would not be evidence of a difference in safety, even if someone counted them. It depends on how many packages of a given item have entered circulation and how long that item has been available. At the time of data collection, Island Sweet Skunk had not a single entry marked as available in the database, while Lilac Diesel had three, so the observation field is different for them.

What do the boiling points of pinene and terpinolene say about vaporization?

Less than is usually written. The public database provides the boiling temperature for both compounds measured together with pressure, but the dried flower is not a pure terpene, and the setting of the device does not equal the temperature of the material in the chamber. Therefore, the number itself does not indicate what will evaporate from a specific portion.

For pinene, the PubChem database states 156.2 degrees Celsius at a pressure of 760 mm Hg, and for terpinolene, 184 degrees under the same conditions. Both compounds belong to six out of eleven terpenes in this project for which the database provides such a pair of numbers at all. For the remaining five, the record is either without pressure or does not exist at all, so comparing them in one column yields incomparable numbers.

For Island Sweet Skunk, four out of nine listed compounds do not have a comparable number in the database, while for Lilac Diesel, two out of eight. Therefore, comparing both profiles based on boiling temperature is incomplete from the outset, regardless of how accurately someone conducts it.

The boiling point describes the pure compound in the flask, not the resin in which the terpene is dissolved along with the rest of the ingredients. Additionally, the vaporizer setting does not equal the temperature of the dried flower, which is separately discussed in the text about the difference between the device's setting and the temperature of the material.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do Island Sweet Skunk and Lilac Diesel have the same terpene composition?

No. Seven names are repeated in the descriptions of both strains, but Island Sweet Skunk additionally has nerolidol and ocimene, while Lilac Diesel has linalool. The first place is held by a different compound: pinene versus terpinolene.

Why do both strains have identical THC content ranges?

Because the range does not describe the plant, but a set of registered items. For both strains, there are items with a nominal value of eighteen and a nominal value of twenty-two percent, and combining their allowable deviations gives the same wide range.

Does pinene act differently than terpinolene?

This has not been tested on humans for either of them. Available studies are conducted on mice and in cell cultures and concern a single compound, not the entire strain, in which this compound constitutes a fraction of the composition.

Is either of these two strains stronger?

Nothing in the declarations suggests that. Both are listed under the same registered names and have the same declared THC content range, so the difference in potency cannot be inferred from this data.

Where does each of these strains come from?

Lilac Diesel has a lineage announced by the Ethos Genetics breeding and leads to four lines. For Island Sweet Skunk, available descriptions provide two conflicting versions of its origin, so in this comparison, the lineage remains undetermined.

Is store-grade dried flower the same as these two strains?

No, it's a different category. In the store category, the dried flower is hemp flower with cannabidiol, sold over the counter, while both strains described in this text are pharmaceutical raw materials dispensed by a doctor's prescription in the Rpw category.

Hemp flower is a pharmaceutical raw material dispensed by a doctor's prescription in the Rpw category. The material is for informational purposes and does not replace the advice of a healthcare provider. The editorial text was prepared by redakcja ubucha.pl.