544 
E. G. Anderson 
with a light-pericarp, brown-silked plant similar to the one parent. The 
silk colors were noted during the summer. It was impossible to make 
any sharp separations, for the colors varied from a deep salmon to a typical 
or even light brown. The presence of red anthocyanin pigment added to 
the difficulty, as did also the fact that the silks could not be noted at the 
same stage. So they were only roughly classified, the classifications 
from time to time not being entirely comparable. The notes were under- 
scored for a number of good salmons and browns. The pericarp colors 
were determined in the fall. The results are given in table 2: 
TABLE 2. Backcrosses of p, sm x P sm with p sm 
Silk color 
Red 
pericarp 
White or 
light 
bronze 
Salmon, underscored 
17 
0 
Salmon 
167 
19 
Salmon— 
25 
10 
Salmon-brown 
33 
11 
Brown-salmon 
10 
24 
24 
65 
Brown 
11 
0 
172 
44 
Brown, underscored 
It will be seen from this table that most of the red-pericarp plants had 
been noted as having salmon silks, while the light-pericarp ones were 
mostly noted as having brown silks. It is also significant that, of those 
cases in which salmon was underscored, all had red pericarp. Like- 
wise, of the cases in which brown was underscored, all had light pericarp. 
Since the salmon factor pair Sm sm has been shown to segregate inde- 
pendently of the factor pair P p for pericarp color, this variation can- 
not be due to the Sm sm pair. The conclusion is drawn that the intensity 
of pigmentation of silks recessive for sm is largely a function of the inten- 
sity of pigmentation of the pericarp or of some factor closely associated 
with the factor for pericarp color. The former view is substantiated 
