Hi Leon, I am new at this web site and do not check it frequently, that is why I am replying only today. I do not have direct experience yet with it. I am trying to buy it to grow it in New York. My friend Roberto who is from Firenze states that it tastes like heaven and according to many sources it is the number one breba in terms of quality, productivity, resistance to cold, and long production season. I have not been able to find it in the US. I saw in the site of Adriano that they sell it in Toronto. I sent e-mails to them but never received a reply. I sould be able to get a cutting now from a friend who grows it one hour north of NY in Sleepy hollow, and states that this was the first year and it produced just a few big brebas and no figs. I am not personally sure it is Gentile (that's why I am still trying to obtain it even tough he promised me some cuttings) but he saw the above pictures and He believes it is indeed Gentile. Next best Brebas are Monaco and Paradiso, also available in Canada (Adriano) but not here. Do you have any cuttings of Gentile? Are you interested in the cuttings of the Sicilian "Bifara Palina" or the Catalanisca (Col de dame gris) ? If you have a fax I'll send you some more info on the Gentile or if my son helps me with the scanner I'll try to send it to you via e-mail. Ciao Sal

There are three ranks below species accepted by the ICBN; in order of decreasing differentiation: subspecies variety forma The ICBN doesn't have any formal definitions of the term, other than that they must be used in that order (i.e., you can have a variety of a subspecies, but not a subspecies of a variety). The definitions are thus open to some debate and different usage by different botanists, so what one botanist may consider sufficiently distinct to be a subspecies, another may regard as only distinct enough to be a variety. Various guidelines have been published by various botanists as to how they use the terms; the one I have always found the best is that proposed by Du Rietz (1930, The fundamental units of biological taxonomy, Svensk Bot. Tidsrk. 24: 333-428) and Rothmaler (1944, Systematische Einheiten in der Botanik, Feddes Repert. 54: 1-22), and followed by e.g. Christensen (1987, Taxonomic revision of the Pinus mugo complex, Nordic J. Bot. 7: 383-408). Summarised, this is as follows: A forma of a variety, subspecies or species occurs sporadically within the distribution area of the taxon of higher rank, and differs from that taxon in a single character. A variety of a subspecies or species is to some extent allopatric [may or may not be restricted to a discrete native area] as well as mixed intergrading populations if they occur together, and differ from each other in usually more than a single distinct character. A subspecies of a species is both regionally and locally allopatric (but may intergrade where their ranges meet), and differs in several distinct characters. Species of a genus differ from each other in numerous distinct characters. Where closely related species meet, occasional hybridisation and introgression may occur (but does not always do so). A broadly similar definition is given by Rushforth (Conifers, 1987), with the additional point that varieties do not differ markedly in ecology or adaptation, whereas subspecies often do. Coming back to the cedar thread, the four taxa of cedars in the Mediterranean are a slightly difficult case in that they do have distinct ranges with no introgression (because of sea barriers), but they do not differ in several distinct characters, nor do they show any significant differences in ecology or adaptation (the biggest difference is that stenocoma is one USDA zone hardier than the others, not a huge difference). For this reason, I consider that varietal, rather than subspecific, rank is the most appropriate. For comparison, consider e.g. Coastal and Rocky Mts Douglas-firs, which do differ in several distinct characters, and also markedly ecology and adaptation (RMDF is 3 USDA zones hardier than Coastal), so much so that neither can reproduce successfully within the range of the other. This I consider an excellent example of a subspecies (if it isn't a distinct species!). If one follows traditional classification (Cedrus atlantica for Atlas Cedar; Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca for RMDF), one is left with an indistinct taxon with minimal morphological and no ecological difference classified at a higher rank than a distinct taxon with strong morphological and ecological differences. Resin

Hello Dieseler, (my old fig friend) and Ottawan and Sergius (my new ones!). I understand Ottawan, I fully understand the difficulty of moving the plants in autumn and spring, (although my professional work is that of industrial designer, and I could think of not too expensive technical devices to help a single person to do the job). For me, instead was a true shock: the weeds "figs," which grow wild in the field and just as a weed, vigorous, powerful, without care, unstoppable, ....brought in a large pot with expensive potting soil with added fertilizer, showed first an amazing progress, but then the excessive growth led thinning of leaves and, later, yellowing of these, diseases, parasites, falling leaves, sufference. I remember that in nature (all around) figs are everywhere here, (stuck under the railway bridge on the retaining walls of the highways, on pure rubbish dumps, in soil quite inexisting). Thing like that (in the pot) I had not ever seen. Have not earned additions targeted of nutrients, insecticides, fungicides, etc...., which served only as a discrete palliatives. Some shovelful of soil not fertilized (garden soil manured just three wo years ago for growing cabbages, ...and now covered with grass), and there was turning around, everything is back to normal. As a result I did some research on what is "the soil", and I discovered that the soil with an excess of vegetables (low pH) is very draining, but it does not hold much water, and easily submit the plan to shock water, (abundance and lack of wate)r, easy solved only with particular care. But the very calcareous soil (pH very high) and above all too acidic (very low pH) does not hold above all the nutrients nitrogen, ... but also not potassium and phosphorus. So easily in soils with extreme pH is the same as for the water shortages, alternating with excessive and poor in nutrients, with the aggravating circumstance that in soils that hold water if the soil does not bind the fertilizer it remains in the water, at least. In heavier common soils, near neutral pH (6-8), the water does not evaporate easily (and therefore the water hydrates the soil and the plant, but also retains the nutrients in itself) and the soil holds permanently the nutrients (except of course nitrogen, which is not particularly restrained in any medium). Results: in dry sites the fig tree does do not suffer from thirst, than do not suffer a shortage of food even in very poor soils, and without manure of any kind.

Yes, they are fresh and the recipe is from Mes Confitures. She seems to use different fruits than are readily available here, for instance her strawberry recipes are often for wild strawberries. There doesn't seem to be an enormous amount of figs available at stores in my area and when they are, most often, they are past their prime. She also does not recommend BWB, which is troublesome. However, she does have interesting recipes! Thanks, Rachelellen. jude