Home › Strains › MAC #77
⚐ Flag an error How this page was made

MAC #77

A numbered phenotype selection with limited documented provenance and disputed lineage.

Sourced and fact-checked
6 cited sources
Published
Last reviewed
How this page was made

Growing, buying or possessing cannabis and seeds is legal only in some places. Check the law where you live before acting on this information.

↯ The honest take

MAC #77 is a name circulating in grower networks, but no official breeder record, seed bank, or company has documented it. The '#77' designation—common for phenotype selections—doesn't guarantee that two plants sold under this name are the same plant. Before buying, check the lab report (COA), not the number. Generic MAC chemistry applies; strain name predicts effects poorly.

What we could verify

MAC #77 circulates primarily as a cloned cutting through grower networks. It is attributed to the Miracle Alien Cookies (MAC) line, which Capulator (a California-based breeder) introduced in the late 2010s. The original MAC was reported as (Alien Cookies F2) × (Colombian × Starfighter) [1].

However, no official breeder record, seed bank, lab report, or company documentation for 'MAC #77' specifically could be located. No strain database, dispensary chain, or verified grower publication lists an official lineage, cannabinoid profile, or terpene breakdown for this pheno-code. The name exists primarily in casual online forums and Instagram-based grower communities.

Why the '#77' designation is not proof of identity

Phenotype selection by number is standard breeder practice: a seed run produces dozens or hundreds of plants, and standouts are kept by number for tracking. However, Strong evidence that same numbering system creates a critical problem for buyers: the same number can be used by different breeders, re-applied to unrelated seed pops, or attached to cuts that have drifted genetically over multiple generations of cloning [1].

Cannabis clone lineage is notoriously unreliable Strong evidence. Cuts get renamed, mislabeled, or reissued from unrelated crosses [2]. Unless you are buying directly from a verified source with documented chain of custody back to the original selector, a numbered pheno designation alone does not guarantee you are receiving the same plant Strong evidence[2].

This is not unique to MAC #77—it applies to any clone-only strain. The name is only reliable if backed by a specific grower, a dated lab report, or a seed company's official documentation.

What to check if you see MAC #77 for sale

If a dispensary or seller offers MAC #77, ask for and verify:

  1. Certificate of Analysis (COA): A certificate-of-analysis-coa from a licensed lab showing THC%, CBD%, and terpene profile is the only objective measure of what you are buying. The number on the package is not Strong evidence.
  1. Breeder or grower name: Who produced this cut? Is there a verifiable record or Instagram account with batch history? One-off sellers without documentation history are higher risk for mislabeled product Strong evidence.
  1. Lab report date: Fresh COAs (within 3–6 months of sale) are more reliable than old ones, as cannabinoid content can degrade Strong evidence.
  1. Visual and aroma inspection: These matter for subjective quality, but they do not confirm strain identity or potency. Buy on COA and known source, not on appearance alone.

If the seller cannot provide a COA or breeder identity, the product is either unlicensed or of unknown provenance. That does not mean it is unsafe, but it means the strain name is unverified.

If you are interested in similarly marketed modern hybrids with stronger documentation, consider:

Each of these has clearer breeder or seed-bank attribution than MAC #77. The MAC family itself (the parent line) has more widespread documentation than individual pheno-codes.

Why strain names predict effects poorly

A critical reminder: Strong evidence no clinical trials exist on MAC #77, or on any specific cannabis strain, for effects [3]. Everything in online reviews is user-reported and subject to placebo, expectancy, dose, tolerance, and setting Strong evidence[4].

More broadly, strain name alone is a weak predictor of effects Strong evidence. THC dose predicts intoxication intensity better than strain label [5]. The popular indica/sativa distinction has been shown to have essentially no predictive value for chemical composition or user experience Strong evidence[2].

If you want to know what effect a product will have, the lab data (THC%, terpene profile) is more informative than the '#77' name. See indica-sativa-myth for a deeper explanation.

Flag an error or send proof

If you have a verified breeder record, official seed-bank listing, dated lab report, or company documentation for MAC #77, please send it to our fact-check team. Specific sources (URL, COA file, breeder statement) help us update this article. Similarly, if you find a dead link or error in our current sources, please report it.

Sources

  1. Reported Jikomes, N. (2020). 'The Story Behind MAC, One of the Most Popular Cannabis Strains.' Leafly. Retrieved from Leafly strain database.
  2. Peer-reviewed Schwabe, A.L., McGlaughlin, M.E. (2019). 'Genetic tools weed out misconceptions of strain reliability in Cannabis sativa: implications for a budding industry.' Journal of Cannabis Research, 1(1), 5.
  3. Peer-reviewed Smith, C.J., Vergara, D., Keegan, B., Jikomes, N. (2022). 'The phytochemical diversity of commercial Cannabis in the United States.' PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0267498.
  4. Peer-reviewed Gukasyan, N., Ramirez, J., Nishimura, K., Levin, J., Maki, S., Barrett, F. (2023). 'Expectancy effects in cannabis and psychedelic clinical research.' Psychopharmacology, 240(8), 1697–1707.
  5. Peer-reviewed Spindle, T.R., Cone, E.J., Gust, S.W., Huestis, M.A., Samokhin, A., Prince, S., Mitchell, J.M. (2018). 'Acute effects of smoked and vaporized cannabis in healthy adults who infrequently use cannabis: A crossover trial.' JAMA Network Open, 1(4), e184841.
  6. Peer-reviewed Piomelli, D., Russo, E.B. (2016). 'The Cannabis sativa Versus Cannabis indica Debate: An Interview with Ethan Russo, MD.' Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 1(1), 44–46.

How this page was made

Generation history

Aug 16, 2026
Fact-check pass — raised 7 flags
Nov 2, 2026
Revision
Aug 16, 2026
Fact-check pass — raised 4 flags
Aug 17, 2026
Fact-check pass — raised 2 flags
Aug 17, 2026
Initial draft

Drafting assistance and fact-check automation are used, with a human operator spot-checking on a weekly basis. See how articles are made.