Misconception about Hawaiian & Polynesian cultivar diversity (or lack thereof)?

[sɥɐʞɐs]

It seems the suggestion has been made that the Hawaiians and some of the Polynesian cultures en route to Hawai'i only brought with them the most prized, kavain-rich, easy-to-drink cultivars and deliberately shunned high DHM varieties. While this certainly seems to be true at present, judging by the most common varieties currently available to us from these regions, does this following quote suggest it was not always the case:

The research for this book was done in 1980's and '90s. So, only a few short decades ago it was acknowledged that there are cultivars from Hawai'i and other Polynesian islands that are equal to cultivars from Melanesia (Vanuatu/New Guinea) and are blatantly low in Kavain and extremely high in DHM and DHK. Being that this was only 20-30 years ago, it's probably safe to assume that if you extrapolate back even further, there was even more diversity in cultivars/chemotype groups in regions you wouldn't currently think so...or at least that these less common varieties, for the region, were once more common. Who knows what was lost to time, western contact, missionary bans, weather patterns and cultural changes.

 

[Zac Imiola (Herbalist)]

I could see as the western style took over Hawaii that it became more productive based .. heady kava being easier to work with, I do assume that may have something to do with it

 

[Alia]

It seems the suggestion has been made that the Hawaiians and some of the Polynesian cultures en route to Hawai'i only brought with them the most prized, kavain-rich, easy-to-drink cultivars and deliberately shunned high DHM varieties. While this certainly seems to be true at present, judging by the most common varieties currently available to us from these regions, does this following quote suggest it was not always the case:

View attachment 8468​

The research for this book was done in 1980's and '90s. So, only a few short decades ago it was acknowledged that there are cultivars from Hawai'i and other Polynesian islands that are equal to cultivars from Melanesia (Vanuatu/New Guinea) and are blatantly low in Kavain and extremely high in DHM and DHK. Being that this was only 20-30 years ago, it's probably safe to assume that if you extrapolate back even further, there was even more diversity in cultivars/chemotype groups in regions you wouldn't currently think so...or at least that these less common varieties, for the region, were once more common. Who knows what was lost to time, western contact, missionary bans, weather patterns and cultural changes.

That Economic Botany (E.B) paper 53 (4) pp. 407-418 had very up to date testing technique and DNA, HPLC, etc. analysis to conclude that the earliest Polynesian voyagers brought 1 or 2 cultivars as Canoe Plants from the Marquesses and from there it is somatic mutations unique to Hawai'i. Cultivar- Omoa seems to be related to a Hawaiian cultivar (I think it is Mahakea). It may be that the differences are in more advanced technique of analysis since the E.B. results keep being supported as more anaysis confirms the original late 1999 results. High kavain. There are fun theories that the women did the early selections so they could better tolerate the men.

 

[kastom_lif]

 

[sɥɐʞɐs]

That Economic Botany (E.B) paper 53 (4) pp. 407-418 had very up to date testing technique and DNA, HPLC, etc. analysis to conclude that the earliest Polynesian voyagers brought 1 or 2 cultivars as Canoe Plants from the Marquesses and from there it is somatic mutations unique to Hawai'i. Cultivar- Omoa seems to be related to a Hawaiian cultivar (I think it is Mahakea). It may be that the differences are in more advanced technique of analysis since the E.B. results keep being supported as more anaysis confirms the original late 1999 results. High kavain. There are fun theories that the women did the early selections so they could better tolerate the men.

In the case of there possibly being only two 'origin' plants brought to Hawai'i, do you suspect that one was kavain-rich and the other DHM-rich? Or, speculatively, could it have been they were both kavain-rich, but as mutations arose some began to turn back around to DHM-heavy chemotype profiles?

 

[_byron]

For your reading pleasure
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/135/4/I1547-3465-02-019.pdf
Most of this is over my head but seems to pertain to this subject. Thought I throw it out there for people that have not seen it before

 

[Alia]

View attachment 8469

I think this is an example of out-of-date data where, at that time, they did not even know the Hawaiian name. The method used in the 1999 paper shows consistent '4' as the primary KL.

