(17) 



nmnbers concerned are too small to admit of definite con- 

 clusions from these three lines. 



In Table III are given the coefficients of correlation 

 for the first (parental), second (grandparental) , third 

 and fo'oi^th ancestral generations of line 30. It is at 

 once evident that the five characters considered fall into 

 two groups . 



The parental coefficients for spine number and shell 

 size are significant, in com.parison v/ith their probable 

 errors. All the coefficients for these two characters are 

 positive, and there is a regular decrease in their size as 

 one passes from mere recent to more remote ancestral gen- 

 erations. This evidence poi-nts toward the inheritance of 

 variations in size and spine number, even within the single 

 clone . 



The other three characters, shell form, m.outh size and 

 mouth form, show no such evidence of inheritance. The par- 

 ental coefficients are less than three times their prob- 

 able errors,, many of the other coefficients are negative, 

 and no diminishing ancestral correlation is to be found. 

 It can be said only that while variations in these charac- 

 ters may possibly be inherited, this table gives no evi- 

 dence leading to such a conclusion. 



Ancestral correlations in the other clones. In 

 Table TV are given, for comparison, the coefficients of 

 correlation for the first and second ancestral generations 

 in lines 9, 41 and 43. 



In all of these lines, the numbers availalle were so 



