. . N‘.
muut\.l\, no 7““.

I o u
n.\.\. ILL -
I cl! '1‘ .l‘.‘
' r I .t
W3 h, .\
.Ica o
u.ir,b
‘ -o
.. .‘.V..I . ‘ ‘4. .
.A" ‘
I l.-
P. . a 3. \
ll.‘~ '1
I-‘ .- ,~ ~
MM“... '1 a...
db f. . - Milo”)
IIIIIII l _. CPA. v‘ . A .
1...: v on . . L n T.
a ‘ VII 3
. ‘In$\1 I v4.

\. ..—. ‘ ‘ xfls. Ill . u.

6|!!! As .‘\ Y. : nu...

.‘I. ‘ w
‘1 I J. ‘5
‘3. c v 3‘.
. le‘
- 91‘ \.\.l
,w‘.
v‘l .\ I
F‘ \l y 5 I
\l ‘ \-
K.
I}. f.
a .\.v I
’-
s .1 ‘
. . ‘3
. 5
~ _
or
'II“
¢ .
\0 t
1.7}.

 

 

 

2,; ,,,,,g i ,H, f,

f

7

g

L.

 

ainaq))3

THESIS

\

 

 

METHODS OF DISTINGUISHING CROSSES
BETWEEN SIMILAR BEAN VARIETIES

Thesis

Respectfully submitted in partial fulfillment
for the degree of Master of Science
at
Michigan State College of Agriculture
and Applied Science

‘8“
Ceylon 0.3Lightfoot
I

1986

METHODS OF DISTINGUISHING CROSSES
BETWEEN SIMILAR BEAN VARIETIES

1- 0.132 3 2i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page.
INTRODUCTION - ------------ 1
PROBLEM """""""" 3
LITERATURE -------------- 3
MATERIAL ---------------- 4
METHODS ................ 5
DATA AND DISCUSSION OF DATA ----- 11
CONCLUSIONS ------------- 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY ------------- 35

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............ se-

INTRODUCTION

There are several varieties of white beans grown in
Michigan at present. Of these the Robust is the most consistent
high yielder due to disease resistance and hardiness but the
beans have glassy seed coats and do not appear as uniform in size
as other varieties, such as Early wonder and Early Prolific.

The seed coats of the Early Wonder and Early Prolific varieties
are a chalky white which is most disiratie, but neither variety
yields equally well with Robust. Therefore it is desiratfle to
cross Robust with Early Wonder, Early Prolific, or other early
varieties now grown in Michigan in an effort to produce a
strain that will be uniform in size, with a chalky seed coat,
and at the same time produce a high yield of dry beans per acre.

The identification of a cross in the F1 generation saves
the plant breeder considerarle time and labor. While a desirable
strain cannot be produced any more quickly by identification
in the F1, the labor saved by eliminating non-crosses is an

important item in cutting down the cost of the experiment.

THE PROEEM

The work covered by this thesis has been done to

determine whether or not the F1 of a cross between two similar

strains of white beans differs from the female parent in cer-

tain morphological characters. The questions to be answered

are these:

Are F1 plants morphologically different from their

mother parents in the following characters:

If

size and shape of’seed?

ratio of width to length of terminal leaflets?
ratio of width to length of terminal leaflet times
reciprocal of length of petiole?

the F1 of a cross is morpholOgically different,

in the characters mentioned above, from the female parent

and the difference is measurable, then by statistical

measurements and biometrical calculations, a cross can be

positively identified.

LITERATURE

J. B. Norton (8) has done several years work on the
inheritance of habit of growth in beans giving attention to
the stem and branches but has published nothing upon size or
shape of leaflets or length of petioles.

The growth of Early Wonder beans is outlined by the
New Jersey Experiment Station (A) but deals only with the
sequence of growth and not with inheritance.

Dr. R. A. Emerson (l) worked on inheritance of size
and shape of seed in bean hybrids. He concludes that size and
shape are not inherited separately but together as inheritance
of sizes of the same shape. The F1 of a cross was found to be
quite uniform while more variation occurred in the F3.

The only data given in the literature cited that
might be of value in this work is given by Dr. R. A. Emerson (1).
If the mother variety produces beans of uniform size and of a
different shape from those produced by the pollen parent then

a variation in the F1 would indicate a cross had been obtained.

MATERIAL

The sources from which the material was obtained for
this investigation are reported in Tatnes I and 2 and the
various crosses made are recorded in Tables 3 and 4. In
Table I, the variety name, Accession number and number of
plants selected are given in order. The Robust, Early Prolific
and Progeny of do 359 were selected in the field before the crop
was pulled. The plants of the remaining varieties were chosen
in the field after the crap was pulled. Plant selections
were again made in the green house in the fall of 1925. This
material is listed in Table 2. The Mexican Tree, and Early
Wonder listed in Table 2 were taken from bulk seed of the field
crOp of 1925. The varieties, Miller, Canter, and Putnam were‘
not planted with the January planting.

Table 3 is a list of the F1 seed of crosses made in
the green house during the fall of 1925 while in Table 4 is a
list of 31 seed of crosses made in the green house during the

winter of 1926.

METHODS

Plants were selected in the field in the fall of 1925
and taken to the laboratory. The following notes were taken
on each plant: type of vine, length of vine, number of beans,
weight of beans, and chalky or glassy seed coat.

Fifty beans from each plant were measured for length
and width in millimeters. These measurements were made by
means of an L-ehaped block of wood with a piece of millimeter
graph paper glued to it. This permitted both measurements to
be read without changing the position of the bean. The mean,
standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and coefficient of
correlation with the respective probable errors were calculated
for each fifty beans.

The beans from each plant were placed in an envelope and
given a selection number. All of the material listed in Table I
was handled in this manner.

