40 



there was no difference between them. Each had some ripe figs, some 

 still sour, and others commenced ripening. Counting them again, there 

 was here also no difference, each tree having lost about a fourth part of 

 its fruits. The following year I repeated the experiment, with some 

 modification. I marked with thread or with twine the figs into which 

 I saw the fly had penetrated, and I took care that there Was no capri- 

 fig in the vicinity of the other tree. The result of this experiment was 

 precisely the same as that of the preceding year. In the meantime I had 

 suspended five flower-heads of the caprifig to a large branch of a Lardaro 

 fig which rose considerably above the rest of the tree, thinking that how- 

 ever little the caprifig might hasten the maturity, the slight difference 

 would nowhere be more perceptible than in the different branches of the 

 same tree. Yet when maturity commenced numerous fruits on all parts 

 of the tree were in the same state as those of the branch in question. 

 Now it appears improbable, not to say impossible, that those five capri- 

 fig flower-heads should have furnished insects enough for so great a 

 number of figs. 



I repeated the experiment for four years, and always with the same 

 results, though in different localities. At the Camaldoli, where capri- 

 fication is not practiced and the caprifig very rare, I caprified copiously 

 a Dottato fig and two white fig trees, and none of the three showed 

 the least sign of precocity. I believe, therefore, that the insect does 

 not at all hasten maturity. It must only be observed that maturity 

 is not to be confounded with a certain early softening which happens 

 to some of the deciduous fruits pierced by the insect. For, as will be 

 seen hereafter, the fly destroys and corrupts the inside of the fig; when 

 it is already disposed to fall, it falls the earlier, and by rotting inside 

 becomes soft the sooner. 



7. Does Caprification Cause Late Figs to Set in Greater Numbers than 

 Usual f The advocates of caprification affirm that in certain varieties 

 it causes all, or the greater number of fruits, to remain on the tree, 

 which otherwise would have fallen off. To verify this assertion I have 

 many times made the common experiment which would occur naturally 

 to any one, that of comparing fig trees of the same variety to some only 

 of which the caprifig had been brought, in order to observe the difference. 

 Those I have observed with that view are the Lardaro, the Sarnese, the 

 Colombro, and the Sampiero. With regard to the first two, the experi- 

 ments were made in different localities, especially on the Sarnese, which 

 is very common. None of them showed the slightest effect of the action 

 of the fly, in regard to the quantity of the fruit; and if ever any differ- 

 ences were exhibited between the caprified trees and those not acted on 

 by the caprifig, either in favor of or against caprification, they could 

 always, on being well considered, be clearly traceable to other causes 

 (not to speak of soil, climate, vicissitudes of seasons, etc.), as for exam- 

 ple, to the age or vigor of the subject, the number of branches, the 

 having been or not enfeebled by a previous superabundant crop, etc. 

 And what I say of the Sarnese may in like manner be said of the 

 Lardaro, with this exception, that being cultivated almost exclusively 

 in the immediate vicinity of the Capital, I had no opportunity of 

 observing it in distant localities. Cultivators affirm that this variety 

 more than any other stands in need of caprification, and indeed it loses 

 generally nearly the half of its fruits. But of this variety I will only 

 state two things, not to fall into lengthy repetitions: First, that the 



