72 THE POLLINATION OF PEAR FLOWERS. 



Winter Nclis crossed with BavtJctt — Continued. 



Ilocoi d 

 No. 



Seeds. 



Sound. 



Abortive. 



No. 



Weiglit. 1 Eemarks. No. 



Weight. 



Eemarlvs. 



4] 79 



4]80rt 



4180;> 



4180e 



4181 



4182 



4183 



41836 



4183a 



4183d 



A vcrage . . . 



10 

 9 



8 



7 

 8 

 8 

 10 

 10 

 8 



Grams. 



0. 59 i All rather thin 



0. 34 j Eather thin 



0.33 ' do 



0.33 i do 



0.30 i do 



0. 52 1 Large, plump 



0.70 ! do 



0.72 i do 



0.58 { do 





 1 



2 



2 

 2 

 

 

 2 



Grams. 

 



0. 02 

 0. 01 

 0.01 

 0. 03 

 0.02 

 0. 02 

 

 



0.02 



Large, dark. 

 Small, da,i-k. 



Do. 

 Large, dark. 



Do. 



Do. 



Do. 

 Do. 



8.5 



0. 46 ' 



1. 5 0. 01 



Two kinds of Winter Nelis pears, crosses with Angouleme anclBart- 

 lett, were examined in the laboratory. These agreed fairly well, although 

 the Bartlett crosses were superior in size and in weight of seeds. All 

 were typical Winter Nelis. While still on the tree, these fruits were 

 examined and compared with those outside of the bags. Ko difference 

 was found. The crosses agreed i)erfectly with the fruits exposed to 

 insect visits. No self-pollinated pears of this variety have yet been 

 obtained, since the flowers protected from insects failed to fruit. 



Although a number of other self and cross pollinated fruits occurred 

 in the experiments at Eochester and Geneva they were not studied 

 critically, but were examined as they hung on the trees. The 

 Glapps Favorite pears crossed with other varieties agreed perfectly 

 with the other fruits on the tree. The self-pollinated fruits on the Flem- 

 ish Beauty were narrower than normal fruits and differed from them 

 much in the same way as was the case with the Bartlett and Buft'um, but 

 the difference was not so pronounced. Mr.Fairchild informed me that 

 very fine bunches of self-pollinated fruits matured on the Mannings 

 Elizabeth trees at Geneva. They did not seem very different from the 

 cross-j)ollinated fruits, or at least the contrast was not sufiScient to 

 attract attention, as in case of the Buffum. 



Summary. 



It is evident from the above statements that in the study of the 

 effect of pollen on the fruit there are two distinct questions to be consid- 

 ered, viz, (1) the difference between self and cross-pollinated fruits; 

 and (2) the difference between different kinds of crosses, that is, 

 between crosses from pollen of different varieties. It has been shown 

 that no practical differences exist between individual crosses and 

 crosses between trees of the same horticultural variety, and both are 

 here included as self-pollinated fruits. 



These investigations have shown that the great contrast is between 

 he self and cross-pollinated fruits. Very decided differences have been 



