S62 



Journal of Agricultural Research voi. xix. no. h 



Table XIV. — Twenty highest-yielding of lo8 Rural New Yorker tuber lines when ranked 

 on 2-year average numerical production of marketable tubers per hill<^ 



2 The II lines starred appear among the 20 highest when ranked on 3-year average production by weight 

 of marketable tubers. Nine of these lines (printed in bold-face type) have uniformly good vine charac- 

 teristics, and the other 11 have vine characteristics which suggest degeneration. Average of group, 3.47 

 tubers per hill. 



Table XV. — Twenty lowest-yielding of loS Rural New Yorker tuber lines when ranked 

 on j-year average numerical production of marketable tubers per hill « 



a The 7 lines starred appear among the 20 lowest when ranked on 3-year average production by weight of 

 marketable tubers. The 6 lines printed in bold-face type appeared among the 33 chosen in 19 18 as hav- 

 ing the best vine characteristics, and these 6 have very good 3-year averages for tuber production by 

 aweight. Line 428 appeared among the heaviest-yielding 20 in 1918 and only missed by a small margin 

 a place among the 20 heaviest-yielding when ranked on 3-year average production. Average of group, 

 2.68 tubers per hill. ' 



Table XVI. — Yields for 1918 of 33 Rural New Yorker lines chosen upon igi8 vine 

 characteristics alone as the best of the 108 lines of this variety « 



oThe 16 lines starred appear among the 33 highest-yielding lines when ranked on their 3-year average 

 record. Lines 488 and 507 rank among the 20 lowest-yielding according to the 3-year average. Average 

 of group, 21,142 pounds per acre. 



Table XVII. — Thirty-three highest-yielding lines of 108 Rural New Yorker tuber lines 



in igi8 °- 



o The 18 lines printed in bold-face type appear in Table XVI. This means that of the 33 highest-yielding 

 Rural New Yorker lines in 1918, 15 have poor vine characteristics. Average of group, 24, 109 pounds per acre. 



