CLASSIFICATION OF AMERICAX WHEAT VAPJETIES. y 
and stated whether they were bearded or smooth, and also the color 
of tlie o:rain and chaff, the height of the plant, and the weight of the 
kernels. 
Clark, Stephens, and Florell, in 1920 {67), gave a tabular descrip- 
tion of over 150 samples of Australian wheat varieties grown in ex- 
periments in the Pacific coast area of the United States. 
Clark. Martin, and Smith, in 1920 (66), keyed the groups of com- 
mon spring and durum wheat grown in experiments in the northern 
Great Plains area of the United States, and gave the histories of the 
principal varieties. 
Stewart, in 1920 (187), presented keys and brief descriptions of 
the commercial wheat varieties grown in Utah. 
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS. 
From the beginning of botanical classification there was a tendency 
to regard the different forms of wheat as distinct species. Toward 
the end of the eighteenth century there became evident a tendency 
toward the more reasonable view that comparatively few species were 
involved and that the evident major groups were mostl}" to be re- 
garded as subdivisions of the species sativum of Lamarck or vulgare 
of Yillars. 
The maldng of botanic species of wheat was carried to great lengths 
by the botanists of 100 to 200 years ago, who did not recognize that 
the characters sufficient to separate species of wild plants were suffi- 
cient to separate only agronomic and horticultural varieties of domes- 
ticated plants. Before this fact was recognized and botanists verj' 
largely had ceased to deal with the forms of cultivated plants, some 
50 or 60 supposed species of wheat had been described. 
In the works of most of the botanists there was little effort to study 
and describe the farm varieties of wheat. However, Heuze, Koer- 
nicke and Werner, Eriksson, Richardson, and others described many 
varieties, and some of their descriptions were fairly complete. No 
attempt has been made, however, previous to the present work, to 
show by detailed keys and by uniform descriptions the minor differ- 
ences Avhich separate closelj- related varieties. . 
There has be^n wide diversity among botanists in the taxonomic 
use of the various morphological characters of the wheat plant and 
seed. Only a few authors have given attention to the winter or 
spring habit of growth in wheat varieties. Some, as Eriksson, have 
placed undue importance on differences in spike density. Many 
writers have made no use of the colors of the seed coat in separating 
varieties. 
The classification of Koernicke and Werner is the most extensive 
and the only one which made a definite attempt to describe and 
classify foreign and domestic farm varieties. While conservative 
