On the history of Caprifigs

[Charlie Dodgson]

In the biologic past prior to Ficus carica, Ficus were monoecious -- meaning that separate male and female syconia ("fruit") appeared on the same individual. Male flowers with stamens only occurred in male syconia. Female flowers with ova capable of fertilization only appeared in female syconia. The syconia were likely open with no ostiole (eye) -- which is generally common with compound flowers.

At some point a category of wasps began specializing in Ficus. In symbiotic response, the Ficus developed gall flowers with modified ova to host the wasps. These have no reproductive function and historically have been mislabeled as female.

The Ficus syconia then continued to evolve. One very noticeable feature is the closure of the sepals and the formation of the eye. Another adaptation is the transition from monoecy to dioecy.

Ficus carica is part way through this transition. As a result we presently observe female individuals with no male flowers, but we also observe Caprifig individuals with male flowers, true female flowers (typically fall crop), and gall flowers. These are true Caprifigs. A Ficus carica individual with no true female flowers in any crop is a male fig.

Beyond Ficus carica there are Ficus species which are believed to have completed the transition from monoecy to dioecy -- meaning all individuals are either male or female but gall flowers still occur in both. Ficus erecta is one of them.

 

[epiphyte]

here's a monoecious fig, ficus drupacea, that i took a pic of at the san diego botanic garden...



even though it wasn't pollinated (no seeds), it was ripe and edible.  so this particularly variety is parthenocarpic.  the fig tasted just like a loquat but a bit less sweet.  the inner part was kinda inedible though because of the male flowers with pollen on them.  

contrary to your explanation, this same exact fig also had female flowers, which had already finished blooming.  so first the female flowers opened, and then when they all finished blooming, the male flowers opened.  no overlap.  otherwise there wouldn't be any need for a wasp.  

admittedly i'm a little fuzzy on the exact mechanics of pollination.  if this fig had been in its native habitat, a female wasp, covered in pollen, would have entered the fig when the female flowers were open.  she would have pollinated some of the flowers but laid eggs in the rest?  

according to a quick google search "In monoecious species, seeds and wasps develop within the same fig".  still though, not sure how she decides whether to pollinate a flower or put an egg in it.  

i don't understand what you're trying to say about ficus erecta.  i don't get the sense that it's any different from any other dioecious fig.  let's take ficus auriculata for example...



is this fig male or female?  it's functionally male, given that all those white bits on the left are open (more or less) male flowers.  we have to say "functionally" male because the brown carpet consists of all the spent female flowers.  well, maybe we just need to say "functionally" male once.  now i'm just going to refer to it as male.  

what's the difference between this male auriculata fig and the drupacea fig?  there's not much difference, i don't think.  they both have female flowers that open first, and when they finish blooming, the male flowers open.  the main difference perhaps is that the auriculata wasp is a greedy lady.  she lays her eggs in all the auriculata female flowers.  but i can't even fathom how that would be possible when there are so many female flowers.  

with auriculata though, there are also trees that only produce female figs, that only have female flowers.  but these flowers are shaped differently, in a way that makes it impossible for the female wasp to put her eggs into them.  all she can do is pollinate the flowers and die.  all for the greater good i suppose.

this is how it works with carica, and pretty sure it works the same with erecta as well.

 

[Charlie Dodgson]

@"epiphyte"#53 
check the definition of monoecious.

 

[epiphyte]

mo·noe·cious - "(of a plant or invertebrate animal) having both the male and female reproductive organs in the same individual; hermaphrodite."

not very informative.  in any case i'm skeptical that there are any ficus drupacea figs without male flowers.  you're welcome to head over to the san diego botanic garden and start cutting open the fallen figs.  every single one i cut open had male flowers.  but maybe i didn't cut open enough.  

here's a parthenocarpic fig of monoecious ficus habrophylla...



male flowers?  yup.  

here's a parthenocarpic fig of monoecious ficus iteophylla...



male flowers?  subtle, but yup.

and here's parthenocarpic fig of monoecious ficus elastica...



not subtle.  

monoecious ficus are all over southern california.  their figs are everywhere.  the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Charlie Dodgson]

@"epiphyte"#53 
I thought you would consult a biology reference.

