1. WP 5 – TRUE TO TYPE ANALYSIS 1.ACTIVITY UNTILL JUNE 2008 2.DISCUSSION ON THE WORK TO BE DONE FROM JUNE TO DECEMBER 2008 3.FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION (2009) 1.ACTIVITY UNTILL JUNE 2008 2.DISCUSSION ON THE WORK TO BE DONE FROM JUNE TO DECEMBER 2008 3.FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION (2009) Sub task 5.1 – Synonyms Sub task 5.2 – Homonyms Sub task 5.3 – Questionable cultivars WP 5 - SUB TASKS

2. 1. ACTIVITY UNTILL JUNE 2008 A. List of questionable varieties (milestone 25, achieved: later) 13 partners sent their lists for a total of 203 “questionables” Data available on questionables: SSR on at least 6 loci: 146/203 Morpho: 109/203 Genres 081; 38/94 with other formats Photos: 130/203 leaf; 110/203 bunch B. SSR of questionables (9 loci) 4 partners sent their coded and uncoded data (+ references) WP 5

3. WHAT IS A QUESTIONABLE VARIETY? An unknown or misnamed cultivar 1. Accessions with no references (often without a name) or proven to be misnamed 2. Accessions with no reference, but for which there are some identity hypotheses 3. Accessions (varieties) locally known (thus with references), but possibly present also abroad 4. Accessions homonyms of other known varieties (check if the homonymy is due to misnaming or not, establish a name specification) WP 5

4. 2. HOW TO PROCEED IN 2008? WP 5 SSR morphology (descriptors) photos a. Ask to participants their uncoded and coded SSR profiles (end of July-September?) b. List of questionable SSR profiles (15 th August-October?) c. Submit these profiles to partners who agreed to compare them to all the profiles in their molecular databases (15 th August-October?). d. Collect from partners results from the comparisons of profiles (end of September-November?) e. Results discussion and list of identity hypotheses for questionables (end of October-December)

5. WP 5 CONFIRM THE IDENTITY HYPOTHESES BY MORPHO AND PHOTOS A. Via Extranet WEB B. Via Eu-Vitis  Section dedicated to “questionables” solving (in “Partner specific access”): Identity hypotheses if any SSR profiles Morphological characters Photos  Checking by every partner: confirm/reject the hypotheses, making new identity hypotheses On the WEB site by the end of December! A NEW SET OF QUESTIONABLES TO BE ANALYSED IN 2009?

6. WP 5 3. FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION (2009) A.Working on the Eu-Vitis database: on SSR and/or morphology by means of a “searching” approach (searching criteria must be discussed) SSR + ampelo data on the database by the end of 2008? Limitations: Small amount of varieties in the database Possible solution: merging data from Genres 081 (be ware to changes in the levels of expression….)? Eu-Vitis and Genres 081 are focused on uncommon, neglected cultivars Possible solution: introduce data on local but rather important cultivars (5-10 for every area)?

7. WP 5 B. Proper use of 3 passport descriptors, “key descriptors” for true to type purpose 0: TRUENESS TO TYPE 11: ACCENAME (Accession name) A: VARIETY NAME Prime name or official name Yes, no, not checked

8. WP 5 Accession name Variety nameTrueness to type Well known cultivars Barbera (standard material) Barberayes Barbera AT 84 (a registered clone) Barberayes Granaccia Grenache, Garnacha yes Minor, negkected cultivars Cellerina Slarina (official name) yes Unknown from Hidelberg -no (no name) Lambrusca vittona yes (bibligraphy reference) Lambruscas- no (no reference) Review of these 3 passport descriptors: by the end of September

9. WP 5 Milestones and deliverables for year 2 D 25: January 2008 First list of cultivars with questionable status and their true status D 27: April 2008 Definition of the list of questionable cultivars to be verified in Year 2 List of synonyms (hypotheses/confirmed) Milestones M26: Jan 2008Shipment of data (SSR and/or morpho) recorded for year 1 on questionable cultivars Deliverables