26 



at least several flower clusters and numerous flowers, this vary- 

 ing according to the profusion of bloom. 



Of the trees thus tested, one of each of the following species 

 was found to be completely self -incompatible and unable to pro- 

 duce any fruit to self- and close-pollination : Mains coronaria 

 (152 flowers tested); M. Ringo {22^ flowers); M. Ringo sitb- 

 lobata (212 flowers) ; iM. pcndida (200 flowers) ; M. prunifolia 

 (187 flowers) ; .1/. prunifolia macrocarpa (32 flowers) ; .1/. syl- 

 vestris (35 flowers); and M. orthocarpa (167 tlowers). In all 

 of these cases not a single fruit started to dcxelop to llowers 



FiGURF. I. Above at llic Irfl is a clusUr of flowers of Malus pruitifolia 

 four weeks after self-pollination and at the r.i.uht is a cluster of fruits 

 from the same branch tliat developed from cross-pollination. Such re- 

 sults are typical for the kind of stcrilitj' common in apples. 



submitted to self- and close-pollination only, but each tree pro- 

 duced fruit from llowers subject to o])(.n cross ]iollinrition (see 

 figure i) and on most trees such fruits were abimdant. 



A tree of each oi the following species was highly producli\e 

 of fruit to the enforced self-j)olliiiations. The number of flow- 

 ers enclosed per bag and the number of fruits that malured are 

 as follows: 



-1/. Toringo; 40 (lowers, 18 fruits; 51 llowers, 31 fruits; 99 

 flowers, 69 fruits; 131 tlowers, 80 fruits. 



