Seed Morphology of Vitis vinifera and Its Relationship to Ecogeographical Groups and Chlorotypes C. Obón de Castro 1 , D. Rivera 2 , E. Carreño 2 , F. Alcaraz 2 and J.A. Palazón 2 1 Universidad Miguel Hernandez, Orihuela, Spain 2 Universidad de Murcia, Spain Keywords: ampelography, biogeography, carpology, chlorotypes, haplotypes, proles Abstract Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) comprises over 10,000 different cultivars and cultivar groups. These show morphological diversity and genetic polymorphism that follow geographical gradients W to E and N to S. This has led many authors to conclude that grapevine is polyphyletic. Grapevine biogeographical and ecogeographical patterns of variation were first described by Negrul in terms of “Proles”, which were characterized by the type of indumentum on leaves and shoots, and grape shape as main descriptors. Recent studies have shown the existence of eight different chlorotypes (seven in cultivars and wild grapevines and one exclusively in wild grapevines) or six haplotypes. We compare the geographical patterns and relationships of chlorotypes/haplotypes with proles and morphological descriptors. We studied the indumentum type in nearly 1,000 grapevine cultivars and wild grapevine populations extending from Western Europe and North Africa to Central Asia. Chlorotypes and ecogeographical groups show similar patterns of variation in a transect W to E. However, low correlation was found between chlorotypes and ecogeographical groups, e.g. chlorotype A (characteristic of many cultivars from Spain) is mainly found in accessions of the Proles Occidentalis (with arachnoid indumentum on the abaxial surface of adult leaves). However, cultivars morphologically belonging to Proles Orientalis Subproles Caspica (with erect hairs) and Proles Pontica (with mixed indumentum) also show chlorotype A. Alternative approaches for interpreting this divergence are discussed in this paper. INTRODUCTION There have been several different approaches to elucidating relationships between wild and cultivated Eurasian grapevines, and various theories: monophyletic, polyphyletic-multispecific and hybrid theories offer conflicting interpretations for grapevine diversity (Fig. 1). In the monophyletic- monospecific theory proposed by De Candolle, Engler, Hegi, Planchon, Negrul and Baranov (Rivera et al., 2004) local populations of cultivated grapevine descend from local wild populations, both being conspecific. In the monophyletic-bispecific theory, populations of cultivated grapevine have a common extinct ancestor, which might also be the ancestor of wild grapevine; they are thus two different species. Occasional hybridization may have produced some cultivars or cultivar groups as proposed by Khorszhinzkii (1910) and Sosnovszky (1949, 1974). According to the polyphyletic- multispecific theory the different local populations of cultivated grapevine descend from different independent wild ancestors, extinct or not. Thus, each cultivated grapevine species has a corresponding set of wild relatives, with primary species producing new cultivar groups through hybridization (Andrasovzsky, 1925; Vassylichenko, 1970). Finally, the hybrid theory proposes hybridization of wild European and Central Asiatic grapevine species in the origin of cultivated grapevine (Terpó, 1978). Independently of these theories, all authors recognize some regular geographical patterns within the complex of cultivars. Biogeographical groups of grapevine cultivars were delimited by Troshin et al. (1990) and Troshin (1999), which followed previous approaches by Negrul (1938, 1946) in terms of ecogeographical groups (Table 1, Fig. 2). Chlorotype distribution in populations of Vitis sylvestris C.C. Gmel (synonym 51 Proc. V th IS on Taxonomy of Cult. Plants Eds.: N. Groendijk-Wilders et al. Acta Hort. 799, ISHS 2008