4i6 



Journal of Agricultural Research 



Vo/. \', No. lo 



mm. for the plants grown on poles. These ranges do not seem to differ 

 significantly from the second-generation ranges. 



The families are arranged according to the means of their long-podded 

 plants. IvV-310, exceptionally, as was marked in the field, throws short- 

 podded plants with pods unusually long in comparison with those of its 

 long-podded progeny. Whether this is a genuine exception can only be 

 determined by growing further generations from it. This is being done. 



In Table VIII the averages of the short-podded plants in each family 

 are compared with the averages of the long-podded plants in the same 

 families. If E is completely dominant and none of the minor factors 

 show linkage (coupling or repulsion) with E, then the average ratio of the 

 pod length of long-podded to short-podded plants should be about 1.5 

 in each family. With the exception of the family of LV-310, the ratio 

 comes as close to 1.5 as can be expected in small families, averaging 1.52. 



Table VIII. — Comparison of the length of pods of the short-podded plants in each family 

 with those of the long-podded plants in the same families. Third generation. Parents 

 heterozygous for E 



Pod length 

 of parent. 



Pod length of progeny. 



Average 



short-podded 



plants 



Average of 



long-podded 



plants. 



Ratio of 

 lengths. 



Difference 

 from parent. 



LV-II3... 

 LV-279... 

 VI/-292. .. 

 VI.-I33.-- 

 LV-461... 

 LV-468. .. 

 VL-171... 

 VL-88. ... 

 LV-310... 

 LV-80. ... 

 LV-486. .. 

 LV-527... 

 LV-114. .. 

 Yh-^og a. 

 VL-164. .. 

 VL-85.... 



79 



86 

 94 

 92 



lOI 



103 

 95 

 91 



93 

 98 

 106 



Mm. 

 51.2 



57-3 

 53- o 



60. 2 

 56.0 

 58.4 

 59-8 

 65.8 

 71.0 

 60.3 



61. I 

 62.6 

 62.5 

 65.8 

 65. o 



Mm. 

 80.3 

 81. I 

 83.8 

 87.8 

 89.6 

 89.7 

 90-5 

 • 93-3 

 95-4 

 95-5 

 96. 2 

 96.4 

 99-3 

 loi. 6 

 102.7 

 103-5 



1-57 

 1.42 

 1.58 

 1.46 

 1.60 

 1-54 

 1-51 

 1.42 



1-34 

 1.58 

 1.58 

 1-54 

 1-59 

 1-55 

 1.58 

 I. 46 



+ I 



- 7 



- 4 



+ 2 



+ 



Averac-e I . 



Part of this family was grown on poles. 



If the minor factors show zero dominance, the average of the long- 

 podded progeny in each family should equal the parental average, the 

 theoretical excess here being negligible. On the whole, the long-podded 

 plants average 2 mm. shorter than their parents. This is in part due 

 to the stunting in the elimination field, and also possibly to the severe 

 drought in 1913. In both cases the third-generation families were 



