White Widow: Cultivar Profile With Sources, Lineage Claims and Lab Data Limits
White Widow is a long-running Dutch-origin cannabis name with a disputed breeder story, one small terpene dataset and one small oil trial. See the sources and the limits.
Content last updated . This page has not been medically reviewed.
Documented data at a glance
Source status: Includes documented laboratory measurements. Names and market labels do not guarantee composition or effects, and a batch result is not a typical value for the cultivar.
- Preferred name
- White Widow
- Aliases
- Arnhem's Wonder (claimed earlier name), Black Widow (name used for the original genetics at another seed company, per an encyclopedia)
- Name conflicts
- A seed-variety database lists 79 entries under White Widow. A research genome assembly named White Widow B also exists.
- Breeder attribution
- Scott Blakey (Shantibaba) at Green House Seed Company per an encyclopedia; a quote on the Green House Seeds page credits Ingemar (De Sjamaan) in 1987. (Disputed)
- Retail label
- Hybrid (retail label) (a marketing category, not a measurement)
- Cannabinoid dominance
- THC-dominant
Reported lineage
- Brazilian sativa x South Indian indica. (Reported; source: Wikipedia contributors. White Widow (cannabis)). Encyclopedia entry (attributed source with limits, not evidence of composition or effect). Read 2026-10-22.)
- Genetics listed as Brazilian and South Indian. (Reported; source: SeedFinder. White Widow by Green House Seeds. Seed-database entry with the company's description (attributed source with limits). Read 2026-10-22.)
Laboratory measurements: cannabinoids
Maryland (6 analytes)
dataset (Maryland flower, N=72 samples; test dates 2018-02-05 to 2022-09-20; median of 56 samples with a value). Laboratory: lab ID 1101 (57); lab ID 6401 (8); lab ID 2501 (6); lab ID 1201 (1). Dates: 2018-02-05 to 2022-09-20. Method: not reported in dataset. Source: Cannlytics. cannabis_results dataset, data/md/md-results-latest.csv (Maryland lab/regulator results, 105,013 rows; flower rows product_type 'Buds'; test dates 2017-12 to 2023-12). Licence CC BY 4.0. Read 2026-10-22.
| Analyte | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | 0 | 0 | 0.02 |
| CBDA | 0 | 0 | 0.15 |
| CBG | 0 | 0 | 0.139 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0.081 |
| Delta-9 THC | 0.3 | 0 | 2.68 |
| THCA | 16.6 | 7.9 | 29.82 |
Values are percent by weight as inferred from the dataset (the source does not label units per column). The median is calculated from the dataset; minimum and maximum are reported.
Hawaii (5 analytes)
dataset (Hawaii flower, N=39 samples; test dates 2019-01-08 to 2022-10-27; median of 39 samples with a value). Laboratory: not reported in dataset (39). Dates: 2019-01-08 to 2022-10-27. Method: not reported in dataset. Source: Cannlytics. cannabis_results dataset, data/hi/hi-results-latest.csv (Hawaii, 13,485 rows; flower rows product_type 'Flower Lot'). Licence CC BY 4.0. Read 2026-10-22.
| Analyte | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CBDA | 0.04 | 0 | 0.13 |
| CBG | 0.09 | 0 | 0.19 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total cannabinoids | 19 | 12.72 | 27.2 |
Values are percent by weight as inferred from the dataset (the source does not label units per column). The median is calculated from the dataset; minimum and maximum are reported.
Nevada (7 analytes)
dataset (Nevada flower, N=127 samples; test dates 2020-01-10 to 2022-03-10; median of 127 samples with a value). Laboratory: CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC (113); 374 LABS LLC (8); G3 LABS LLC (4); DPL NV LLC (1) .... Dates: 2020-01-10 to 2022-03-10. Method: not reported in dataset. Source: Cannlytics. cannabis_results dataset, data/nv/nv-results-latest.csv (Nevada, 153,064 rows; flower rows product_type 'Marijuana Flowers/Buds'; test dates 2020-01 to 2023-12). Licence CC BY 4.0. Read 2026-10-22.
