Cabernet Sauvignon - natural or man-made?

We all now know that Cabernet Sauvignon is the result of a cross between Cabernet Franc and Sauvignon Blanc.*

When the proof was announced I thought ' of course, and the old timers knew'.

So I assumed CS was the result of deliberate crossing by some viticulturist or nurseryman.

NO, says Benjamin Lewin MW who is writing a book on CS: it was "a rare spontanenous cross in the field" and that there is no evidence of grape breeding before the 19thC.**

Since all varieties are crosses and none have such a clear indication of parentage I find this hard to believe.

Anyone want to pitch in with any more info?

* if not, where have you been?

** as I know, there is no evidence for any human intervention in breeding grapevines before the nineteenth century. All of the literature refers to the then existing varieties by a series of overlapping names, making it difficult to distinguish them (especially as the same name was used in different areas, e.g. in the Graves and in the Medoc, for what was probably the same variety). There is one early reference to “Sauvignon Noir” and “Sauvignon Blanc”, which suggests the growers might have recognize some sort of relationship – but even there, it is not certain that the Sauvignon Noir was in fact Cabernet Sauvignon rather than one of the other related varieties. I would think the names of Cabernet Sauvignon and Sauvignon Blanc reflect the fact that both are characterized by pyrazines, which would certanly have been common given levels of ripeness attained in the period, so you might easily think they were related, but it would be fanciful to suppose that the names recognize more than an observation of possible relationship.

Source http://winespecific.com/2012/05/08/why- ... varieties/

The term “Cabernet Sauvignon” (usage of the term) is relatively new (possible like you said 18th century early 19th century) does not necessarily mean this is when the grape variety came into existence. In Europe (the “old World”) where the wine was “made and grown” was more “important” than the grape. IMHO (like you suggest) the grape variety we now know as “Cabernet Sauvignon” could have been around for quite some time (possible a very long time), known under a different name. Early written records from Chateau Mouton (1700’s) make reference to a grape variety called “Vidure”. Pliny the Elder (Ancient Roman naturalist) makes reference to a grape variety called “Biturica”.
Some suggest that the “accidental” crossing between Sauvignon Blanc and Cab Franc could of taken place around the 1600’s, possible earlier. Since the term “Cabernet Sauvignon” came into usage in the Medoc during the 18th century. The date 1600’s does sound feasible. (The Dutch dominated the sea trade, (as master “drainage engineers”) they helped drain and reclaim land in the Medoc (that are now vineyards), and they favored white wines, possible introducing lots of white grape (Sauvignon Blanc) into the region).

Salute

Lewin is correct. Deliberate hybridization in grapevines did not begin until the 1800's and there is substantial evidence that Cabernet Sauvignon existed before then. Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet franc are similar in appearance so it is not surprising that a newly-appearing vine that resembled Cabernet franc would be called Cabernet "sauvignon" to reflect its presumed wild ("sauvage") origin.

hmmm, so farmers didn't know about polination and never intentionally polinated one plant with another to collect seeds? i mean humans are playfull and fool around with things all the time - add A to B and see what happens. accidental crosses have to germinate and then be 'discovered' and replicated. could be of course. but human intervention isn't really all that impossible.

Lewin is correct. Deliberate hybridization in grapevines did not begin until the 1800's and there is substantial evidence that Cabernet Sauvignon existed before then. Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet franc are similar in appearance so it is not surprising that a newly-appearing vine that resembled Cabernet franc would be called Cabernet "sauvignon" to reflect its presumed wild ("sauvage") origin.

But how then to account for the diversity of vines spread by the Romans throughout Europe? Presumably the V. vinifera brought out of the Black Sea region to the Mediterranean by the Achaeans was a single variety that only recently had been cultivated. As you well know, to see such diversification usually implies either spatial isolation (a la Darwin's finches) or human intervention (i.e. crossing). The genome of V. vinifera isn't unstable (at least, outside of the Pinots), so new varieties wouldn't emerge spontaneously with any regularity. Is the point that earlier viticulturists weren't doing deliberate hybridization but rather just getting adventitious hybridization? How would one be able to establish that with any certainty?

Thanks for weighing in on this subject (and good luck with the harvest!)
Mark Lipton

Totally agree ancient and early farmers had some basic understanding of pollination, they understood that insects and the wind played a role in it, (and on “large” flowering plants most likely attempted a form of “artificial pollination”) but as far as understanding the flowering structure of the plant they knew little (this took much longer to grasp). In the case of grape vines, once a grape vine was “discovered” and deemed “significant” or desirable, “duplicating” it was fairly simple. Just take cuttings from the so called “mother vine” and plant them.

Salute

“duplicating” it was fairly simple. Just take cuttings from the so called “mother vine” and plant them.

