THE IDENTIFICATION OF VARIETIES OF BARLEY. 
11 
The four ^sp^<^l(d^ vulgare, intermediwn^ distichon^ and deflciens^ 
shown in Plate ii, seem best to represent the differences as they exist. 
It is not to be assumed that this is the only method of separation 
which might be made on the basis of fertility. Genetically the pointed 
or rounded nature of the lateral floret may be correlated with the true 
relationship of the varieties, but it would be practically impossible to 
use this distinction in the deficiens group. Neither does it fit in with 
work already done. On the other hand, the species founded upon fer- 
tility alone require little modification of existing schemes. As has 
been noted previously, many taxonomistsin the past have combined 
and even confused fertility with density. The work of Kornicke 
well illustrates this point. As Kornicke is the most widely known of 
the investigators who have combined the two characters, his scheme 
is represented graphically in Table I. 
Table I. — Scheme of classification of barley founded ujpon both fertility and density. 
[Terms in italic represent Kornicke 's major groups.] 
[very dense. 
polystichum . . ' 
H. 
normal 6-rowed 
intermedium. 
vuigare . 
ihexastichum . . . 
tetrastichwn. 
dense, 
lax. 
dense 
[dense. 
fnormal 2-rowed.-. 
distichum. 
!very dense, 
dense. 
lax. 
deficient 2-rowed. 
It will be noted that Kornicke's major groups have very little 
relation to each other. Beaven (1902) remedied this defect to some 
extent by carrying over zeocriton to designate the dense normal 
2-rowed, distichon to represent the lax, and decipiens to designate 
the deficient 2-rowed barley. His grouping, however, was not on 
equal separations, in that the intermedium and dedpiens were sepa- 
rated further into dense and lax, which separations are parallel 
with his zeocriton^ distichon^ vuigare {tetrastichum Kcke.), and 
hexastichon. Although the system of Beaven was an improvement 
in a way, it still maintained the objectionable principle of com- 
bining the characters of density and fertility. 
When the present work was begun it was thought that it would 
be almost impossible to maintain these well-established distinctions. 
However, by eliminating the density factor and retaining only the 
question of fertility, the four species already mentioned were ob- 
tained. This scheme is graphically represented in Table II. 
