more on Garnacha vs Cannonou

Because with clonal selection you get ... clones. HAving exactly the same genetic content. Exact duplicate. Vitis is not reproduced from seed (though it obviously can be).

Trying to follow here... Is this all by way of saying that Grenache is not a cultivar (properly speaking) of VV really? A cultivar is (in the best of worlds) a vegetally propagated (by grafting, cutting or layering) clone of the parent plant, i.e. a taxon in which all examples are genetically identical.

In reality many cultivars in the nursery trade are diluted by unscrupulous producers who seed raise plants from one or both true parents, (easier than grafting in some cases) and then sell these similar offspring, some of whom go on to become stock plants. In the US there are several examples of Japanese Maples that have gone this route. For this reason these cultivars are no longer clones, but a grex.

Or, further up the tree, is it just a variation, (or form), on the species with all of the polymorphism that implies? How does a botanist write it:

Vitis vinifera var. Garnacha (polymorphic variation by region and climate) V. vinifera f garnacha (as var) V. vinifera 'Garnacha' (syn Grenache, Cannonou etc) (all genetically identical) V. vinifera 'Garnacha B1' (for example). (The grex)

Any Vitis specialists in the house? :)

-E

No, I don't think this is correct. I believe that Grenache plants are cultivars but there are different varients of Grenache becuase it is planted in so many different regions. Small changes have occured due to mutations and/or environmental factors.

This is very true of Pinot Noir also. There are slight variations of Pinot Noir vines. These plants are propogated by grafting cuttings onto other grape root stock. The varient of the original (and hence the new) plant is usually refered to by a "clone" name and/or number. Of course you also need the name/number of the root stock to get a clear picture of the whole vine.

Andy

Hi Andy,

In a wide definition, a cultivar is a group of plants with identifiable or differentiating characteristics that are retained when they are reproduced. Now I don't know that much from Vitis, but am a bit of a hobbyist in the genus Acer. There we say a plant is not a "true cultivar" unless it is vegetally propagated. Certainly the same clone will behave differently in different climactic conditions.

But if you can't take a young plant from Italy and grow it in the Rhone with Rhoney results, I'd argue they are different cultivars, because they have different characteristics. In this sense (if true) it strikes me as confusing to call them the same plant.

Splitting hairs, for sure! :) But honestly just trying to understand the genetic picture here.

As I understand it the rootstock contributes to the vigour of the plant but does not contribute genetic material. In the maple world A. japonicum is usually grafted onto A. palmatum but remains a true clone of its stock parent. Of course in the case of Vitis the vigour would have a discernable effect on the fruit sugar concentration given identical conditions, I imagine.

-E

So, why does the Garnache taste so vastly inferior to the Cannonou?

Well there if Football and then there is Football.

We all know that the Super Bowl is the place for real football.

Thus your answer...not all foodball is the same! Outside the USA...they play soccer..another football.

So, beer goes with football, I assume red wine goes with foodball?

Jose

yes.

I see your point, but I'm just not sure that the differences are enough for the plants to be classified differently except by attaching the name/number of the original plant material. They all will produce Grenache fruit but some appear to be adapted to certain climates better than others. I just don't know what line has to be crossed to consider it a different plant.

All's good. All taken in the right spirit (on both sides of the discussion I hope).

Yes, I think that's all true. The rootstock does not contribute to the genetic material but can cause significant changes in the plants vigour, nutrient uptake, ability to react to drought or cold temps, etc in any given climate. Each of these can have an impact on the quality and quantity of fruit produced. It can effect sugar content, how fast the fruit matures, skin thickness, etc. So the root stock will not make a Grenache vine produce Pinot Noir, but it can impact how good the Grenache is and there is a world of difference between good Grenache and poor Grenache. BTW, this is all from reading various acticles/ papers as I haven't done any field trials on root stocks myself.

Andy

"JEP62" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

I was at a Loire tasting with Joe Dressner one time. He discussed at length his belief that grafted root stock selected for vigor produce wines with higher alcohol. He believed this was a significant and often overlooked aspect of style differences in wines.

John

I have heard this same from Mr. Dressner, and he has empirical data to back it up: the ungrafted "Franc de Pieds" bottlings of Breton to compare against their (grafted) Bourgueil.

Mark Lipton

I have heard the exact opposite from friends that make wine locally, they have some ungrafted grenache that seems to have grown much faster than the grafted vines that were planted in the same patch. After 4 years the ungrafted vines were ready to make wine, the others were not. Everything seems to be more concentrated from the ungrafted vines...

go figure.

Well, some cultivars have more vigorous root stocks than others. There's a sycamore cultivar that is layered to produce rootstock for less vigorous variety, for example. It simply sounds as if cabernet franc root-stock is less vigorous than grenache, or those varieties grown where these informal experiments were performed.

From this last sentence I'll continue to say that it sounds as though, properly speaking, grenache and it's synonyms are a grex, not clones at all. I'll leave it to the botanists to argue whether this makes a single cultivar or not (and I'm sure opinions will differ!)

But also, for whatever small differences that may exist between "versions", it does sound as though the rootstock issues could be a dominant factor in eventual quality. I wonder, does Tablas Creek use the same rootstock as Beaucastel for their grenache cuttings?

-E

Excellent question, Emery! I looked at the Tablas Creek website (since they operate a nursery) but no enlightenment. I guess that I'll save the question for my next visit (upcoming: 2000 "Esprit de Beaucastel" vs. 2000 Ch. de Beaucastel -- may the best Mourvedre win!)

Mark Lipton

Hi Mark,

I'll be very interested to hear their take on the whole issue.

Meanwhile, awaiting a report on the battle of the titans!

-E