@DWD2 - thanks for attaching a copy of the article. (That's pretty much why I posted the reference... I was kinda hoping that you or one of the others here who has a Springer subscription would do exactly that... when I found the abstract I figured I really wanted to read that one... so thanks for obliging and attaching it!). I did read it, and as I thought likely, he discussed two pathways to triploidy in his article. Not surprising, since figs have such a bizarrely complex sexual life. (I guess bananas are similarly unusual... we could probably go places with Jon's interest in both bananas and figs, but hey, I guess we shouldn't go there :-).
One thing that E. Falistocco doesn't do is name which of his/her accessions were polyploid. I was hoping he or she would, if only to sate curiosity. But it hardly matters, since most of the accessions are unnamed (and listed as "unknown" variety).
Another correction on a point I posted above (post #4) -- I mentioned that it looked like Panachee might be polyploid. And I suppose it still might be, but the reason that I stated that turns out to be based on a misleading coincidence. There is an apple cultivar called Panachee, and it is polyploid. (Apparently a hybrid between a tetraploid and diploid variety). Turns out there's a set of related apple cultivars all based on Panachee. So whether or not the Panachee cultivar of ficus carica is polyploid, I cannot say... but my initial reason for suggesting it was based on a mixup over which Panachee was being referenced in a paper, the apple or the fig. I went back and reread that paper, and it was clearly referencing the apple. So, as far as my own knowledge stands -- looks like there are common occurrences of polyploidy in ficus carica, but I do not know which varieties/cultivars.
@Dale and @Frank -- Regarding colchicine pathways into the human body. Yes, as DWD pointed out there are multiple pathways for colchicine -- it can enter via inhalation, absorption through GI linings (both gastric and intestinal), as well as direct absorption through the skin. It is pulled from bloodstream by the liver, where it is both concentrated (causing a variety of liver and renal diseases, including sometimes death through complete renal failure) and excreted back to the intestinal tract. Since it is also absorbed through intestinal walls, it induces a cyclic set of "peaks" in the blood, with several peaks occurring over a period of days. Its metabolites are an interesting lot in themselves (and there are lots of papers on all of these things, for the medically-minded among you). Eventually it is both metabolized and excreted, as the rates of reabsorption and metabolizing do a dance of competing processes. But despite this sort of gross pathology, it is the intracellular action which often causes real issues, because of its disruptive effect on cell division at the molecular level. (i.e. causing cancer and other pathological processes with DNA... particularly some well documented teratogenic action, aka birth defects).
Really interesting stuff... so toxic and dangerous in multiple ways, yet responsible for vast improvement historically for food crops. And used for treating cancer too (as I pointed out above and so did Dale. Though that seems ironic, it's actually fairly common for the simple reason that substances that disrupt healthy cell functions will also usually disrupt cancer cell functions... kind of reinforces how "primitive" (in some sense) our capabilities are at intervening in cellular processes that we can understand but are unable to intervene without killing the patient). Colchicine not only played a part in the improvement of crops like wheat and oats (as Chivas points out)... it's also one of the big factors in why the cannabis of today is hundreds of times more potent than it was in the 60's. Of course, a very high price was paid by many children-of-the-60's when it became fashionable for amateur cannabis growers to experiment with colchicine, and for far too many young adults being unmindful of the dangers led to otherwise-rare cancers and diseases. And it comes from a reasonably attractive flower. (But like we've been saying: don't mess with colchicine).
On an up note -- the Falistocco paper really is interesting. I've written to the professore and if I receive anything interesting in reply I'll post about it.
Mike