144 Wester: Carica Papaya 



No. 4. October 7, 1905. Flower not bagged; tube long; 



■ 



ovary slender ; stigma reduced to stigmatic area at apex of ovary 

 with short ray like figure i, c ; mature April 23 ; weight of fruit 

 345 grams ; seed-cavity very small, containing few seeds ; weight 

 of dried seed one gram. (Figure 2, no. 4.) 



No. 7. October 10, 1905. Flower bagged; tube long; 

 ovary slender ; stigma reduced to stigmatic area at apex of ovary 

 with three short rays, about like figure i, d\ fruit mature April 

 23 ; weight of fruit 520 grams; seed-cavity small, containing few 

 seeds ; weight of dried seed 2 grams. (Figure 2, no. 7.) 



No. 15. October 17, 1905. Flower bagged; tube short; 

 ovary large and angular; stigma normal like figure I, a; fruit 



May 8 ; weight of fruit 2 1 1 5 



5 grams. (Figure 

 2, no. 15.) 



No. 16. October 18, 1905. Flower bagged; tube short; 

 ovary very large and angular; stigma normal like figure I r «J 

 fruit mature May 31 ; weight of fruit 1620 grams; cavity well 

 filled with seed ; weight of dried seed 1 5 grams. (Figure 2, no. 

 16.) 



No. 17. October 18, 1905. Flower bagged; tube short; 

 ovary very large and angular ; stigma 4-rayed, otherwise normal ; 

 fruit mature June 6 ; weight of fruit 1920 grams ; weight of dried 

 seed 16 grams. (Figure 2, no. 17.) 



The fruits developed from flowers in which the stigmatic rays 

 were almost entirely abortive contained several undeveloped ovules, 

 and the fruits were smaller than those developed from flowers 

 where the stigmatic area was large. No. 14, flower bagged, was 

 an interesting exception. The flower to this fruit was similar to 

 that of no. 15. On maturity the fruit weighed 580 grams. Of a 

 large number of ovules very few had developed to seed, which, 

 dried, weighed only 0.75 gram. The general outline of the fruit 

 was similar to that of no. 1 5 and the seed-cavity was proportion- 

 ately as large. It is possible that the inferior size of this fruit 

 may have been due to imperfect pollination, so many ovules hav- 



mall 

 fler- 



ing failed to develop, and it may partly be the cause of the si 

 size of nos. 2, 4, and 7 also, although it is believed that a di 

 ence in the structure of the pistil is the greatest factor in determin 