| Analyte | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CBDA | 0.09 | 0 | 0.16 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Delta-9 THC | 0.46 | 0.096 | 0.76 |
| THCA | 27.94 | 20.83 | 36.18 |
| Total cannabinoids | 28.5 | 21.54 | 36.68 |
| Total THC | 24.96 | 18.93 | 32.14 |
Values are percent by weight as inferred from the dataset (the source does not label units per column). The median is calculated from the dataset; minimum and maximum are reported.
| Analyte | Value | Scope | Sample / batch | Laboratory | Test date | Method | Reported or calculated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | 0.51 mg/mL | single batch | same oil preparation | not stated | not stated | not stated | reported |
| THC | 24.44 mg/mL | single batch | cannabis oil (olive oil extraction), not flower, labeled White Widow variety, used in a fibromyalgia trial | not stated | not stated | not stated | reported |
| CBC | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| CBC | 0.17 % of flower dry weight | dataset (N not stated in source; mean, SD 0.03 as printed; greenhouse-grown, dried, uncured, 50-65 days after light induction) | not reported in source | Rio Grande Analytics (described as licensed medicinal Cannabis testing laboratory) | not reported in source | Acetone extraction, GC-FID | reported |
| CBD | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| CBD | 0 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) | reported |
| CBD | 0.07 % of flower dry weight | dataset (N not stated in source; mean, SD 0.00 as printed; greenhouse-grown, dried, uncured, 50-65 days after light induction) | not reported in source | Rio Grande Analytics (described as licensed medicinal Cannabis testing laboratory) | not reported in source | Acetone extraction, GC-FID | reported |
| CBDA | 0.1 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) | reported |
| CBG | 0.19 % of flower dry weight | dataset (N not stated in source; mean, SD 0.03 as printed; greenhouse-grown, dried, uncured, 50-65 days after light induction) | not reported in source | Rio Grande Analytics (described as licensed medicinal Cannabis testing laboratory) | not reported in source | Acetone extraction, GC-FID | reported |
| CBN | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| THC | 18.7 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) | reported |
| THC (Δ9-THC) | 0.161 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| THCA | 20.1 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) | reported |
| THCV | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| Δ9-THC | 15.63 % of flower dry weight | dataset (N not stated in source; mean, SD 0.91 as printed; greenhouse-grown, dried, uncured, 50-65 days after light induction) | not reported in source | Rio Grande Analytics (described as licensed medicinal Cannabis testing laboratory) | not reported in source | Acetone extraction, GC-FID | reported |
| Δ9-THCV | 0.05 % of flower dry weight | dataset (N not stated in source; mean, SD 0.01 as printed; greenhouse-grown, dried, uncured, 50-65 days after light induction) | not reported in source | Rio Grande Analytics (described as licensed medicinal Cannabis testing laboratory) | not reported in source | Acetone extraction, GC-FID | reported |
| CBC | 0.17 % flower dry weight | dataset (greenhouse-grown plants, n=3-9 per strain per paper figure legend, exact N not in table; mean, SD 0.03) | Table 3 inflorescence | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source (plants sampled 50-65 days after light induction) | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| CBD | 0.07 % flower dry weight | dataset (greenhouse-grown plants, n=3-9 per strain per paper figure legend, exact N not in table; mean, SD 0.00) | Table 3 inflorescence | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source (plants sampled 50-65 days after light induction) | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| CBG | 0.19 % flower dry weight | dataset (greenhouse-grown plants, n=3-9 per strain per paper figure legend, exact N not in table; mean, SD 0.03) | Table 3 inflorescence | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source (plants sampled 50-65 days after light induction) | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| THC | 15.63 % flower dry weight | dataset (greenhouse-grown plants, n=3-9 per strain per paper figure legend, exact N not in table; mean, SD 0.91) | Table 3 inflorescence | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source (plants sampled 50-65 days after light induction) | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| THCV | 0.05 % flower dry weight | dataset (greenhouse-grown plants, n=3-9 per strain per paper figure legend, exact N not in table; mean, SD 0.01) | Table 3 inflorescence | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source (plants sampled 50-65 days after light induction) | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
Each row describes the stated sample or dataset only. Composition varies between batches. Sources are listed in the page references.
