274 MAINi; AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. I91O. 



The difference in appearance of the ears in these two figures 

 is striking indeed. The ears in Fig. 227 are poor scrubby look- 

 ing things, which anybody selecting seed for anything but an 

 experiment would surely reject. On the other hand, the ears 

 in Fig. 226 are of fine quality. Every one is of the cylindrical 

 type so much sought after in corn, and each has a beautifully 

 rounded tip evenly covered with grain. Each one of the ears 

 shown in these two pictures was planted, and each one produced 

 a rozv yielding zvithin 2 bushels {above or below) of the average 

 of the whole plot. The average rate of yield of the rows from 

 the 5 ears of Fig. 226 was 36.10 bushels per acre, while that for 

 the 5 ears in Fig. 227 was 35.00, or, in other words, the average 

 rate of yield per acre was only i.i bushels more for the roivs 

 from the cars of Fig. 226 than for those from the ears of Fig. 

 22/. 



Another question which suggests itself is as to the quality of 

 the ears in the rows produced from the ears shown in Figs. 226 

 and 227. Was it not the case that while the net weight of 

 shelled corn was substantially the same for the two sets of rows 

 from these different ears yet. the proportion of this borne on 

 nubbins and ears of too poor quality for seed was higher in the 

 rows from the poor ears of Fig. 227 than from the good ears 

 of Fig. 226. One would suppose this surely to be the case. 

 Ears like 172 (Fig. 227) have been set forth to the readers of 

 agricultural literature as glaring and shocking examples of 

 what not to plant. Now as a matter of fact, out of the total 

 amount of shelled corn produced by the progeny of these two 

 set of ears, an average of 13.67 per cent, was produced on nub- 

 bins and ears too poor for seed in the case of the progeny of the 

 ears of Fig. 226, against an average of 13.58 per cent, in the case 

 of the progeny of the ears of Fig. 227. Or, in other words, the 

 progeny of the good ears of Fig. 226 produced just as much 

 {and indeed an insignificant trifle more) corn on nubbins and 

 ears too poor for seed as did the progeny of the poor ears of 



Fig. 22'J. 



Turning now to the other side of the case let us ask what was 

 the proportion of high quahty ears (Ai seed) produced by the 

 progeny of the two sets of ears shown in Figs. 226 and 227. 

 We may again take the total weight of shelled corn as the base 

 of comparison. The progeny of the poor ears of Fig. 227, tak- 



