Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
various kinds. Returning to our grape varieties
example, it follows that today we take microsatel-
lite profi les at what might be described as only
face value: when confronted with similar DNA
microsatellite profi les, we conclude that similar
sequences are in fact the same, and hence that
the vines that share them are identical. But as we
have seen, that is extremely unlikely, for though
those DNA sequences all look the same, they
may be transcribed and eventually translated in
very different manners, leading to what are
essentially different-looking and perhaps even
distinct grape varieties. Therein may lie an
explanation why, for example, Pigato, Vermen-
tino, and Favorita, though genetically “identical”
at our present state of knowledge, look different
and produce different-tasting wines: because
they are in fact distinct varieties. Which would
also mean that many older farmers out there
really do know best. In any case, Pelsy, Hoc-
quigny, Moncada, Barbeau, Forget, Hinrichsen,
and Merdinoglu (2010) have concluded that
when clones of the same variety have pheno-
types different enough to lead to the production
of different wines, they are to be grouped into
different cultivars. Furthermore, Emanuelli,
Lorenzi, Grzeskowiak, Catalano, Stefanini, and
Troggio (2013) have stated that accessions shar-
ing the same SSR profi le ought to be evaluated
further before being eliminated from standard
grapevine collections, because they might not be
redundant at all.
Therefore, in my opinion, though at this
time we cannot say that Pigato/Vermentino/
Favorita or Cataratto Comune/Lucido/Extralu-
cido are in fact distinct varieties, we should at
least always stress that they are different bio-
types and their resulting wines are different.
This is true to greater or lesser degrees depend-
ing on the varieties involved.
