26 



H. H. Love and C. E. Leighty 





i 



6 



25-30 



4 



















4 



30-35 



6 



1 

















7 



35-40 



21 



6 

















27 



40-45 



43 



30 



2 



1 













76 



45-50 



21 



97 



26 



6 





1 









151 



50-55 



9 



97 



95 



32 



2 



1 







1 



237 



55-60 



1 



24 



94 



53 



16 



4 



3 





1 



196 



60-65 



1 



7 



16 



31 



17 



5 



3 



2 



1 



83 



65-70 





3 



5 



6 



6 



3 





2 



2 



27 



70-75 





3 





2 



4 



4 



1 



1 





15 



75-80 









1 



1 











2 



106 268 238 132 46 18 



2 



825 



Fig. 11. — Height of culm in centimeters, subject 



Total number of kernels -per culm, relative. 1908 

 Coefficient of correlation = .658 ± .013 



40-45 ! 1 1 



45-50 I 1 2 3 



50-55 1 3 4 1 8 



55-60 113 7 11 



60-65 i 7 13 14 2 36 



65-70 I 1 13 27 18 1 60 



70-75 ~. 1 9 38 27 16 2 1 94 



75-80 1 7 43 31 16 1 99 



80-85 1 14 35 33 16 2 1 102 



85-90 4 6 21 24 10 3 68 



90-95 4 5 5 3 1 18 



6 18 44 87 108 88 76 48 17 7 1 500 



Fig. 12. — Avercu/e height of plant in centimeters, subject 



Average number of kernels per culm per plant, relative. 1909 

 Coefficient of correlation ^= .835 ± .009 



.658± .013 for 1908 to .835± .009 for 1909. In each case the correlation 

 coefficients are positive, high, and fairly stable. This indicates that 

 height and kernels produced depend on each other to a considerable 

 extent, but that the relation may be modified by en\aronmental conditions. 

 There is a closer relation between height and kernel production for the 

 average culm than for the whole plant. 



