262 Maine; agricultural experiment station. 1910. 



Table 2 — Concluded. 



6 

 12; 



n 



d 



a 









 2 





 

 rl 

 a 



=2 

 " 



^ a r^ 



Wo.S 



CD 



a 



■^ 



Ho .3 





 

 a 



s=2 

 a3.S 



03 



R 



.Q 

 O.bl r^ 



O.S 



3 



g 



O.S 



s 







.9 



a 

 a> 



a • 

 u^'— ' tub 



II5 







a 

 S 

 

 







373 



375 



376 



377....... 



381 



384 



337 



393 



394 



395 



396 



397A 



397B 



400 



104.0 



94 



103.0 



94.0 



106.5 



86.5 



99.0 

 110.5 

 120.5 



118.7 

 122.0 

 110.5 



95.8 

 95.0 



24 

 14 

 18 



16 



16 

 18 



14 



16 



22 



14 

 ]6 

 12 



16 

 16 



34 

 36 

 37 



29 

 33 



29 



37 

 35 

 36 



37 

 33 

 33 



29 

 31 



15.7 

 15.0 

 14.0 



14.7 

 14.7 

 15.1 



14.4 

 14.5 

 16.1 



14,7 

 15.4 

 15.6 



14.8 

 15.1 



12.0 

 11.5 



11.6 



12.8 

 11.9 

 12.9 



10.5 

 11.4 

 13.1 



11.3 

 12.6 

 11.8 



13.0 

 11.8 



10.1 

 10.0 

 10.0 



10.0 

 10.7 

 10.6 



9.5 

 10.8 

 11.5 



10.0 

 11.0 

 10.6 



10.1 

 10.3 



7.5 

 6.8 



7.1 



7.7 

 7.5 

 7.9 



6.4 

 7.6 

 8.4 



7.8 

 8.5 



7.0 



7.7 

 7.2 



23.80 

 17.45 

 26.10 



22.25 

 24.80 

 21.20 



17.00 

 30.75 

 27.80 



30.15 

 33.60 

 23.60 



21.80 

 24.15 



15.0 

 15.5 

 16.0 



15.2 

 16.0 

 12.2 



16.0 

 16.7 

 15.1 



16.8 

 16.6 

 15.0 



13.5 

 14.2 



80.20 

 76.55 

 76.90 



71.75 

 81.70 

 65.30 



82.00 

 79.75 

 92.70 



88.55 

 78.40 

 86.90 



74.00 

 70.85 



100 

 96 

 96 



92 



92 



100 



96 



100 



96 



100 



96 



100 



96 

 84 



207 

 202 

 201 



255 

 211 

 266 



210 

 206 

 220 



216 

 230 

 225 



226 

 256 



Averages 



100.19 



16.31 



32.71 



14.85 



12.06 



10.18 



7.60 



23.43 



15.17 



76.85 



96 





From these tables the following points will be noted : 



1. There is a considerable range of variation in the selected 

 ears. This was intentional. It was desired to have different 

 degrees of each character represented in the ear-to-row test 



plots. 



2. The characteristic differences of the two types of corn 

 are well brought out in these tables. Thus it appears that 

 while the average weight of the ear is about 5 grams greater 

 for the Type II corn than for the Type I, this difference is 

 largely in the weight of the cob in the two cases, rather than in 

 the weight of the grains. The Type II has a bigger cob in 

 proportion to the amount of corn it carries than does the Type 



I. In the Type I selections the net weight of shelled corn is on 

 the average 70 percent, of the total weight of the ear. Whereas 

 in the Type II ears the net weight of shelled corn is but yy per- 

 cent. 



3. In the case of these selected ears the mean length is prac- 

 tically identical in both samples. But the mean number of ker- 

 nels to the average row is 2 more in the Type I than in the Type 



II. This brings out again in another way the fine grained char- 

 acter of this Type I corn. 



