OK, guys... Why do oenophiles talk about "clones" of a variety when to
clone is to make an exact duplicate? It seems they are talking about
different "sports" of a variety, rather than clones.

Mike Tommasi wrote:
Ronin wrote:
OK, guys... Why do oenophiles talk about "clones" of a variety when to
clone is to make an exact duplicate? It seems they are talking about
different "sports" of a variety, rather than clones.

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).


--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Saying the same thing, maybe just in a different way, the Clone number
or name refers to the original plant material from which a clone was
taken to produce this plant.

Andy

JEP62 ha scritto:
Mike Tommasi wrote:

Ronin wrote:

OK, guys... Why do oenophiles talk about "clones" of a variety when to
clone is to make an exact duplicate? It seems they are talking about
different "sports" of a variety, rather than clones.

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).


--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail


Saying the same thing, maybe just in a different way, the Clone number
or name refers to the original plant material from which a clone was
taken to produce this plant.

Andy


Just to add confusion:
IMHO for some grapes (I suppose Garnacha among them) the clones
officially identified are a small part of the global genetic population.

Luk

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:50:26 +0200
Luk wrote:

JEP62 ha scritto:
Mike Tommasi wrote:

Ronin wrote:

OK, guys... Why do oenophiles talk about "clones" of a variety when to
clone is to make an exact duplicate? It seems they are talking about
different "sports" of a variety, rather than clones.

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).


--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail


Saying the same thing, maybe just in a different way, the Clone number
or name refers to the original plant material from which a clone was
taken to produce this plant.

Andy


Just to add confusion:
IMHO for some grapes (I suppose Garnacha among them) the clones
officially identified are a small part of the global genetic population.

Luk

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
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies

Emery Davis wrote:

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.

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

On 8 Sep 2006 07:46:55 -0700
"JEP62" wrote:


Emery Davis wrote:

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.

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.


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.

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.


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

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies

Emery Davis wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006 07:46:55 -0700
"JEP62" wrote:


Emery Davis wrote:

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.

"Ronin" wrote in message
...
OK, guys... Why do oenophiles talk about "clones" of a variety when to
clone is to make an exact duplicate? It seems they are talking about
different "sports" of a variety, rather than clones.

foodball

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

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

yes.



"Jose" wrote in message
et...
foodball

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

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Emery Davis wrote:

Hi Andy,

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.

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.

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

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


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.

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
ups.com:

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.

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

John Gunn wrote:

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.

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

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:20:39 +0200
Mike Tommasi wrote:

Mark Lipton wrote:
John Gunn wrote:


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.


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.

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

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies

Emery Davis wrote:

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?

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