SAMPLE OF CLONAL-DEFINITION PUNNETT SQUARE: PLOT FH-4 



CLONES 



FH-41 



FH-42 



FH-43 



FH-44 



ISOLATES 



175 



180 



181 



182 



184 



185 



176 



178 



183 



177 



186 





PREMISE 



175 



4Y 



4Y 



4Y 



2Y 



21 



18N 



3N1Y 



12N 



7N1Y 



4N 





























VERIFY 



180 



16Y 



2Y 



2Y 



6Y 



ION 



6N2Y 



3N1Y 



4N 



2N 









181 



2Y 



2Y 



6Y 



4N 



4N 



INIY 



4N 



6N 











182 



2Y 



2Y 



4N 



4N 



13N1Y 



4N 



2N 













184 



lOY 



2N 



2N 



2N 



2N 



2N 















185 



2N 



2N 



2N 



4N 



6N 





































PREMISE 



176 



6Y 



4Y 



8N 



2N 



VERIFY 



178 



22Y2N 



26N2Y 



2N 







183 



15N1Y 



2N 















PREMISE 



177 



4N 



Figure 3— Detailed premise and verification analysis of vegetative isolates of 

 the genus Armillaria found on plot FH-4. 



was selected because it included several clones, two of 

 which were represented by multiple isolates. The premise- 

 challenges (figs. 2, 3, and 4) clearly defined four clones. 

 The verification-challenges clearly supported the defini- 

 tions (plot FH-4 in table 10, appendix). Clone FH-41 

 (Flathead N.F.-plot 4, clone number 1) was present ex- 

 clusively on Armillaria-killed or fading Douglas-fir 

 (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Englemann spruce {Picea 

 engelmannii), and subalpine fir {Abies lasiocarpa) as both 

 mycehal fans and epiphji;ic rhizomorphs. Clone FH-42 was 

 present as epiphytic rhizomorphs on healthy western larch 

 {Larix occidentalis), Douglas-fir, and maple {Acer sp.). 

 Clone FH-43 was present as epiphjiic rhizomorphs on 

 healthy willow {Salix sp.). Clone FH-44 was growing 

 epiphjidcally on a healthy subalpine fir. 



In total, 377 isolates from 70 plots were delineated into 

 160 clones. An additional 17 single-isolate plots were 

 added to make the total 394 isolates, 177 clones, for 87 

 plots. Of the 70 plots supplying two or more isolates, two 

 that were supporting five clones failed to jaeld acceptable 

 clonal definitions (plots FH-6 in table 4 [see section The 

 Challenges] and L0-2A in table 13, appendix). Thus, five 

 of the 177 clones were not adequately defined and were 

 removed from the data for the remaining analyses. 



Given the total number of determinations in a plot and the 

 pattern that developed, the observed number of yes and 

 no responses was tested against the expected number (fig. 

 4). If the fit was statistically satisfactory, the provisional 

 clonal delineation was accepted. 



Behavior of each clone was assessed by its pattern of oc- 

 currence as saprophytic fans or epiphytic rhizomorphs on 

 dead conifers, as parasitic fans or epiphytic rhizomorphs 

 on Armillaria-irdected or killed conifers, and as epiphytic 

 rhizomorphs on apparently healthy hardwoods and con- 

 ifers. Chi-square contingency tables with correction for 

 continuity (Snedecor 1956) were used to test these rela- 

 tionships. Geographic range of individual clones within a 

 National Forest was investigated by challenging randomly 

 selected isolates within clones across plots within a 

 National Forest. 



RESULTS 

 Clone Definitions 



Because it is impossible to present the complete analysis 

 of 70 plots, we will discuss one plot in detail and sum- 

 marize the rest. Plot 4 from the Flathead National Forest 



