FLOWEES AND BOLLS OF PIMA AND ACALA COTTON 
23 
branch the boll is. What appears to be an exception to this is found 
in the last three intervals on the Pima in Table 16. In each of 
these intervals the bolls on inner nodes required longer to develop 
than did those farther out on the branches. As the bolls which 
developed from squares produced in these intervals were maturing 
at the time of high humidity and during the flood just mentioned, 
it is believed that these factors retarded the ripening of the bolls 
on the inner nodes, whereas the bolls on the outer nodes received 
more sunlight and better air circulation, and ripening proceeded 
without as much check. Although bolls on inner nodes of the fruit- 
ing branches of the Acala opened in less time than those on the outer 
nodes, the periods of all bolls, regardless of their position, appear to 
have been abnormally increased. 
Table 16. — Average length of time between flowering and maturing of bolls of 20 
plants each of Pima and Acala cotton in 10-day intervals on specific nodes of the 
fruiting branches of the main stalks, 192 % and 1925 
Fruiting 
branch 
node 
Pima 
Acala 
10-day interval based on appearance of 
squares 
Num- 
ber of 
bolls 
Average ma- 
turing period 
(days) 
Num- 
ber of 
bolls 
Average ma- 
turing period 
(days) 
Season of 1924: 
fl___ 
29 
14 
52.034±0.293 
52.000± .477 
21 
17 
5 
9 
3 
47.239±0.293 
June 16 to 25. 
ft 
49.294=b .302 
50.800=1= .443 
fl. . 
46 
14 
7 
3 
69 
49 
25 
10 
55.261± .243 
54.714± .382 
59. 714±1. 440 
63. 333± . 663 
59.580± .361 
61.367± .473 
62.800=b .857 
65. 600±1. 577 
48.222± .348 
June 26 to July 5 
2 
47.333± .661 
I 3 
U to last... 
fl 
9 
7 
12 
3 
24 
13 
12 
11 
40 
15 
49.000± .437 
July 6 to 15. 
J2 
51.714=1= .922 
13 
55.000± .797 
(4 to last... 
fi 
55.000±1.211 
53.208=b .737 
2":::::::: 
57.308il.l33 
13 
57. 417±1. 359 
(4 to last 
58.8l8=fc .745 
Season of 1925: 
fl 
108 
44 
13 
44 
27 
19 
6 
49 
43 
21 
13 
34 
26 
16 
10 
20 
20 
10 
8 
54. 231± . 197 
55.000± .279 
56. 923± . 473 
61.068± .232 
61.778± .383 
63.684± .399 
64.000± .450 
65.429± .369 
65.093± .436 
64.810± .523 
64.462± .561 
71.412± .483 
69. 769± . 535 
68.875± .587 
66. 800± . 617 
68. 950± . 485 
68.550± .662 
67.700=1= .695 
65.250=fc .761 
49.800± .500 
June 8 to 17 
h 
49. 467=1= . 586 
[3 
fi. . 
23 
26 
4 
3 
15 
13 
8 
52.000± .362 
June 18 to 27 
J2.___ 
52.269± .335 
13 
50. 750± .088 
(4 to last... 
fl- 
52.667=1= .112 
55.333± .527 
June 28 to July 7 
2 ----- 
56. 923=1= . 690 
13 
58. 500±1. 508 
1 4 to last... 
fl 
22 
12 
7 
5 
12 
5 
61.682± .836 
July 8 to 17. 
2 
65.250±1.082 
13 
70.286=1=1.201 
U to last... 
fl 
69.400=1= .690 
68.583=1= .342 
July 18 to 27... .. ...... 
1--: 
68.800=fcl.069 
U to last... 
..... 
~74.~666i2.~226 
It is of interest in connection with these data to note that Zaitzev 
(21) found that flowers produced in an interval of approximately 10 
to 15 days matured into open bolls in less time on the upper fruiting 
branches of the plants than on the lower ones. The upper bolls 
under these conditions would necessarily be on nodes closer to the 
main stalks than those of the same date on the lower fruiting branches. 
He suggested that " better nutrition of the higher bolls ... and 
their stronger illumination" might account for the more rapid open- 
ing of the upper bolls. There is evidence, however, that the light 
