126 THE FIG: ITS HISTORY, CULTURE, AND CURING. 
which requires caprification in order to mature its fruit, and one 
which matures without the aid of this operation. The different require- 
ments between the two fig races depend upon a difference in con- 
struction of the figs, and each race retains its characteristics, regard- 
less of the influences of soil and climate. The difference in construe- 
tion lies in the ovary of the fig. Some figs have ovaries without 
ovules, and those figs which can not be fertilized can also not feel 
the action of the pollen from the caprifig. These are the mule figs. 
The other class of figs, with perfect ovules, are sensitive to the pollen, 
and under its influence develop perfect seeds. These he calls semi- 
mules. The fecundation causes the juices to flow to the fig and 
effect its maturity. The caprifig alone containing the pollen is, 
therefore, necessary, and the only way to apply it is through 
caprification. 
Gallesio also describes a caprifig with only female flowers—‘‘ the 
fico semi-mula.” His statement that the original wild caprifig bore 
only one crop of figs is shown by Solms-Laubach to be erroneous, or 
at least very improbable. 
In the middle of our century the Italian botanist Guglielmo Gas- 
parrini published a series of four different treatises upon figs and 
caprification, extending in time from 1845 to 1862. No one has con- 
tributed so much to our knowledge of caprification as Gasparrini, and 
no one has made as many original researches as he has.  Gas- 
parrini, as Olivier before him, takes a decided stand against caprifi- 
‘ation, believing himself warranted in so doing by the result of the 
experimencs made by himself. Gasparrini’s experiments have been 
by many considered conelusive and almost final, and his views 
have been adopted almost unchanged by later writers on the subject of 
eaprification. While conceding that Gasparrini’s experiments were 
scientific and fairly carefully made, and highly interesting and demon- 
strative, I hold that the main conelusion which he drew was singu- 
larly illogieal, though it may have been warranted by the insufficieney 
of his experiments. Gasparrini’s almost only, but fatal, error was 
that he experimented only on a few Italian figs, not even suspecting- 
that there might be other figs differently construeted. From _ his 
observation he concluded that because ‘‘a few were so,” therefore, 
‘all must be so.” Gasparrini’s experiments are too elaborate to be 
here noticed in detail. Those who wish to further study the subject 
are referred to his respective works. A summary of his theories, 
experiments, and conclusions is found in Biological Studies on Figs, 
Caprifigs, and Caprification. A very short résumé must suffice here. 
Gasparrini concluded that the eaprifig belongs to a different species 
from the cultivated fig; that the Blastophaga is not necessary for 
pollination; that caprification is useless and injurious and should be 
abolished. 
It is not intended to condemn Gasparrini’s work, which, though 
believed by many to have been somewhat defective, has still proven 
) 
