CAPRIFICATION OF THE FIG. 125 
seed and receptacle to maturity. That some figs mature their recep- 
tacles and others do not depends on a defective structure, by which the 
juices from the stem of the tree are more or less obstructed in their 
flow into the fig’s receptacle. As this obstruction is less or greater 
the fig requires more or less pollination to cause more or less sap to 
flow, while the seed, in order to attain maturity, always requires polli- 
nation. That the same variety of fig can mature in one locality 
without caprification, while in a different district it must be eaprifi- 
eated in order to mature its receptacle, depends upon differences in 
locality and soil. Cavolini’s ideas are clearly expressed and to the 
point. 
At the very end of the century a French botanist, Olivier, traveled 
in the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Persia, and Greece, making a par- 
ticular study of the fig. His descriptive work of his travels was 
published in Paris (year 9). Olivier came to the conclusion that 
eaprification was a useless and ignorant proceeding, which should be 
abandoned. He says: 
This operation, of which some authors, both ancient and modern, have spoken 
with admiration, appeared to me to be nothing else than a tribute which man 
pays to ignorance and prejudice. Caprification is unknown in many parts of the 
Levant, in Italy, in France, and in Spain, and begins to be abandoned in the Archi- 
pelago, where it used to be practiced, and which, nevertheless, still produce excel- 
lent figs for eating. If the operation was necessary, whether fecundation be 
effected by the fertilizing pollen dispersed in the air introducing itself into the 
mouth of the fig, or whether nature makes use of a little fly to transmit it from 
one fig to another, as is commonly believed, it is evident that the first fig in flower 
could not fecundate at the same time those that have already attained a certain 
size and those which are only just appearing in order to ripen two months later. 
The knowledge which Olivier possessed of caprification was in 
reality most superficial and defective, and some of his statements are 
even false and misleading and not worthy of quotation, except for 
the fact that disbelievers in caprification have pointed to him as an 
eminent botanist, who had conclusively proved the delusiveness of 
the process in question. Olivier did not even know that it was the 
caprifig which was used for ecaprification, but stated that it was the 
common ‘‘figues fleurs,” the brebas, or first-crop edible figs, which 
were hung on the trees. This also appears again in the last lines of 
his statement quoted above, beginning: ‘‘ First fig in flower,” ete. 
His statement that caprification was unknown in Italy and Spain is 
also incorrect. 
In 1820 Giorgio Gallesio, a prominent Italian horticulturist, pub- 
lished his treatise on the fig. How far Gallesio’s statements were based 
on investigations in nature are not known. Later writers on figs have 
endeavored to show that his theories were founded principally on 
book learning, and not on observation. Iam not of that opinion, as 
his statements show a frankness and fairness entirely indicative of 
truthfulness. Gallesio holds that there are two races of figs—one 
