STUDY OF BAKTLETT FRUITS. 



63 



Barileit ci'onsed with friiitc Doijeiine — Continued. 



Kecord 

 No. 





Seeds. 





Sound. 



Abortive. 



No. 



Weight. 1 Kemarlo. 



No. 



Weight. 



lieniarks. 



4070 

 4072 

 4073 

 4076 

 4077 



Average. .. 



9 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 10 



Grams. 

 0. 30 

 0. 30 

 0. 19 

 0. 21 

 0.20 



All plump 



do 



All rather thin 



do 



do 



1 



2 







Grams. 

 0.01 

 0. 02 

 0. 01 

 

 



Small, dark (PI. XI). 

 Do. 



Long, dark (I'l. XI). 



9.2 



0.27 



0.8 







Ill regard to flavor, there were no decided differences between the six 

 kinds of Bartlett pears included in the above tables, nor between these 

 and the fruits pollinated by insects. The self-pollinated fruits could 

 not be distinguished from the others either by taste or texture. They 

 were all picked together and ripened together. Possibly had the^r 

 remained on the tree nntil fully ripe some slight difference would have 

 been found, but as Bartlett i)ears are usually ripened off tlie tree the 

 practical results would be the same as those here given. Self-ijollinated 

 Bartletts would not be objectionable so far as quality is concerned if 

 they could be obtained in sufficient quantities. 



Tlie Bar: left fruits pollinated by White Doyenne seemed slightly infe- 

 rior in flavor when compared witli the other kinds. There was a slight 

 lack of richness in them that seemed to be constant. This, however, 

 may have been accidental. As to outline and general appearance, the 

 crossed pears were typical Bartletts, the variations being just such as 

 one finds among a lot of Bartlett fruits. All were closely examine«l 

 while hanging on the trees and compared with the fruits from flowers 

 outside the bags. No constant differences were found. For every 

 crossed fruit a perfect match in general appearance was found outside; 

 and why sljould this not be so, since they were doubtless produced from 

 cross-pollination by insects'? Both ^vere crosses, one by insects in the 

 natural way and the other by hand. Among the crosses there was a 

 greater tendency toward broadness than with the fruits outside the bags. 

 The White Doyenne crosses were on an average smaller than the others, 

 had a neater appearance, and tapered more toward the stem end. On 

 the other hand Easter crosses were larger than the rest. Still it is possi- 

 ble that the differences between the crosses were accidental or caused by 

 variations in the trees or branches. The fruits were different, as the 

 tables and figures will show, and if these differences can be maintained 

 in future experiments we shall be obliged to accept the evidence as con- 

 clusive that the crosses with pollen of different varieties vary. 



The following figure shows graphically the differences in fruits and 

 seeds between the different crosses. The comparative average weights 