Laboratory measurements: terpenes
Nevada (11 terpenes)
dataset (Nevada flower, N=127 samples; test dates 2020-01-10 to 2022-03-10; median of 123 samples with a value). Laboratory: CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC (113); 374 LABS LLC (8); G3 LABS LLC (4); DPL NV LLC (1) .... Dates: 2020-01-10 to 2022-03-10. Method: not reported in dataset. Source: Cannlytics. cannabis_results dataset, data/nv/nv-results-latest.csv (Nevada, 153,064 rows; flower rows product_type 'Marijuana Flowers/Buds'; test dates 2020-01 to 2023-12). Licence CC BY 4.0. Read 2026-10-22.
| Terpene | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| alpha-Bisabolol | 0.17 | 0.018 | 0.28 |
| alpha-Humulene | 0.16 | 0.05 | 1.27 |
| alpha-Pinene | 0.034 | 0.019 | 0.04 |
| beta-Caryophyllene | 0.66 | 0.41 | 1.14 |
| beta-Myrcene | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.19 |
| beta-Pinene | 0.05 | 0.036 | 0.14 |
| Caryophyllene oxide | 0.023 | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| D-Limonene | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.5 |
| Linalool | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.18 |
| Terpinolene | 0.09 | 0.007 | 0.17 |
| Total terpenes | 1.55 | 0.96 | 2.93 |
Percent by weight as inferred from the dataset. The median is calculated; minimum and maximum are reported. A terpene is listed only when the dataset gave a value above zero.
| Terpene | Value | Scope | Sample / batch | Laboratory | Test date | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| alpha-humulene | 870 ug/g | single batch | inflorescence sample supplied under the name White Widow by Nongboo Mind, Seoul; reported +/- 80 | study authors' laboratory (not further identified in the text read) | not reported | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 100 C for 30 min incubation |
| alpha-pinene | 64 ug/g | single batch | inflorescence sample supplied under the name White Widow by Nongboo Mind, Seoul; reported +/- 3 | study authors' laboratory (not further identified in the text read) | not reported | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 100 C for 30 min incubation |
| beta-caryophyllene | 3300 ug/g | single batch | inflorescence sample supplied under the name White Widow by Nongboo Mind, Seoul; reported +/- 400 | study authors' laboratory (not further identified in the text read) | not reported | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 100 C for 30 min incubation |
| beta-pinene | 110 ug/g | single batch | inflorescence sample supplied under the name White Widow by Nongboo Mind, Seoul; reported +/- 10 | study authors' laboratory (not further identified in the text read) | not reported | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 100 C for 30 min incubation |
| limonene | 150 ug/g | single batch | inflorescence sample supplied under the name White Widow by Nongboo Mind, Seoul; reported +/- 30 | study authors' laboratory (not further identified in the text read) | not reported | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 100 C for 30 min incubation |
| myrcene | 2000 ug/g | single batch | inflorescence sample supplied under the name White Widow by Nongboo Mind, Seoul; reported +/- 1000 | study authors' laboratory (not further identified in the text read) | not reported | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 100 C for 30 min incubation |
| 3-Carene | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Bisabolol | 0.051 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) |
| d-Limonene | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| D-Limonene | 0.195 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) |
| Guaiol | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Humulene | 0.032 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) |
| Limonene | 150 µg/g | single batch (one supervised sample; mean +/- SD 30, replicate count not extracted) | Table 4 inflorescence | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University (Seoul) per author affiliation | not reported in source | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 50 mg fresh sample |
| Limonene | 150 µg/g | single batch (inflorescence, replicate count not stated; ± 30 as printed, undefined in source) | not reported in source | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul | not reported in source | Headspace GC/MS, calibration with authentic standards |
| Linalool | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Linalool | 0.006 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) |
| Myrcene | 2000 µg/g | single batch (one supervised sample; mean +/- SD 1000, replicate count not extracted) | Table 4 inflorescence | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University (Seoul) per author affiliation | not reported in source | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 50 mg fresh sample |
| Myrcene | 2000 µg/g | single batch (inflorescence, replicate count not stated; ± 1000 as printed, undefined in source) | not reported in source | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul | not reported in source | Headspace GC/MS, calibration with authentic standards |
| Nerolidol | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Ocimene | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Terpinolene | 0.004 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| trans-Nerolidol | 0.034 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) |
