1. 1.Local varieties spread all over: international varieties, to be used as references. Ex.: Barbera 2.Major local varieties: of local importance, but extensively grown (several wine appellations). Ex.: Dolcetto 3.Minor local varieties: of local importance, fairly utilized (few or at least one wine appellation). Ex.: Arneis 4.Local neglected varieties: recently officially registered, very limited acreage (recent or none wine appellations yet). Ex.: Nascetta 5.Local neglected varieties under evaluation: not yet officially registered (but possible registration in the near future) 6.Local neglected varieties endangered to disappear: present only in collections or in marginal, old vineyards, often not yet evaluated CATEGORIES OF VARIETIES TO BE DESCRIBED OR DNA TYPED (in yellow background) N.B. It was established during the workshop that the appropriate category will be assigned to each accession following MCPD rules (descriptor 20 - SAMPSTAT, Biological status of accession)

2. WP 5 - TRUE TO TYPE 1.SEARCHING SYNONYMS (or MUTATIONS) 2.DEFINING HOMONYMS 3.SOLVE QUESTIONABLE VARIETY CASES Anna Schneider: CNR- IVV (Torino, Italy) Jean-Michel Boursiquot: ENSAM-INRA-ENTAV (Montpellier, France) Work limited to the described or the SSR typed varieties Main deliverables: List of synonyms Clear definition of homonyms: specifications which allow to distinguish them will be indicated between ( ) after the accession name. N.B. When homonyms are already known, please already enter specifications between ( ) after the accession name in the database. List of local, old autochthonous cultivars Allelic pattern for true-to-type cultivars

3. 1. SEARCHING SYNONYMS / DEFINING HOMONYMS 1. 1. by SSR Sending data (end 2007 for already available data; end 2008 for the first set of data? June 2009 for the last set of data?) Coding data (macro) Synonyms/homonyms output: end 2008-end 2009 When finding synonyms (mutations?): ampelographic primary descriptions/pictures from involved partners (or look at Genres 081 database) If they match: concise information from involved partners on the growing area, acreage, history, ecc…. In order to decide if: It is a real synonym, a mutation, or an error List of synonyms in the database (with reference to the area where syn is used) October 2010

4. 1. 2. By ampelographic descriptions Need of a proper software The work will be extended to the cutivars described in Gernes 081 database? If some varieties match (descriptions and pictures) SSR analysis, + other information from involved partners to confirm synonymy (or possible mutations) List of synonyms in the database (with reference to the area where syn is used) October 2010

5. INFORMATION NEEDED FROM EACH PARTNER FOR TRUE-TO-TYPE EXAMINATION 1.LITERATURE REFERENCES (BOOK OLDER THAN 50 YEARS?) Only for varieties described by ampelography Only on neglected cultivars by end 2007 List of authocthonous cultivars 2. LIST OF QUESTIONABLE CULTIVARS (TO BE VERIEFIED BY THE OTHER PARTNERS) by end 2007 List of questionable cultivars, to be spread among partners Descriptions and SSR analysis of questionable cultivars will be distributed among partners who will be possibly involved in true- to-type analysis

6. DELIVERABLES MEMORANDUM 1.Jannuary 2008: first list of cultivars with questionable status and their true status 2.Jannuary 2009: extended list of cultivars with questionable status and their true status 3.Jannuary 2010: extended list of cultivars with questionable status and their true status 4.October 2010: list of synonyms, proper definition od homonyms “analysed” in collection in Europe 5.October 2010: Genotypes for true-to–type cultivars (= defined allelic pattern of varieties) 6.October 2010: List of identified local old, autochthonous cultivars maintained in collections in Europe Anna’s questions: Point 4. synonyms must be also appended to the accession name in the database? Point 1,2,3 : what “with questionable status and their true status” means? Example?