Po ci 
! 
210 | Bek 4 pe SSEMBLY 
In our remarks upon the table, we shall treat the Smooth Leaved 
Cabbages and the Savoys separately. In the former class we note 
that the percentage of plants that formed heads was largest in the 
early planting, but that the diameter of the heads was greatest in 
the late planting. Thus, by adding the whole number of plants 
that survived, and the whole number of heads formed in each of 
the two plantings, we find that ninety-one per cent of the plants 
formed heads in the early,.and sixty-two per cent formed heads in 
the late planting. On the other hand, the average diameter of the 
heads in the early planting was 4.94 inches, and in the late planting 
it was 5.95 inches. 
Comparing the order of earliness of the varieties in the two plant- 
ings we find a great lack of uniformity. As an example, we will 
compare the earliest ten varieties of the early planting, placing the 
names in the order that they formed the first firm head of merchant- 
able size, with the same varieties in the second planting. 
The number in the left hand column indicates the order of earli- 
ness in the early planting, the same number being given to the 
varieties that were noted on the same day. The number at the 
right hand indicates the order of heading of the variety in the late 
planting. 

EARLY PLANTING. LATE PLANTING. 
First head Order First head Order 
formed in of ear formed in of ear- 
—days. liness — days. liness. 
St. John’s Day Early Drumhead.. 116 1 107 2 
paralans ban 92s). sy cet 117 2 131 10 
Chourde., Pumels hhc: Sse LT. 2 135 11 
Drumhead Early Dutch.......... 117 2 116 5 
Paris Market, Very Harly........ 123 3 107 2 
Henderson’s Premier............ 126 4 109 3 
Low’s Early Peerless (Till.)....... 126 4 116 5 
feate sw iat Dutch i.) fit nctelsteees: 126 4 113 1 
Landreth’s Early Summer Flathead. 126 4 107 2 
MURINE AONE. s braso's wee hd ata aa Be 128 5 109 3 
It thus appears that no relation seems to exist in the order of 
maturity of the two plantings. We note asimilar lack of uniform- 
ity in comparing the order of maturity of different varieties of the 
tomato in 1883 and 1884. Discrepancies of this kind suggest how 
little we know concerning the factors that influence plant growth. 
As the number of plants grown of the different varieties is so 
small, we are warranted in drawing no conclusions as to their head- 
ing qualities. 
SAVOYS. 
As appears from the table, the Savoy cabbages did not succeed 
well. Among the best were the Very Early Paris, Large Vertus 
mate ne ee oe 
SM, AST Sas - “? "4 
n 
