A STUDY OF VARIATION IN APPLES. 



35 



Table 2. — Form of Apples — Concluded. 



Tree No. 6. 

 [Millimeters. [ 



Year. 



Mean. 



Standard 

 Deviation. 



Coefficient 



of 

 Variability. 



1909, 

 1910, 

 1911, 

 1912. 



1. 1790 =fc. 0024 



1.1878=fc.0018 

 1.2307^.0027 

 1.2248±.0011 



.0644±.0017 

 .0622 ±.0013 

 .0637±.0019 



.0485 ±.0008 



5.46±.16 

 5. 23:*=. 12 

 5.18±.16 

 3.96±.07 



Summary. 



1. These Ben Davis trees have borne much more heavily than the 

 Baldwins and have shown hardly any tendency to biennial bearing. 



2. Among five Ben Davis trees the most prolific tree has exceeded the 

 least prolific by more than 60 per cent, in number of apples in the total 

 for six crops. The Baldwins have shown even greater differences. 



3. The upper south quarters of the Ben Davis trees have borne a few 

 more apples than any of the other three quarters. This may be significant 

 or only a chance difference. 



4. Some Ben Davis trees showed a fairly constant tendency to produce 

 apples larger or smaller than the average; others fluctuated from season 

 to season. 



5. Ben Da\ds apples from the upper south quarters of the trees run 

 constantly larger than those from the other parts ; those from the opposite 

 quarters were generally smallest. 



6. Only once in the case of a very heavy crop has the number of apples 

 been large enough to affect the size. 



7. There are some sUght indications of a relationship between size and 

 the average summer temperature, but the fluctuations in temperature 

 have probably not been large enough to overcome other influences affect- 

 ing size. 



8. Some trees showed slight individuality in the amount of variability, 

 and this may be correlated with size, — the larger the apples the more 

 variable. This is not true as between the different parts of the trees. 



