MATROCLINIC INHERITANCE 
Table VI 
Capsule Lengths of Oe. Reynoldsii f. typica and mut. semialta, and of Some of their 
Mutation Crosses 
The capsules measured were the lowest five capsules from each of two secondary 
inflorescences from each plant; the progeny numbers refer to Tables I and II. 
F. Typica 
Mut. Semialta 
Length in Mm. 
X Typica 
Progeny 
X Semialta 
X Debilis 
X Bilonga 
X Semialta 
X Typica 
X Bilonga 
No. 8 
No. 27 
No. 28 
No. 29 
No. 27 
No. 30 
No. 31 
16-17 
3 
2 
3 
18-19 
5 
17 
14 
20-21 
30 
59 
27 
22-23 
56 
99 
37 
24-25 
I 
3 
I 
114 
147 
44 
26-27 
3 
5 
12 
97 
124 
36 
28-29 
18 
23 
II 
86 
84 
29 
30-31 
44 
4 
46 
28 
45 
31 
10 
32-33 
79 
16 
73 
54 
12 
3 
7 
34-35 
100 
39 
87 
71 
2 
4 
2 
36-37 
86 
61 
99 
90 
I 
38-39 
48 
92 
82 
no 
40-41 
13 
77 
37 
43 
42-43 
6 
50 
14 
26 
44-45 
2 
41 
6 
14 
46-47 
17 
5 
4 
48-49 
9 
I 
50-51 
4 
Table V brings out clearly the fact that the forms of Oe. Reynoldsii 
differ distinctly from one another in capsule length. It is not, however, 
strictly comparable with Table VI. In the first place, the garden of 
1915 was in Maryland, where climatic, cultural and soil conditions 
were unlike those in Michigan. In the second place, the early frost in 
1916 overtook the plants before the inflorescence of the main stem was 
sufficiently mature to provide full-grown capsules. Since the in- 
florescences of the long basal branches had begun to flower several 
days earlier, their lower capsules were full-grown. The five lower 
capsules from two branches of each plant were measured. Thus each 
plant provided ten capsules, but they were from two lateral branches 
rather than from the main stem. The capsules of the terminal in- 
florescence of the main stem are usually slightly larger than any others, 
and on this account the modes in Table V ought to be higher than in 
Table VI, as indeed they are. Perhaps the difference is not as great 
as it would have been if the capsules of the lateral branches had not 