Hermaphrodite plants have male and female gametes in the same flower.

Monoecious plants have male and female flowers on the same individual but not in the same pods.

A syconium pod is a compound flower with partially or completely sealed sepals, save an ostiole.

A fig syconium with both male and true female flowers is not monoecious.

 

[Figology]

What is the theory on where the wasps laid their eggs in before their symbiotic relationship with ficus?

 

[Charlie Dodgson]

@"Figology"#21 
You might find some references here:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0389

 

[Rob]

@"Figology"#21 
You might find some references here:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0389

I do appreciate all of the links to the various sites, however, I guess like others here, I don't believe that I have access to any of them.

 

[Charlie Dodgson]

@"Rob"#54 
Nearly all the references I've placed in the History and Studies section are open access.

 

[Rob]

@"Rob"#54 
Nearly all the references I've placed in the History and Studies section are open access.

Yes, all true, but I believe all others are not?

 

[Charlie Dodgson]

Which "all others" are you referring to?

Are you also aware that I pay out of pocket for the non-open access publications that I read?

https://frostconcepts.org

 

[GoodFriendMike]

Which "all others" are you referring to?

Are you also aware that I pay out of pocket for the non-open access publications that I read?

https://frostconcepts.org

Richard, I know you pay out of pocket to read many studies. But we can not expect member's to pay out of pocket to read something you want them to. Please just post studies that are free. Or copy and paste the section you want them to read. If they like what you post from that study they may pay to read the whole thing.

 

[Charlie Dodgson]

@"GoodFriendMike"#9 
"Please just post studies that are free. Or copy and paste the section you want them to read."

That's mostly what I've done. But if the section I want them to read is the abstract or the references, I give everyone a link to the article.

 

[Rob]

Which "all others" are you referring to?

Are you also aware that I pay out of pocket for the non-open access publications that I read?

https://frostconcepts.org

I do understand that, and of course for anyone wanting to read them, they would also need to pay, that was my point.

 

[GoodFriendMike]

@"Charlie Dodgson"#164 I think the 'mostly' part is the issue. Many members are not like the ones posting on this thread right now. Many do not study. And if there is a link to a pay site they will just move on. Instead of reading. If we want more people to get involved and to study. Than we need to provide them with material to read. Right? You have provided alot of material already. And I feel you will continue to do so. All I am asking is for you to keep it to material that all can read with out having to pay.

 

[Charlie Dodgson]

@"Rob"#54 
I gave you my contact information for a reason. Once again, which "others" that you desire to read were you referring to?

 

[Rob]

@"Rob"#54 
I gave you my contact information for a reason. Once again, which "others" that you desire to read were you referring to?

Sorry, I am not aware of any contact information, and to be clear, what was this regarding?  My "others" was referring to pretty much everything you posted a link to that I tried to view, but was not able to. To clarify, I would say all links you have ever posted, I have tried to view.

 

[Charlie Dodgson]

@"Rob"#54 
If you are not able to view the links I've posted on this site, then I recommend you contact the system administrator because others are not having that problem.

If on the other hand there are articles you are unable to download, then use my contact information for assistance.

 

[Rob]

@"Rob"#54 
If you are not able to view the links I've posted on this site, then I recommend you contact the system administrator because others are not having that problem.

If on the other hand there are articles you are unable to download, then use my contact information for assistance.

Well, I thought we had covered the links part, but as mentioned before, I have no issue with viewing links, or getting to the sites that they lead to, just viewing the information, since I am not authorized to download any of it. Regarding the contact info. as mentioned above, I have no recollection of any contact information from you, or what it was regarding? I checked pm's and there doesn't seem to be anything showing there either?