258 



MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES 



ably due tu some cultural accident, perhaps to an excess of moisture 

 in this row of pots. 



The lots of plants may seem rather absurdly small for their pur- 

 pose, but the uniformity of development here, with the marked normal 

 divergence in internodes of the types in question, seems to justify a 

 fair degree of confidence. Ten plants here were probably worth fifty 

 in the field. 



WG9 



Ancestry 



WG9 



Chart 4. Cultures of 1912. Internodes: parental values and progeny means, 

 shown as in chart 1. The true parental values are twice those indicated by the 

 ordinate figures, which apply directly to the progeny values. 



This test, with that of 1910, shows very positively that WS1-W 2 16 

 was only phenotypically few-noded. Evidently WG9-C10-W8, the 

 parent of field lot 22, really carried the earliness factor, as was some- 

 what doubtfully inferred from the field results; the five progeny of 

 WS1-W 2 12, on the other hand, though from a fewer-noded parent, 

 have values that make the presence of the earliness factor improbable. 



On the main point at issue the evidence seems satisfactory. Neither 

 of the two very early and few-noded progeny of WLIO represented 



[116] 