Layering is quicker and easier.

'Duplicating' by taking cuttings suggest that they knew that planting seeds would not give a duplicate.

And if they knew that a seedling produced a new variety, would it be beyond the bounds of possibility that they may have tried artificial fertilisation to gain desired traits?

'Duplicating' by taking cuttings suggest that they knew that planting seeds would not give a duplicate.

Possible, or in the case of grape vines “duplicating” using cuttings or by layering “produced” a “productive” fruit bearing vine much quicker.

Salute

NO, says Benjamin Lewin MW who is writing a book on CS: it was "a rare spontanenous cross in the field" and that there is no evidence of grape breeding before the 19thC.**

Since all varieties are crosses and none have such a clear indication of parentage I find this hard to believe.

Surely, the rare event that Lewin refers to is that the spontaneous cross turned out to be so good for wine. Crossings must have happened all the time, usually with the seedlings growing in the wild for a while if they were at all viable.

And maybe I am just being thick, but why do you find it hard to believe, Peter? SB and CF are varieties grown now (and I presume in the past) in the same regions, so isn't it believable that many crosses should have taken place, one of which turned out to be a good 'un?

To answer my own question, perhaps the surprise is that Cab Sauv aquired a name based on its parents at a relatively (before DNA was known about) stage. Perhaps the external similarities to its parents are very marked and people guessed right? I would be so bold as to say that the wines of SB, CF and SB also have similarities - indeed there is something about their aromatics that makes me like them less than most of the well-regarded grapes.

To answer my own question, perhaps the surprise is that SB (I believe you meant CS) acquired a name based on its parents at a relatively (before DNA was known about) stage.

The name “Cabernet Sauvignon” doesn’t really surprise me. Since the earliest of times “cabinet” or “kabinett” has been used as a “quality” gauge, designating something to “cherish” or of “high quality” (keep in a cabinet or box). As mentioned by Carole, “Sauvignon” referring possible to its savage (or wild) origin.

Salute

But how then to account for the diversity of vines spread by the Romans throughout Europe? Presumably the V. vinifera brought out of the Black Sea region to the Mediterranean by the Achaeans was a single variety that only recently had been cultivated. As you well know, to see such diversification usually implies either spatial isolation (a la Darwin's finches) or human intervention (i.e. crossing). The genome of V. vinifera isn't unstable (at least, outside of the Pinots), so new varieties wouldn't emerge spontaneously with any regularity. Is the point that earlier viticulturists weren't doing deliberate hybridization but rather just getting adventitious hybridization? How would one be able to establish that with any certainty?

Vitis vinifera grew as a wild plant all around the Mediterranean and up into river valleys. While the very earliest domestication may well have been in the Black Sea region, people undoubtedly began to cultivate grapevines in many different places at different times. The earliest varieties would have been female wild vines selected for their berry size and productivity , then later varieties would have arisen from natural cross pollination between the earliest varieties and nearby wild vines. There is ample genetic evidence that some varieties on the Iberian Peninsula, for example, are related to wild Vitis vinifera in that area. There were already thousands of grape varieties long before any grape breeding started. In fact, very few grape varieties grown today are the result of grape breeding programs. All the classic wine grape varieties arose naturally as single seedlings and the parents have been discovered for some of them (e.g., Chardonnay, Syrah, Merlot).

Hybridization of crop plants (i.e., deliberate crossing as opposed to selection of naturally occurring genetic variants) began in the 1700's but grapevines have tiny flowers that are quite difficult to work with so it was not until 1824 that the first intentional grape hybrid was documented (Petit Bouschet).

To answer my own question, perhaps the surprise is that SB (I believe you meant CS) acquired a name based on its parents at a relatively (before DNA was known about) stage.

The name “Cabernet Sauvignon” doesn’t really surprise me. Since the earliest of times “cabinet” or “kabinett” has been used as a “quality” gauge, designating something to “cherish” or of “high quality” (keep in a cabinet or box). As mentioned by Carole, “Sauvignon” referring possible to its savage (or wild) origin.

Good point. I somehow managed to miss Carole's earlier post. (I'll correct the typo.)

Carol,
Once again it is good to see that you still read here on WLDG, and even better to see you posting. I am sure that the rest of us hope that you continue, so that we might learn a thing or three from you,

Interesting discussion.

My surprise was not that spontaneous crosses occured, of course they did, but that this particular one - CS - bears the name of the parents.

Yes, 'cabernet' is a word used to denote quality - but there are many quality classic varieties and how many of them bear the name cabernet? Yes sauvignon could refer to a wild origin, but then aren't all the classic varieties worthy of that name?

Steve's idea that it was noticed that CS had attributes of both CF and SB seems the most plausible, if you don't accept that CS's parentage was known.