 

[Alia]

In the case of there possibly being only two 'origin' plants brought to Hawai'i, do you suspect that one was kavain-rich and the other DHM-rich? Or, speculatively, could it have been they were both kavain-rich, but as mutations arose some began to turn back around to DHM-heavy chemotype profiles?

Honestly I do not know. Except that Mahakea and "Apu" (Papa Kea) showed distinct DNA bands compared to all other Hawaiian cultivars. Both are - 462 ... KL, on average.
Mahakea, I suspect is the one most close to the original Canoe Plant-- that is just my speculation.

 

[kastom_lif]

I think this is an example of out-of-date data where, at that time, they did not even know the Hawaiian name. The method used in the 1999 paper shows consistent '4' as the primary KL.

The listed morphotypes of "Oahu 242" and "Oahu 236" are 5344102 and 3111102. Maybe somebody can figure out what named Hawaiian cultivars these are?

These codes stand for A.C.I.L.E.P.S, that is...

A: General appearance. 3 is prostrate, 5 is average height, 7 is tall.

C: Stem coloring: 1 pale green, 2 dark green, 3 green with purple shading, 4 purple, 4 black

I: Internode configuration: 1 uniform, 2 mottled, 3 speckled, 4 striated and mottled

L: Leaf coloring: from 1 pale green, through dark green, to 5 purple

E: Lamina edges: 1 undulate, 2 raised, 3 drooping, 4 regular

P: Leaf pubescence: 1 present, 0 absent

S: Internode shape: 1 short and thick, 2 long and thin, 3 long and thick

"Oahu 242" has a morphotype of 5344102: medium habit, stems green with purple shading, dark green/purplish leaves, undulate leaf edges, no pubescence, long thin internodes.

"Oahu 236" has a morphotype of 3111102: low habit, pale green stems, smooth internodes, pale green leaves, undulate leaf edges, no pubescence, long thin internodes.

Compare those morphotypes to the descriptions at http://www.kavalibrary.com/Hawiian--Awa.html. They don't match ANY of the modern Hawaiian ʻawas.

 

[kastom_lif]

Oh, and on the next page of "Kava the Pacific Elixir" there are four more mystery Hawaiian cultivars.

@Alia, @Gourmet Hawaiian Kava, do these morphotypes resemble anything you've seen?

 

[kastom_lif]

Also, I'd like to point out that in the timeframe where "Kava the Pacific Elixir" was written, other cultivars like Isa were not yet widespread in Hawaii. Isa came to Hawaii in Dr. Lebot's very own canoe... well, in his airplane. I think the good doctor would be able to tell PNG cultivars apart from the "Oahu xxx" mystery cultivars surveyed in Hawaii

Finally, why are all these cultivars called "Oahu?" Most of the noble Hawaiian ʻawa seems to come from the Big Island. Hanakapiʻai being an outlier from Kauaʻi, and if you've ever drunk it, it sure does have a particular "difference."

Maybe the old time Oʻahu native Hawaiians liked more of a jungle krunk? Or maybe "Kava the Pacific Elixir" simply has untrustworthy appendices? Maybe menehunes just messing with us?

 

[sɥɐʞɐs]

The Marquesan cultivar Omoa, hypothesized to be the parent of Hawai'i's Mahakea, happens to also be listed among the Group E Chemotypes.

I also see Rahmwanger from Micronesia on the list, as well as some from Tonga and Wallis/Futuna...

 

[kastom_lif]

Yup. I'd be curious to see how modern Akau Huli tests out, compared to the chemotype in Lebot's old book.

Maybe we also oughta get some Rahmwanger to @Deleted User.

 

[Alia]

Oh, and on the next page of "Kava the Pacific Elixir" there are four more mystery Hawaiian cultivars.

