352 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [NOVEMBER 
The pedigrees 08125 and 08132 are those of hermaphrodites 
C and D among the cultures of 1909, which were reported upon — 
last year. If the “model pedigree’’ illustrated in the diagram 
(fig. 14) be compared with that under case I (fig. 1), the two will be 
seen to correspond perfectly. In fact, the hermaphrodites A and B 
included under case I were full sibs of hermaphrodites C and D 
whose progenies are repeated here. These 4 hermaphrodites 
which were found in the cultures of 1908 were indistinguishable 
fe 2 
LJ -L4 
—+0 
1 
] 
Fic. 14.—Model pedigree for case XIII 
_ from one another in their external characters, and the fact that 
they belonged in two different categories was only demonstrated 
by the breeding tests. 
No additional instances have been found in which a hermaph- 
rodite indistinguishable from the usual type of “genetic hermaph- 
rodites” has proved to be simply a somatic variation of the male. 
However, 2 peculiar variant individuals found in one family of the 
1909 cultures exhibited an analogous behavior, and consequently 
their progenies have been added to those of C and D under this 
case. The 2 individuals used as pollen parents of the families 
0995 and og96 had several lobes of the calyx prolonged and 
modified to the form and structure of stigmas, and one of the 
flowers had in the center a small unicarpellary ovary with an 
apparently functional stigma. Both of these plants had func- 
