I. Inherltance in Shirley Popprj 



70 



and it is as.sumod that the 8taiulanl deviations about thosc weighted meariH 

 of the capsulcs weighted with tho immber of their brother cap.sules, will bc closely 

 equal to the Standard deviation of the cap.su le.s weighted only with number of 

 capsulcs iu the plant. Thi.s will be closely true if the number of cap.sules per 

 plant, and the number of plants in tho fraternity are not widely divergent as for 

 example they wei'e in the ease of tho Bookiiaiu ci'op*. 



TABLE X. 

 Stigmatic Bands. Fvaternal Gorrelation. 



The Highgate crop had with rare exceptions one flower only per plant. Homo- 

 typosis could not therefore be considered. We are really comparing as fratei^nal 

 character the first or apical flower on each plant. This was also done, as will 

 be Seen later, at Oxford with the result that the correlation was •25(j1, a result 

 agreeing excellently with that from Highgate. The most divergent result is that 

 for the Kidderminster crop which was also the most anomalous in the parental re- 

 lationship-f. While the fraternal relationship is over-emphasised, the parental wa.s 

 diminished — these results are precisely what we might expect if the plants due to 

 different parentages received differential treatment, i.e. if the environmont varied 

 somewhat from snb-crop to sub-crop. In this case the fraternal correlation would 

 be emphasised by the diiferential environmont, which would at the same time 

 tend to distort, and so dimiuish the parental regression. The Kidderminster crop 

 was such a large one — there were 100 separate parentages, that it would be almost 

 impossible to avoid unrecognisable differentiation. 



The average of the above results is of course very satisfactory. The doduction, 

 however, indirectly of the fraternal correlation by aid of the homotypic coefficient 

 may be objected to. Especially is this the case, when we take crops in which 

 there is great variability in the number of capsulcs to the plant aud of brother 

 plants to the family. We here reach the same objection ultimately as arises from 

 endeavouring to form the capsule mean for each plant, this mean having to be 

 based ou sometimes 1 or 2 capsules and on other occasions on 30 to 40 capsules. 

 So that unless one weights individual means, one may reach very discordant 



* The Bookbam erop could not be considered for the fraternal data, because some of the plants 

 being divided into two, we could not distinguish homotypic from fraternal relationship. 

 t Possibly the Enfield I crop was largely self-fertilised. 



