The True Origins of Criollo | #PSC 191

By Clay Gordon | 7 days ago | | 9 min read

Background image David Carillet / Adobe Stock

Episode 191 of #PodSaveChocolate takes a deep dive into the history of Criollo cacao varieties, separating myth and conventional wisdom from facts revealed via recent archaeogenomic research and historical sources.

🗓️

Episode 191 streamed on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026.

Click a link below to view the archived episode.

Watch and comment LIVE or view the archived episode!

Subscribe (free!) to the @PodSaveChocolate YouTube channel, like this video, comment, and share this episode to help grow the #PSC community.

Watch this episode on YouTube

Watch and comment LIVE or view the archived episode on LinkedIn.

Join my network on LinkedIn to receive notifications and to refer business to each other.

Watch this episode on LinkedIn

Watch and comment LIVE or view the archived episode on TheChocolateLife page on Facebook (for 30 days, then watch the archive on YouTube).

Follow TheChocolateLife on Facebook to receive notifications and catch up on other content.

Watch this episode on Facebook

Episode 191 Overview

This episode of #PodSaveChocolate was inspired by an email newsletter I received last week, directing me to the following blog post:

I have known of the author for at least a decade; I don’t recall our ever meeting in person.

The broad topic, “Where did [the plant we now call] cacao originate?” is a question whose answers – rooted in an increasingly better understanding of the cacao genome – have been emerging since 2008’s pioneering paper, ‘Geographic and Genetic Population Differentiation of the Amazonian Chocolate Tree (Theobroma cacao L[[1]]).’”

[[1]]: The “L” stands for botanist Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus. In botanical nomenclature, the person who first publishes a species name is cited after the Latin binomial. Other abbreviation examples include, “Mill.” for Philip Miller, and “DC.” for de Candolle.

MY TL;DR assessment: As an introductory, consumer-facing essay, the blog is broadly correct: it captures rarity, flavor profile, fragility, and the idea that “Criollo” cacao is historically important and now rare. However, it relies on (now) outdated concepts of “Criollo” and glosses over key genetic, geographic, and historical nuances.

This episode takes a closer look at the claims made in the blog about the origins of Criollos through the lens of my own research on the topic dating back to 2008[[2]]. In that respect it is in the same vein as recent fact-checking episodes on Maïa Ceremonial Cacao and Pono Cocoa: What techniques can you use to determine the veracity of the claims an author is making?

[[2]]: I echoed the tradtional tri-partite classification in my book, Discover Chocolate, published in 2007. I tried hard to write an evergreen book, not anticipating how genomic research going on as I was writing it would make it out of date within a year of publication.

And, to be honest, I have to admit my understanding of the timeline and geography did not reflect the most recent research. My bad.

So, I am also writing this to address misstatements in my public record. (You can’t assume I am correct – fact check me, too.)

TL;DR Commentary

The blog falls short in three main ways:

It leans heavily on the old three‑family (Criollo/Forastero/Trinitario) model and never engages with Motamayor’s 10‑cluster framework or the “Ancient vs Modern Criollo” distinction. [The blog repeatedly refers to Criollo, Forastero, Trinitario as the three “major cacao families.” That’s historically standard but scientifically incomplete. Criollo / Forastero / Trinitario” are traditional cultivar categories / farmer language, not robust genetic groups.]
It re‑centralizes Criollo in Mesoamerica and treats it as a primordial “family,” despite strong evidence for a South American origin and a very narrow domestication bottleneck. [Wild T. cacao is most diverse in the Upper Amazon (Colombia–Ecuador–Peru), and this region is the putative center of origin for the species. “Ancient Criollo” genotypes from Mesoamerica and Yucatán nest within South American diversity, strongly implying a South American origin for the Criollo lineage with subsequent human transport into Central America. Archaeologically, Soconusco and related regions are cradles of long‑term Criollo‑rich cultivation, but not the genetic cradle of the lineage itself.]
It does not interrogate the myth of “true/pure Criollo” re: modern hybridization. [“Criollo” in farms today is largely “Modern Criollo”—i.e., introgressed (hybridized) material, not Ancient Criollo. The craft chocolate movement is occurring in parallel with genetic demystification, work that shows that “pure Criollo” claims are often marketing shorthand, and genuine ancient genotypes are exceptionally rare. The blog hints at this (“many cacao varieties have cross‑pollinated; much cacao today is a hybrid”), but it never connects that to the collapse of the simple Criollo/Forastero/Trinitario schema or to the mismatch between labels on wrappers and genotypes in orchards.]