| α-Humulene | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| α-Humulene | 870 µg/g | single batch (one supervised sample; mean +/- SD 80, replicate count not extracted) | Table 4 inflorescence | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University (Seoul) per author affiliation | not reported in source | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 50 mg fresh sample |
| α-Humulene | 870 µg/g | single batch (inflorescence, replicate count not stated; ± 80 as printed, undefined in source) | not reported in source | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul | not reported in source | Headspace GC/MS, calibration with authentic standards |
| α-Pinene | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| α-Pinene | 0.032 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) |
| α-Pinene | 64 µg/g | single batch (one supervised sample; mean +/- SD 3, replicate count not extracted) | Table 4 inflorescence | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University (Seoul) per author affiliation | not reported in source | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 50 mg fresh sample |
| α-Pinene | 64 µg/g | single batch (inflorescence, replicate count not stated; ± 3 as printed, undefined in source) | not reported in source | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul | not reported in source | Headspace GC/MS, calibration with authentic standards |
| α-Terpinene | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| β-Caryophyllene | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| β-Caryophyllene | 0.106 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) |
| β-Caryophyllene | 3300 µg/g | single batch (one supervised sample; mean +/- SD 400, replicate count not extracted) | Table 4 inflorescence | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University (Seoul) per author affiliation | not reported in source | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 50 mg fresh sample |
| β-Caryophyllene | 3300 µg/g | single batch (inflorescence, replicate count not stated; ± 400 as printed, undefined in source) | not reported in source | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul | not reported in source | Headspace GC/MS, calibration with authentic standards |
| β-Myrcene | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| β-Myrcene | 0.093 % (as printed; w/w basis not stated) | dataset or batch (N and batch not reported in source) | Table 4 | not reported in source | not reported in source | not reported in source (Table 4 lists compounds analysed) |
| β-Pinene | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| β-Pinene | 110 µg/g | single batch (one supervised sample; mean +/- SD 10, replicate count not extracted) | Table 4 inflorescence | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University (Seoul) per author affiliation | not reported in source | headspace GC-MS (HS-GC/MS), 50 mg fresh sample |
| β-Pinene | 110 µg/g | single batch (inflorescence, replicate count not stated; ± 10 as printed, undefined in source) | not reported in source | College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul | not reported in source | Headspace GC/MS, calibration with authentic standards |
| γ-Terpinene | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #71 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
White Widow is a cannabis cultivar (commonly called a strain) with a long public history. This page keeps apart the name, the stories about who bred it, laboratory measurements and research. It is information only. Evidence labels used here: "promising but limited" means a small positive study; "Proper evidence not found" means we looked and found nothing usable.
Identity and breeder attribution
White Widow is described as Netherlands-bred.[1] An encyclopedia entry says it was created and developed by Scott Blakey (known as Shantibaba) while he worked at the Green House Seed Company, and that the strain won a Cannabis Cup in 1995.[1] The same entry says the original White Widow was renamed Black Widow when Blakey moved his genetics to another seed company.[1]
That attribution is contested. A page from the Green House Seeds company itself carries a quote from a person named Arjan, who says a different breeder, Ingemar (De Sjamaan), developed the plant in 1987 under the name Arnhem's Wonder, and that Arjan bought a male and female in 1992 and only crossed them in 1994.[2] We therefore record the breeder as disputed. See lineage claims and breeder attribution. A seed-variety database lists 79 entries under the White Widow name,[2] so a plant sold under the name may come from many sources. See also cultivar names, aliases and conflicts.
Reported lineage
Both the encyclopedia entry and the Green House Seeds page report a Brazilian sativa and a South Indian indica as the parents.[1][2] Both are descriptions rather than verified records, so we label the lineage "reported." A research genome assembly named White Widow B exists and is described as a Type I cultivar,[3] but that assembly says nothing about whether a plant sold under the name is the same plant.
Classification
Labels differ. The encyclopedia calls it a balanced hybrid.[1] The seed company page lists it as mostly indica.[2] A Thai laboratory study listed its sample as "C. indica" and stressed that strain names are commercial names.[4] In user-review data from one large strain website, White Widow was among the ten most-reviewed strains as of December 2023.[5] That shows popularity, not composition. See what hybrid means and why labels do not predict effects.
