4 REPORT OF THE POMOLOGIST. 641 
here and testing their fruit, and that of their progeny grown in 
many places in Florida and California, and after reading with care 
nearly all that has been published in the papers on the subject, I am 
convinced of the truth of the above statement. It is claimed by 
some that the two trees (some ignorantly say one,) sent Mrs. L. C. 
Tibbetts, of Riverside, Cal., were a part of the original imported 
twelve and that they were a different variety from the rest. This 
is a mistake. These trees were propagated from the original twelve 
and were sent to Mrs. Tibbetts in 1873, which was three years after 
. the importation occurred. Since submitting my former report I 
have visited the two trees and gathered and ate fruit off them. 
They each bear fruit alike in character, and identical with that sent 
me from many places in Florida and California under the two names 
above mentioned, and similar to that produced on the old trees here 
at Washington. 
The name Riverside Navel was applied to it in California, because 
the first fruit-produced in that State was at Riverside and on these 
two trees. 
In regard to productiveness I have conflicting reports. In Florida 
it is in many cases reported as being fruitful enough, but more fre- 
quently the reverse. At Riverside I examined many bearing or- 
chards of this variety, and almost always found the trees well loaded. 
Commercial growers there told me that their Washington Navel 
trees bore quite wellenough. In the number of oranges on a tree it 
is not equal to most other kinds, but the extra size and quality of the 
fruit and extra price obtained is thought to fully make up for the 
lack in number. 
Although the trees bloom very abundantly, and in most cases the 
fruit sets well, it drops badly soon after setting: Why this occurs 
isa query. After tedious examination of the anthers of the flowers 
of this and many other and more fruitful varieties under the micro- 
scope, taken from the trees here, and those sent from Florida-and 
California, with a view to discover the absence or presence of pollen, 
IT am convinced that the Washington Navel has almost no pollen. 
The naked eye shows a marked difference; for instead of being yel- 
low with pollen grains, as the anthers of most varieties are, they are 
white; and by the aid of a powerful mocroscope only now and then 
a grain of partially-developed pollen wasfound. Whether or not this 
is the cause of its shy bearing 1s not certain, for there are supposed to 
be plenty of grains from other varieties floating in the air sufficient 
to pollenize the stigmas of its flowers. 
his variety being almost entirely seediess, it may be thought to 
be the result of the lack of pollen. The peculiar umbilical mark at 
the blossom end of the orange, which gives the name ‘‘ Navel,” is 
rather singular. There are, however, other ‘* Navel” oranges which 
always have this mark, and the same peculiar feature is occasionally 
noticed in many varieties. This isanabnormal characteristic, or mon- 
strosity, which seems to me a sort of secondary orange just at the 
apex of the fruit, or an additional placenta running the length of the 
whole fruit, but larger at the end opposite the stem. It will take 
much additional experiment and waa y before any safe conclusions 
can be reached on this whole subject. The co-operation of all inter- 
ested persons is earnestly desired: 
AG 87 41 
