RAMOSE INFLORESCENCE IN MAIZE. 
Table VI. — Distribution of plants, etc. — Continued. 
13 
Trogeny distribution differentiated by parents ^number of plants). 
Tasselbranehes. 
L2L2F 3 . 
L2L2L1 to 6 Ft. 
L2L1F 3 . 
L2L1L1 to 11 F 4 . 
i-itr 2. 
49 
7 
12 
16 
25 
37 
44 
68 
23 
35 
36 
38 
48 
54 
78 
82 
87 
97 
? 
39 
1 
2 
1 
3 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
y 
"i" 
i 
4 
3 
1 
1 
"i 
l 
l 
T 
i 
2 
1 
2 
1 
2 
/ 
1 
2 
"i" 
40 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
3 
"i" 
4 
i 
2 
"i" 
"i" 
41 
1 
42 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
i 
43 
1 
'¥ 
i 
i 
2 
1 
1 
i 
44 
1 
1 
1 
+ 
1 
45 
1 
i 
...; 3 
l 
46 
1"" 
1 
/ 
1 
1 
i 
47 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
4 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
i 
+ 
48 
1 
+ 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
i 
l 
i 
2 
1 
1 
~2 
1 
"i" 
l 
49 
1 
1 
50 
1 
2 
51 
i 
52 
1 
1 
1 
* 
1 
53 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
54 
+ 1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
55 
l 
i 
i 
"i" 
56 
2 
2 
1 
1 
i 
57 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
58 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
T 
i 
59 
1 
1 
2 
1 
60 
1 
61 
1 
1 
1 
i 
62 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
l 
63 
3 
1 
1 
1 
2 
64 
1 
i 
65 
67 
1 
1 
68 
1 
1 
1 
+ 
69 . 
1 
1 
1 
i 
71 . 
1 
1 
1 
1 
72 
1 
73 . 
... 
1 
/ 
76.. 
1 
1 
1 
78 
1 
+ 
1 
82 
2 
1 
1 
+ 
83 
1 
85 
1 
87 
2 
+ 
93 
1 
96 
1 
1 
1 
97. 
2 
+■ 
DISCUSSION. 
The simple Mendelian behavior of the ramose character in the 
earlier experiments indicated that the present unbranched form of 
pistillate inflorescence and the reduced number of branches in the 
staminate inflorescence were the result of a single major genetic 
change. The variability of the ramose segregates from the Ramosa- 
Gordo hybrids indicates that the evolution of the ear from a 
branched inflorescence was a gradual process. That the branching 
tendency of the staminate and pistillate inflorescences can be sepa- 
rated indicates that the two inflorescences did not undergo change at 
the same time, and from the general absence of branches on ears it 
would seem reasonable to infer that the transformation from 