Aroma and constituents
One peer-reviewed study measured terpenes in samples supplied under the name White Widow by a South Korean company, with the authors stating the plants were government-supervised hybrid cannabis.[6] Using headspace gas chromatography with mass spectrometry, they reported these amounts for the flower sample, in micrograms per gram, as a value plus or minus the reported spread:[6]
| Terpene | Reported value (micrograms per gram) |
|---|---|
| Beta-caryophyllene | 3300 ± 400 |
| Myrcene | 2000 ± 1000 |
| Alpha-humulene | 870 ± 80 |
| Limonene | 150 ± 30 |
| Beta-pinene | 110 ± 10 |
| Alpha-pinene | 64 ± 3 |
This is a single sample, not a dataset, and the paper gives no test date. The authors note that leaf and flower terpene makeup differed substantially even within White Widow.[6] Beta-caryophyllene was the most abundant of the terpenes they quantified in the White Widow flower.[6] These numbers cannot be used as a standard. See terpenes in cannabis.
Potency
We did not find flower batch data with a sample ID, laboratory, test date and method. A company page lists cannabinoid percentages for its version, but gives none of those details, so we do not repeat them. The only measured figures we found are for an oil: in a Brazilian clinical trial, the cannabis oil made from a plant called White Widow was reported to contain 24.44 mg/mL THC and 0.51 mg/mL CBD.[7] That is one oil preparation, not flower, and the authors did not analyze its terpenes.[7] Composition varies; see how to read a cannabis COA.
Reported experiences
The seed company describes a relaxing feel that turns into a bursting sativa high.[2] That is a seller-side description and anecdote, not research.
Research
Evidence level: promising but limited, for one use, in one oil. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial gave 17 women with fibromyalgia the White Widow-labeled THC-rich oil or a placebo for eight weeks.[7] Scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire fell more in the cannabis group than in the placebo group, with gains in "feel good," pain, ability to do work and fatigue, while the placebo group improved on depression, and the authors reported no intolerable adverse effects.[7] The authors say longer studies are needed.[7] The oil was a non-standardized preparation, so these results cannot be transferred to flower, other oils or other products. For the wider picture see cannabis for chronic pain.
Safety
THC can impair thinking, memory and body movement, and anxiety or panic are more common when a product is strong.[8] Read impairment and driving and when to seek urgent help.
Frequently asked questions
Who created White Widow?
It depends on the source. An encyclopedia credits Scott Blakey; the Green House Seeds page carries a quote crediting a different breeder from 1987.[1][2]
What is White Widow's lineage?
Reported as a Brazilian sativa crossed with a South Indian indica. This is a claim, not a verified record.[1][2]
Does research show White Widow helps fibromyalgia?
One 17-person trial of one oil found larger improvement than placebo on a questionnaire score. It is small and not about flower.[7]
How much THC does White Widow flower have?
Verified flower batch data was not available to us, so we give no figure. Check any product's own lab report.
References
- Wikipedia contributors. White Widow (cannabis)). Encyclopedia entry (attributed source with limits, not evidence of composition or effect). Read 2026-10-22.
- SeedFinder. White Widow by Green House Seeds. Seed-database entry with the company's description (attributed source with limits). Read 2026-10-22.
- Cull, Joly et al. Development and validation of a minimal SNP genotyping panel for the differentiation of Cannabis sativa cultivars. BMC Genomics 2025;26. Read 2026-10-22.
- Janta et al. Chemical profiling and clustering of various dried cannabis flowers revealed by volatilomics and chemometric pattern recognition. Journal of Cannabis Research 2024;6. Read 2026-10-22.
- Yoon et al. Surveillance of Cannabis Strains Using Online Data: Observational Study. JMIR Formative Research 2026;10. Read 2026-10-22.
- Lee S, Kim EJ, Kwon E, et al. Identification of Terpene Compositions in the Leaves and Inflorescences of Hybrid Cannabis Species Using Headspace-Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Molecules 2023;28(24):8082. Read 2026-10-22.
- Chaves, Bittencourt et al. Ingestion of a THC-Rich Cannabis Oil in People with Fibromyalgia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Pain Medicine 2020;21. Read 2026-10-22.
- National Institute on Drug Abuse. Cannabis (Marijuana). Read 2026-10-22.