BOTANICAL GAZETTE 
[DECEMBER 
SUMMARY OF BIOMETRICAL.CONSTANTS COMPILED FROM TABLES II-XI, 
IV-XXV, AND XXVII-xxx1I—Continu 
No. of Standard Coefficient of 
table Characters Mean deviation correlation 
bis of mother root in ounces ip 1908] 10.29+0.121 2.19 0.086 
XXIII at Devens of sugar in progeny 
18. 500.047 0.84 +=0.033 0.055 0.054 
of mother root in ounces in 1908} 10.250.120 | 2.15 0.085 
XXIV Average — of progeny stb in 
20.61 +0, 242 4.33 0.171 0.023 0.050 
Weight of mother root in ounces in 1906] 15.740.565 | 6.33 0.400 
XXV oe Reipeied of progeny roots in 
I1.28+0.142 1.59 0.100 |—0.095 +0.089 
Average percentage of sugar in beet 
XXVII families i in 1912 14.07 0.063 | 0.826+0.045 
Average percentage of sugar in beet : 
families in 1914 13.610.074 | 0.972%0.052 |—0.229 0.072 
Value of beet families for percentage of 
sugar in Baek expressed in percentage 
XXVIII DE Eee Cepek es es an es nee 06.01 0.329 4.313 +0. 233 
Value of | Nave fale fore percentage of 
sugar in 1914-exp n percentage 
of their checks 96.35+0.330 | 4.315+0.233 | 9.089 0.076 
Ounces of sugar per root in beet families 
XXIX in 1908 2.330.014 | 0.24 0.010 
Ounces ot sugar per root in beet families 66 
3.690.042 | 0.70 0.030 | 0.031 =0.000 
in ounces in beet ; 
x A , ae 18.8 +0.391 4.30. 0. 277 
ver. eyed cea of sugar in t 
= in 1908 21.7 #0.077 | 0.85 +0.055 | 0.056 0.091 
es bf a of root in ounces in beet 
XXXI ' Soe 10.75 +0.070 I.15 0.049 
Average sr canagghonte sr of sugar in t 
families in 1910 18,.520.054 0.89 +=0.038 0.054 +0, 060 
Average weight of root in ounces in beet 
XXXII families in 1908 I10.740.067 | 1.130%0.047 
py ts ts em of root in ounces in beet rae 
20.57#0.261 | 4.45 0.185 |—0.0003 +0.059 
fn 
Summary 
1. Differences in the size and sugar content of individual beet 
roots show no evidence of inheritance. They are fluctuations, 
therefore, and apparently play no part in beet improvement. 
2. No correlation was discoverable between percentage oF 
quantity of sugar in sugar-beet roots of ordinary sizes and their 
yield of seed, nor between their yield of seed and the average 
percentage of sugar in their progeny. 
3. The fluctuations of beet families planted in progeny rows 
in alternation with check rows exceeded their real differences, but 
real differences were distinguishable by the use of a large number of 
replications (cf. fig. 1). 
- 
