32 



It was about two weeks "before any difference could "be noted 

 in the appearance of the rows thus treated and those not treated. 

 Then for a time there teemed to be a checking of the growth in 

 the rows treated but this difference has disappeared or is so 

 slight that at the present time it is not possible to tell 



which rows have been deprived of part of their endosperm and 



which rows have not. See Figs. 10 and 11. 



On the twenty-second of March the heights of the plants measured 



"by the longest leaf were as follows: 



Heights of plants in millimeters. 



Plant s 



:TowB: 1; 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7; 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13; 



1 152 162 170 178 218 184 216 246 248 



2 142 191 148 199 222 171 197 236 218 226 158 



3 175 169 161 141 208 182 163 208 218 215 240 170 



70 150 128 176 193 199 154 222 E15 23 222 188 



5 176 200 90 186 199 204 223 201 219 216 211 236 



6 110 174 136 128 196 152 232 198 188 230 2Z6 160 221 



7 150 226 153 226 119 199 210 228 187 276 220 248 213 



8 140 201 173 209 228 220 236 239 226 221 210 



9 175 200 196 200 193 233 210 244 211 176 226 238 

 10 130 197 196 SIC 118 201 161 220 233 234 217 245 

 Averages 138 185 164 171 179 188 200 214 214 28 220 222 213 



'.Vhile the longest leaf may not be a very reliable criterion 

 of the development of the plant, the averages represent fairly 

 well the superficial appearance of the experiments at the time. 

 It took a careful scrutiny to make sure which rows had had the 

 endosperm removed and which had not, if no reference was made 

 to the record. But on the other hand there was no difficulty 

 in deciding which rows were plantec with large seed and which 

 from small. 



?ig. 1C shows the appearance of the plat on the fourteenth 

 of April, and on the twenty-seventh a plant was taken from each 

 row, which was as nearly as possible a representative plant 

 for the row. Herewith, Fig. 11, is shown the comparison of the 

 development of the plants. There seems to be no definite oorre- 