Reframing the Narrative

The word “Criollo” itself is a colonial cultural label, not an indigenous one. In colonial Spanish usage, “criollo” broadly meant “local / creole / born here”, in contrast with “forastero” (“outsider, foreign”). It was applied to people, livestock, foods, and more.
Early Venezuelan planters used “Criollo” to refer to their established local cacao type and “Forastero” for newly imported material. Later botanical writers simply lifted these folk terms and tried to retrofit them into a biological classification, leading to the familiar Criollo/Forastero dichotomy.
Over time, “Criollo” becomes associated in planter discourse with: a) high quality flavor and pale cotyledons; b) poor vigor and disease susceptibility; and c) low yields and high labor costs.As diseases such as frosty pod and witches’ broom bite into yields, these trees are massively replaced by more robust varieties.

Genetically, Criollo cacao is a narrow, highly homozygous domesticate embedded within the Upper Amazon–Colombia/Ecuador genetic complex, not a separate subspecies. Ancient Criollo genotypes are exceptionally uniform and closely related to some Colombian–Ecuadorian Forastero accessions.
Geographically, the species originates and is most diverse in the Upper Amazon. An early domestication episode in that region gave rise to a small founding population that was carried by human movement into Central America and southern Mexico, where long‑term cultivation in regions like Soconusco and Yucatán produced the classic Mesoamerican “Criollo” orchards documented archaeologically and historically.
Historically, the label “Criollo” emerges in colonial Venezuelan planter vocabulary as “our local cacao,” in contrast with “Forastero” introductions (from Ecuador). Over the 19th–20th centuries it is progressively diluted by hybridization and disease‑driven replacement, even as the name acquires connotations of rarity and luxury that persist in contemporary marketing. Modern molecular work shows that this folk taxonomy is biologically imprecise and that “pure Criollo” is exceptionally rare.
Porcelana is not separate from Criollo; it is a localized, historically “ancient” Venezuelan Criollo lineage that has since been heavily hybridized with other cacao groups. “Criollo” is a traditional cultivar group / genetic cluster sensu Motamayor et al. 2008, not a taxonomic unit. Porcelana is a local landrace/clone complex from Sur del Lago (SW of Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela), historically included among the “ancient Criollos” of western Venezuela. It is defined by white cotyledons, very low bitterness, and characteristic elongated, smooth (“porcelain-like”) pods.
“True” or Ancient Criollo survives only in a tiny number of trees and lineages, mostly in Central America, northern South America, and a few ex situ plantings (and even these need genotyping to confirm). “Modern Criollo” in farms and collections is hybridized material with various degrees of Criollo ancestry, often morphologically similar but genetically mixed. Most cacao worldwide is a complex admixture of several genetic clusters; cross‑pollination is the rule, and grafting adds another layer of complexity. Classifying beans as Criollo/Forastero/Trinitario is at best a rough marketing shorthand, and serious work on diversity, domestication, or flavor needs to be done in a Motamayor‑style population framework and with explicit genotype data.

Trinitario is best described as a historically specific Trinidad-origin Criollo×Forastero hybrid population that has since become a broader, globally replicated breeding concept rather than a single, island-bound lineage.

In modern practice, especially in breeding and industry genetics, “Trinitario” is used more functionally to describe any cacao genotype/population with mixed Criollo and (usually Lower Amazon) Forastero ancestry selected to combine improved vigor, disease resistance, and better flavor than bulk Forastero.

Source Citations

I was fortunate to meet Francisco Valdez in Guayaquil, Ecuador in 2022, and attended a lecture about finds in Santa Ana - La Florida (near La Palanda in Zamora Chinchipe, Ecuador). Dr Valdez is a co-author on the above paper.

I was fortunate to have met Juan Carlos Motamayor at the Frontiers in Cacao Science symposium at Penn State in 2015. I reached out to him for additional source citations for this post.

Future Episodes

🗓️

Friday, April 10th
A conversation with Shawn Askinosie on the 20th anniversary of our first bean sourcing trip (to Mexico and Venezuela).

#criollo #forastero #trinitario
#cocoa #cacao #cacau
#chocolate #chocolat #craftchocolate
#PodSaveChoc #PSC
#LaVidaCocoa #TheChocolateLife

#PodSaveChocolate and #TheChocolateLifeLIVE Archives

To read an archived post and find the links to watch archived episodes, click on one of the bookmark cards below.

⁉️

After a year-long+ experiment, the audio-only versions of PodSaveChocolate episodes have been taken down after an end-of-year review. There were not enough listens to continue uploading episodes and paying for hosting.

Become a Premium ChocolateLife Member!

These offers are available to free members, so subscribe above then click one of the following links.
Team TCL Member Monthly membership	First 2 months FREE (save $10/yr)
Team TCL Leader Monthly membership	First 2 months FREE (save $30/yr)