350 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [NOVEMBER 



second (09213) had the same seed parent as the last two families 

 (09211 and 09212) under that case. The pollen parent in all three 

 families of the present case was the same normal male, 0855(36), 

 that was used for all the crosses in case V. It is consequently fair 

 to assume that the differences in the result under case X and case 

 XI are wholly referable to the male parent, and that such differences 

 as appear between case X and case V are referable to the seed 

 parents. There is no difference in the latter instance, while the 

 fundamental difference in the former is that in case X the males 

 were hermaphrodite, while in the present case they were normal 

 males, thus showing again the correspondence between the male 

 offspring and their pollen parent. 



CASE XII 

 WHEN MALE MUTANTS ARE CROSSED WITH UNRELATED FEMALES 



It will be recalled that among the 705 offspring produced in 

 1909 from crosses between females and the genetic hermaphrodites, 

 A and B, there were 2 males and 305 hermaphrodites. In similar 

 manner it will have been noted that in a number of the cultures 

 of 1910 a very small percentage of such males have appeared 

 in families of which the male offspring were generally hermaphro- 

 dite. Instances of this kind are noted above, under cases I, III, 

 IV, V, VII, and X. Whether these males were true males or pos- 

 sibly somatically modified hermaphrodites may now be considered. 



The families reported under the present case were produced 

 by pollinating two different unrelated females with pollen of 

 08118(13), one of the two males derived from genetic hermaphro- 

 dite fathers in 1909. No hermaphrodites were produced, thus 

 showing that the pollen parent was a true male, and not a hermaph- 

 rodite which had suffered the suppression of the female organs 

 because of some purely somatic influence. The frequency of 

 occurrence of such male mutants may be inferred from the fact 



