growing in the same place as the former, or[1] quite near it. Take for instance the centaury in Elea; where it grows in hill-country, it is fruitful; where it grows in the plain, it bears no fruit, but only flowers; and where it grows in deep valleys, it does not even flower, unless it be scantily. Any way it appears that, even of other plants which are of the same kind and all go by the same name, one will be without fruit, while another bears fruit; for instance, one kermes-oak will be fruitful, another not; and the same is true of the alder, though both produce flowers. And, generally speaking, all those of any given kind which are called 'male' trees are without fruit, and that though[2] some of these, they say, produce many flowers, some few, some none at all. On the other hand they say that in some cases it is only the 'males' that bear fruit, but that, in spite of this, the trees grow from the flowers,[3] (just as in the case of fruit-bearing trees they grow from the fruit). And they add that in both cases,[4] the crop of seedlings[5] which comes up is sometimes so thick that the woodmen cannot get through except by clearing a way.
There is also a doubt about the flower of some trees, as we said. Some think that the oak bears flowers, and also the filbert the chestnut and even the fir and Aleppo pine; some however think that none of these has a flower, but that,—resembling[6] and corresponding to the wild figs which drop off prematurely, we have in the nuts the catkin,[7] in the
- ↑ χώρᾳ καὶ Ald.; ἢ καὶ conj. St.
- ↑ i.e. the 'males' are sterile whether they flower or not. καὶ τούτων τὰ μὲν πολλὰ I conj.; τούτων τὰ πολλὰ τὰ μὲν Ald.
- ↑ ? i.e. the flowers of the 'female' tree.
- ↑ i.e. (a) in those trees whose 'male' form is sterile, whether it bears flowers or not; (b) in those whose 'male' form alone bears fruit, but the fruit is infertile. The passage is obscure: W. gives up the text.
- ↑ ἔκφσιν. cf. 7. 4. 3.
- ↑ ὅμοιον conj. W.; ὁμοίαν UAld. cf. 3. 7. 3.
- ↑ cf. 3. 5. 5.
