108 



University of California Publications in Agricultural Sciences [Vol. 4 



and 6, in the order there given, except that the arrangement by inter- 

 nodes reverses the two-day difference in earliness of the parents of 

 lots 19 and 20; for convenient comparison, the parental and parent- 

 lot internode values are included in table 19. 



Two progeny lots were set in each of the fourteen rows; probably 

 the soil was less favorable at the east end of the plot, and hence for 

 the even-numbered lots, at least in about the last seven rows out of the 

 fourteen. 



The plants were beginning to grow very rapidly when moved to the 

 field. On account of deficient soil moisture and excessive heat, the 

 transplanting was slow and in part purposely delayed, covering a 

 period of five days. Lots 21 to 28 were set three days later than lots 



Chart 2. 1911, field; lots transplanted from greenhouse. Percentages of 

 j)rogeny lots not flowering by NovemV)er 3, for singles. Apparent mutants and 

 injured plants eliminated. Odd-numbered lots represented by solid line. (C) 

 indicate check rows. The curves are broken between rows 10 and 11, where a 

 cultural difference enters. 



11 to 20, and the later loss of roots resulting seems, in spite of rain 

 coming the next day, to have seriously delayed flowering. Lots 1 and 2 

 wilted badly after trans])]anting, and some difference in soil con- 

 ditions in the flats, rather than a genetic difference, was doubtless 

 responsible for the exceptional lateness of these lots. Lot 20 lost an 

 exceptionally large leaf area as a result of transplanting. A fungus 

 disease (a slow stem rot) was more common on lots 20 to 24 than 

 elsewhere; it doubtless killed some young plants and delayed or pre- 

 vented flowering in some other cases. Possibly the soil was poorer in 

 the later rows. 



