Morris: Chestnut Blight Resistance 



29 



Of the two which were injured one was 

 a bush chinquapin and the other a tree 

 chinquapin. 



I purposely allowed dying American 

 chestnuts to remain near the experi- 

 mental test species and varieties in 

 order to make the test severe. None 

 of the specimens of Castanea alnifolia 

 has blighted. None of the specimens of 

 Castanea mollissima has blighted but 

 these latter include only five trees — the 

 two given me by Professor Sargent (now 

 eight years old) and three received since 

 that time from the Bureau of Plant In- 

 dustry, Washington. 



breeding experiments. 



In order to breed hybrid chestnuts 

 which would be resistant to blight, I 

 made various combinations between 

 staminate and pistillate flowers of Cas- 

 tanea alnifolia, C. pumila and C. mol- 

 lissinia. The most promising hybrid for 

 timber purposes would presumably be 

 one between C. nwllissima and C. pumila 

 arbor if ormis, but my tree chinquapins 

 came into flowering this year for the 

 first time. Next spring I shall make 

 that combination. There are now grow- 

 ing in my collection various young 

 hybrids between C. mollissima, C. alni- 

 folia and C. pumila; likewise a number 

 of other hybrid chestnuts, but these are 

 at present from one to three years of age 

 only and are of no value for data in 

 reference to blight resistance. 



When making hybrids between vari- 

 ous species of chestnuts, I incidentally 

 determined that parthenogenesis ap- 

 parently occurs among the Castaneas. 

 Three years ago a number of pistillate 



flowers of Castanea pumila, which had 

 been covered with paper bags, were not 

 pollenized for the reason that I did not, 

 happen to have pollen enough to go 

 around. These paper bags were left 

 in place unintentionally. Some three 

 weeks later when they were removed 

 because of unsightliness, the branches 

 which had been covered with paper bags 

 were found to have set full comple- 

 ments of nuts. These nuts went on to 

 full development and were fertile — 

 sprouting later. Some of them showed 

 peculiar freaks. Cotyledons protruding 

 through the involucre before the nuts 

 were fully developed showed a trifle of 

 chlorophyll coloration similar to that of 

 the germ, which also protruded beyond 

 the involucre. Another peculiar feature 

 of the parthenogenic nuts was the dis- 

 parity in size between shoots which grew 

 from them in the following year, some 

 becoming much larger and some re- 

 maining smaller than chinquapins grow- 

 ing from normal gametes. In order to 

 make sure that no pollen had accident- 

 ally reached the pistillate flowers by 

 way of insects or wind, carefully checked 

 experiments were made in the following 

 year, and so far as I can judge there is 

 no doubt but the American chinquapin 

 may develop its fruit freely by par- 

 thenogenesis or by formative budding 

 from some cell. 



Incidentally I may state that similar 

 experiments were tried with Juglans 

 cinerea, Hicoria ovata, H. glabra, and 

 H. minima, and all of these apparently 

 developed nuts by parthenogenesis, 

 Juglans cinerea freely, and the three 

 hickories sparingly. 



The Supremacy of the Mind 



We cannot raise the race by degrading individuals. Whatever lowers the human- 

 ity of fathers and mothers, whatever elevates the physiological above the psycho- 

 logical, the body above the mind, is an enemy of the race and no method for its 

 regenerators. — C. W. Saleeby: The Methods of Race-Regeneration (1911). 



The Biometric Standpoint 



General theories of society are of no use, verbal discussions are of no use, philo- 

 sophical reasoning is of no use. We need to observe, measure and record, to analyze 

 by the methods of exact science, before we can advance in our sociology, before we 

 can aid our working classes to a true insight of the factors which make for or mar 

 our national vigor. — Karl Pearson: Nature and Nurture (1910). 



