38 



ceived and ill-defined ideas, such as that of the distinction between mule 

 and semi-mule varieties, partly from the author not having precisely stated 

 in what consists the diversity of structure on which he founds his theory, 

 and, above all, from this, that he never himself saw the operation of caprifi- 

 cation, nor examined the variety of fig on which it is performed. More- 

 over, his own theory, which we have perhaps stated more clearly than 

 he does himself, appears to be in contradiction with itself in the two 

 principal points. For if, in the variety called by him semi-mule, the 

 sap of the branch passes into the receptacle, attracted by the action of 

 fecundation and the vital power of the embryo, how is it that in the 

 other variety the same cause does not produce the same effect? And 

 here let us repeat that the different receptacles of the same tree, of 

 whatever sort the fig may be, do not differ from each other in the least 

 in the organization of the vessels, the parenchyma, and the fibers. 



Such are the ideas of authors on caprification. Were we certain that 

 Theophrastus and Pliny had intended by the word aura to denote the 

 pollen, all would have joined in one general idea, that of fecundation. 

 But in the history of the different opinions, as given above, one remark- 

 able fact is included, which may not appear at first sight, which is, that 

 with all the subtle fancies conceived by authors in their theories and 

 explanations, not one of them has put forward a single experiment; but 

 all, preoccupied with the certainty of the fact, have aspired at nothing 

 but discovering the reason even those who had good opportunities of 

 actual observation. And Olivier, in denying to caprification any power 

 whatever, comes to that conclusion not by experience, but by a just and 

 rational operation of the mind. 



But as it appeared to me not only worthy of the labor, but most 

 essential to the consideration of the subject, to ascertain the truth by 

 experiment, I have applied to it all the care in my power. The ques- 

 tions I have chiefly endeavored to solve are: 



1. Does the caprifig fecundate the flower -heads of the domestic fig, 

 and make them remain on the tree in greater numbers? 



2. Does the caprifig fecundate the female flowers of autumnal figs, and 

 make them set? 



3. Does the caprifig hasten the maturity of the autumnal figs, or of 

 the fruit of any sort of fig? 



4. Does the caprifig operate by means of the puncture made by the 

 fly? 



5. Does the caprifig operate in any other way than any of the pre- 

 ceding, and by any process as yet unknown? 



The figs near Naples which always produce fruit are chiefly of two 

 kinds, the Colombro and the so-called Paradise fig. On two middling- 

 sized trees one of each of these kinds I suspended towards the end of 

 April some cratiri* of the caprifig, called by our cultivators Mamme di 

 propichi, or caprifig teats. The fly entered the flower-heads of the fig, 

 but they did not set in greater numbers on each branch than was the 

 case on similar fig trees not caprified, and growing far from any capri- 

 fig. In the ripe figs I could not find a single seed with an embryo; they 

 were all sterile; some quite empty, others containing albumen only, and 

 when sowed would not germinate. 



* These are explained in the first part of the memoir to be those young figs of the 

 caprifig which first appear in September, and remain through the winter till the follow- 

 ing spring, when they come into flower. 



