464 
Journal of Agricultural Research voi. xxm, no. 6 
Fortyfold X Red Russian, were tested in 1920. Only the five crosses in 
which the number of rows exceed 100 will be considered in detail, as the 
others are too few in number for analysis. The others may be discussed 
briefly as follows: All four of the crosses in which Alaska was the original 
male progenitor produced a high degree of sterility, which, combined with 
lack of winter hardiness, made it difficult to obtain large numbers. The 
figures as given, however, show that there is segregation, as both re¬ 
sistant and susceptible sorts were obtained in every case. Moreover, 
1 
i 
Hr cent bunt 
Fig. i—Graphical representation of bunt resistance in the F* generation of 5 different types of crosses. 
Three classes of parents were used: Resistant, Turkey (3.5), Florence (7.i);Inteimediate, Fortyfold (63.7), 
Red Russian (61.1); Susceptible, Marquis (74), Hybrid 128 (796). Figures in parentheses refer toaverage 
percentage of bunt produced under conditions favoring maximum infection.) The crosses of Hybrid 
128 with Turkey and Marquis reproduce only the extremes of the parents. In the other crosses transgres¬ 
sive inheritance occurred—that is, segregates were obtained more resistant and more susceptible than 
the extremes of the parents. 
the susceptible classes occur with greater frequency than the resistant 
ones in the crosses of Alaska and the three susceptible varieties, Jones 
Winter Fife, Fortyfold, and Red Russian. Crossed with the resistant 
Turkey, a majority of the F 3 rows are resistant. In fact one of the 
selections which was sent to the Oregon Station has been found more 
resistant than either parent there and has proved so promising from a 
commercial standpoint that it has been continued to the seventh genera¬ 
tion. Five F 4 selections and 18 selections in the F 5 generation were 
grown at Pullman from one F 3 row that was entirely bunt-free, and never 
a trace of bunt could be found in any later generation, although Turkey 
