id 



1923 Grafting 



G — Grafts Set C— Successful Catches 



Shag- Mocker- Pignut Pecan Bitter- Total 



bark nut nut 



G C G C G C G C G C G C 



Barnes 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 18 



Brooks 5 4 2 5 1 5 2 19 5 



Clark 5 1 5 5 2 5 1 5 2 25 6 



Fairbanks .... 27 17 27 17 



Gobble 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 



Griffin 1 1 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 5 3 



Hales 5 3 4 1 5 4 5 5 19 13 



Kentucky 5 4 3 1 5 4 5 4 5 123 14 



Kirtland 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 12 7 



Laney 6464 



Long Beach ...4 3 3 2 4 1 4 2 3 118 9 



Manahan 5 1 5 1 6 2 5 1 5 126 6 



Siers 5555 



Stanley 3332 3398 



Taylor 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 15 12 



Vest 5 1 5 5 1 5 2 5 125 5 



Weiker 5152 51 15 4 



32 17 51 20 52 26 46 24 91 53 272 140 



53.1% 29.2% 50.07r 47.0% 59.37r 51.5% 



100.0%, 

 21.0% 

 24.0% 

 59.3%o 

 80.0%, 

 60.0% 

 52.5%> 

 61.0% 

 58.4% 

 66.7%o 

 50.0% 

 24.2% 



100.0%o 

 89.0%, 

 80.0%o 

 20.0%, 

 26.8% 



An inspection of the 1923 grafts made August 21, 1924' showed the 

 following number growing: on shagbark 11, on mockernut 6, on pignut 

 26, on pecan 24, and on bitternut 46, the only place where there was 

 any material difference being in the case of the mockernut where nearly 

 three-quarters of the number of grafts growing last summer failed 

 to grow this spring, in fact all varieties failed to grow excepting three, 

 the Barnes, Gobble and Long Beach, all three of which I suspect from 

 other evidence, have mockernut parentage. In the case of those on pig- 

 nut and pecan stocks there was no loss from 1923 and in some instances 

 at least of those on shagbark and bitternut stocks the loss was due to 

 outside causes, such as being broken off. 



