Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
suggest some relationship between the cultivar
and wild grapevines. Though there may be no
link whatsoever between Sangiovese and wild
grapevines, further study of Tuscan wild grape-
vine species is probably required.
Subsequent studies have added to the com-
plexity that is Sangiovese's world. Vouillamoz,
Imazio, Stefanini, Scienza, and Grando (2006)
and Vouillamoz, Monaco, Costantini, Stefanini,
Scienza, and Grando (2007) both describe San-
giovese as a Ciliegiolo × Calabrese Montenuovo
crossing (the latter a rare, little-known southern
Italian grape). Another recent study also sug-
gests Ciliegiolo as one of the two parents of San-
giovese (Bergamini, Caputo, Gasparro, Perni-
ola, Cardone, and Antonacci 2013). However,
while intellectually stimulating, this parentage
fi nding is controversial. Di Vecchi Staraz, Ban-
dinelli, Boselli, This, Boursiquot, Laucou,
Lacombe, et al. (2007) published contrasting
results (also partly arguable, as I shall explain)
detailing the genetic structuring and parentage
of a very large database comprising 2,786
unique multilocus genotypes (twenty nuclear
SSRs of
Vitis vinifera
ssp.
sativa
), with a special
focus on Tuscan cultivars, Sangiovese
in primis.
The authors found that Sangiovese's kin group
is composed of a majority of ancient cultivars
common to southern Italy, such as Gaglioppo
and Nerello Mascalese, allowing for a possible
Calabrian or Sicilian origin for Sangiovese. San-
giovese appears to be closely related to ten culti-
vars, all sharing at least one allele with it: Capib-
ianchi, Catarratto Bianco Faux, Ciliegiolo,
Frappato, Gaglioppo, Greco Nero di Cosenza,
Marzemino Faux, Nerello Mascalese, Perricone,
and Poverina. Nerello Mascalese and Gaglioppo
showed the closest genetic ties to Sangiovese,
while Capibianchi, Greco Nero di Cosenza, Per-
ricone, and Poverina were the most removed,
though still closely related. However, a particu-
larly interesting fi nding was that Ciliegiolo is an
offspring of Sangiovese and Muscat Rouge de
Madère, also known as Moscato Violetto. These
fi ndings therefore confl ict with the notion that
Ciliegiolo is a parent of Sangiovese, though all
studies agree that Ciliegiolo is a relative of San-
giovese (Crespan, Calò, Costacurta, Milani,
Giust, Carraro, and Di Stefano 2002). We are
left with two contrasting Sangiovese parentage
possibilities: Is Sangiovese an offspring of Cili-
egiolo? Or is Sangiovese a parent of Ciliegiolo?
Based on the published data, arguments can
be made for and against each position. In favor
of Di Vecchi Staraz group are consistent parent
and grandparent pairs with high logarithm of
odds scores and high cumulative likelihood
ratios. Also, their conclusion relative to Ciliegi-
olo being an offspring of Sangiovese (rather
than the other way around) is a logical one, sup-
ported by the fact that Sangiovese is cited much
earlier in the available literature (Soderini 1590)
than Ciliegiolo (Racah 1932), but Soderini also
described a Ciregivolo in the 1600s. This makes
it highly unlikely that the latter is a parent of the
former (though admittedly, Ciliegiolo has
always been misidentifi ed and confused with
other varieties, so therein lies a possible expla-
nation for its parenting going unnoticed). Last
but not least, the Di Vecchi Staraz et al. fi ndings
have been apparently duplicated in at least two
different studies (Cipriani, Spadotto, Jurman,
Di Gaspero, Crespan, Meneghetti, et al. 2010;
Lacombe, Boursiquote, Laoucou, Dechesne,
Varès, and This 2013), while I am not aware of
the Vouillamoz et al. results having been con-
fi rmed by any other group. On the other hand,
in favor of the work by the Vouillamoz et al.
(2007), they used fi fty DNA markers instead of
only thirty-eight different sites. Also, accepting
Muscat Rouge de Madère as a possible parent of
Ciliegiolo is admittedly a hard thing to do; Cili-
egiolo isn't an aromatic variety, and to the best
of my knowledge Muscat Rouge de Madère has
been seldom, if ever, cultivated in Italy. Of
course, Calabrese Montenuovo isn't exactly a
household name either, and it's not listed in
Italy's National Registry; again to the best of my
knowledge, the only time it has been mentioned
in a research paper of note was in Costantini,
Monaco, Vouillamoz, Forlani, and Grando
(2005). So the exact parentage of Sangiovese
remains a contentious issue, one that will
require further study.