View attachment 8470

@Alia, @Gourmet Hawaiian Kava, do these morphotypes resemble anything you've seen?

I think O'ahu 237 is Papa Kea, aka 'Apu. I remain skeptical of the KL profiles, for the Hawaiian cultivars, in this 1992 book.
The later ones done for the 1999 Economic Botany paper seem to consistently contradict the 1992 data.
KL testing after the E.B. paper reflect the results of that 1999 paper even when done at different labs.
I don't know why the "O'ahu numbering" is so inconsistent in morphology, etc.

 

[kastom_lif]

I think O'ahu 237 is Papa Kea, aka 'Apu. I remain skeptical of the KL profiles, for the Hawaiian cultivars, in this 1992 book.
The later ones done for the 1999 Economic Botany paper seem to consistently contradict the 1992 data.

Thanks! Yeah I've always been skeptical of the chemotypes in "Kava the Pacific Elixir" but couldn't prove it one way or another.

But, if Lebot's old chemotype groups date from this earlier era with flawed data, how come later publications still refer to those chemotype groups? Cultivars like Papa Kea, Rahmwanger, Akau and Akau Huli sure seem "noble" by the preponderance of modern reviews from drinkers... yet look at those scary chemotypes.

And if membership in a "chemotype group" is based on flawed chemotyping from back in 1992, well...

 

[verticity]

These are the chemotypes given in "Origin and Distribution" (1989). The striking thing is almost all of the Hawaiian chemotypes are nothing like what we think of as a normal Hawaiian 46-ish or 24-ish chemotype. They are also completely different from the Tongan and Samoan chemotypes, although there are also a couple oddball ones from Wallis and the Marquesas. So I guess it's possible that prior to the 1990's there was almost nothing but tudei growing in Hawaii. The other possibility, and what I had always assumed, is that the results for Hawaiian kavas in this early work are simply not reliable.

The specific sources of the Hawaiian samples ("Lyon Arb[oretum]" and "Lau's House") do seem to suggest that they were not gathered in the field, and might not be representative of all the awa growing in Hawaii:

*Lyon Arboretum is the arboretum at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. I'm not sure who Lau is, possibly a professor there? Also, the last column in the above table is KL%. It appears the Uni arboretum was growing some killer root...

 

[Alia]

Thanks! Yeah I've always been skeptical of the chemotypes in "Kava the Pacific Elixir" but couldn't proI agree 100%or another.

But, if Lebot's old chemotype groups date from this earlier era with flawed data, how come later publications still refer to those chemotype groups? Cultivars like Papa Kea, Rahmwanger, Akau and Akau Huli sure seem "noble" by the preponderance of modern reviews from drinkers... yet look at those scary chemotypes.

And if membership in a "chemotype group" is based on flawed chemotyping from back in 1992, well...

Yes, I agree, mostly, except the Economic Botany paper is referenced a whole lot too in later publications.

 

[sɥɐʞɐs]

"Joel Lau", presumably from O'ahu...is this guy known to you @Alia or @Gourmet Hawaiian Kava ?

He could be interesting to talk to about his samples...as well as whoever was running Lyons Arboretum back then.

Edit:

...so maybe Joel is on the big island, or at least some of his collection is.

 

[verticity]

Origin and Distribution also says this about the origin of the samples:

Which explains why the samples are not named. It does seem a little odd that Lebot couldn't find anyone with local knowledge to tell him what the cultivars were called.

 

[verticity]

EDIT: I just noticed Shakas already posted this...

I found this master's thesis on the UHawaii site which contains a lot of great information about the history of awa in Hawaii:

http://www.awadevelopment.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/kw-awa-thesis.pdf

and explains who Joel Lau is:

(This paper actually lists some cultivars named "Joel Lau 2", "Joel Lau 6", etc...)

The thesis, from 2004, mentions that chemotype analyses were underway, but does not give chemotypes. It does go into great detail about the morphology. So I wonder if there has been any follow-up on this.