282 maine agriculturai, experiment station. 191o. 



Table 8. 

 Data Regarding the Progeny of the Ears Shoivn in Figure 2^0. 



6 



Weight of 



shelled corn 



in grams 



Planted 

 row No. 



Bushels Parent 

 per acre row No. 



Bushels per 



acre of 

 parent row. 



Parent 

 ear No. 



417 

 589 

 596 

 597 

 698 



117.0 

 113.5 

 97.0 

 108.5 

 111.0 



515 

 517 

 537 

 549 

 518 



55.62 

 50.41 

 51.34 

 42.44 

 52.57 



103 

 146 

 149 

 149 

 149 



40.00 

 45.50 

 52.62 

 52.62 

 52.62 



138 

 139 

 149 

 149 

 149 



Figure 229 shows 5 ears which produced rows yielding a Httle 

 below the average for the whole test. It is to be contrasted 

 with Fig. 230 which gives 5 ears producing rows above the 

 average (with one exception introduced for another purpose). 

 The pictures show clearly enough that there is certainly no 

 marked difference in the average quality of these two sets 

 of ears, as they would be judged by a person picking out ears 

 from a miscellaneous lot for planting. Yet the average 

 rate of yield per acre of the progeny of the 5 ears of Fig. 230 

 is 5.47 bushels more than that of the progeny of the 5 ears of 

 Fig. 229. In other words, the ears of Fig. 230 yielded approx- 

 imately 10 per cent, better than those of Fig. 229. There cer- 

 tainly is not a 10 per cent, difference in the quality of the ears 

 themselves, as shown in the photographs. 



Each of these figures brings out some further special points 

 of interest. Thus in Fig. 229 the three ears No. 574, 576 and 

 577 are all daughter ears from ear No. 50 shown in Fig. 226. 

 Ear No. 50 was the best individual of all those selected in 1907. 

 Two of the three grand-daughter rows (534 and 524) yielded 

 at exactly the same rate. The ear shown beside No. 50 in Fig. 

 226 is No. 193, an ear of good, shape but very short and small 

 as compared with No. 50. Now ear No. 448 in Fig 229 is a 

 daughter ear from No. 193. Neither in size, shape nor quality 

 is it noticeably inferior to the daughter ears from No. 50 (574, 

 576 and 577). Furthermore the grand-daughter row from ear 

 No. 193 yielded at substantially the same rate as did the grand- 

 daughter rows from ear No. 50. In other words, it appears 

 that ear No. 193 was just as good an ear for planting purposes 

 as was ear No. 50, though no one would ever have supposed so 

 on seeing the two ears side by side. 