On September 19, 1925 three pots each of Robust, Early
Prolific and of ten of the selections of Ac 359 were planted in
the green house. light-inch pots were used and four beans were
planted in each pot. Two pots of Robust were planted on the
23rd, two more on the 25th, and two more on the 28th of September
making nine pots of Robust in all. Plantings were made on these
different dates to insure pollen at the preper time.

On September 28th the remainder of the varieties listed
in Table I were planted. Four-inch pots were used for these and
four beans of each variety were planted, two beans in each.pot.

The entire planting was arranged on the floor of the green house.

 

A high percentage of germination was obtained and the
plants grew rapidly. On October 13, when the plants were about
10 inches high, white flies and red spiders were noticed. The
plants were sprayed with a solution of fish oil soap to which
was added one teaspoonful of nicotine per gallon. This solution
was effective in killing and repelling the white flies but had no
visible effect upon the red spiders. The uninfected plants were
then moved to the east bench in the green house. These plants
soon develOped mildew and were dusted with sulphur. The sulphur
effectively controlled the mildew.

The plants remaining on the floor were sprayed with Volck
for red spiders. Volck was an untried commercial preparation.
The sun andxlolck were not a good combination and severe burning
of the foliage resulted from which the plants never fully recov-
ered. The spray did not affect the insects in any visible way.

Acting upon advice received from the Entomology Depart-
ment, the plants were sprayed with lemon oil, being sprayed three
times at two day intervals. The lemon oil completely controlled
the red spiders. These injuries are mentioned because of the
effect they may have had on the plant measurements taken.

When the plants began bloondng the following leaflet
measurements were taken in millimeters:

Length of terminal leaflet,

Width of terminal leaflet,

Length of petiole.

From these data, ratios were computed as indicated in
example 2, the ratio of width to length of leaflet, and this

result divided by the length of petiole. It was found

-7-
necessary to use ratios instead of dimensions due to the differ-
ences in size of the leaves at the time measurements were taken.
Ten leaflets with their petioles were measured on each plant.
The mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation with
their probable errors were obtained for each plant.

Crosses were made during the period from November 19 to
December 12. Most of the crosses were unsuccessful. The flowers
would abort or the pods would turn yellow and fall off when they
were atput one inch in length.

The bean has a cleistogamous flower, 1.6., hermaphroditic
and pollination occurs before the petals cpen. Therefore it is
necessary to cpen the flower and remove the stamens before pollen
is ripe otherwise self-fertilization would result. To cpen the
flower the keel petal is split with a sharp instrument. The
stamens are arranged in a whorl of nine with their filaments
joined to the style and one outside of this whorl. The anthers
can be removed with forceps. It is necessary to remove all of
the stamens or autogamy will result. The flower should be
examined with a magnifying glass tote sure all of the stamens
are out and that there is no stray pollen on the stigma. Great
care must be used in extricating the stamens to prevent crushing
of the ovary or breaking of the style. The process of removing
stamens from a flower is called emasculation. After emascula-
tion, a pollen flower is chosen that has split on the lower
side (keel). The flower is opened and the anthers detached and
carefully crushed in a small receptacle to liberate the pollen.
This pollen is then placed immediately upon the stigma of the

emasculated flower. The pollen is transferred from the

-8-

the receptacle to the stigma by using a small camel's hair braeh
or similar instrument. This method was used at first but later
the method of using the stigma of the pollen flower as a means
of transferring the pollen was tried. This consists of breaking
off the stigma of the pollen flower the same day the flower opens
and rubbing it on the stigma of the emasculated flower which

will absorb the pollen from the first stigma. The anthers remain-
ing in the pollen flower after the stigma has been broken off
can be used to pollinate a second.emasculated flower by the

brush method. The stamens were found to contain considerable
unshed pollen and if pollen is scarce it may be conserved in

this manner. The stigma method of transferring pollen proved

to be the surer method in pollination. After pollination, the
flower is tagged with the date, method of pollination, and
pollen parent, if‘more than one variety is used for'pollen in a
series of crosses. Bmasculation may be made the day previous

or on the same day pollination is to be made. There has been no
data.published to show which is best from the stand point of in-
suring a cross.

The fall planted beans were harvested in Decnmber. Measur e -
ments of length and width of seed were made in the laboratory.

In December 1925 a second planting was made in the green
house. Three pots of Robust were planted to secure early flowers
for crossing. They did not grow however due to soil packing.
Three plantings of Robust were made before a stand was secured.

In January 1926 the material listed in Tables 2 and 3 was planted.

light-inch pots were used throughout.

-9-

Germination was slow probably due to hard seed coats as
the beans were kept in a very dry place from the time of harvest-
ing till planting. A good stand was secured but growth was slow.
The plants remained thrifty however throughout the growth period.

Crosses were made during the period from March 3, to
April 5. A larger percentage of the crosses attempted reached
maturity than was the case in the fall crop. This was probably
due to the stigma method of pollination and the temperature of
the green house being lower than during the time the fall crop
was growing.

Leaflet measurements were taken on this crop in addition
to measurements for variety comparison. Fbur Robust plants were
marked and each.plant was measured four times to determine if the
ratio of the measurements would vary with the stage of plant
growth. The first measurements were made April 29 and the second
one week later or May 6. Plant number M4 was discarded after the
second measurement due to red spider infestation. The other dates
of measurements were May 19 and June 2.

The beans were harvested when ripe and seed measurements
were made. Measurements were also made on samples of bulk seed
of each variety used for crossing. Two hundred fifty seeds of
Robust and 50 each of the other varieties were measured. The
mean and standard deviation and coefficient of variation with
their probable errors were computed for these data.

The field planting was done June 4 and 5. The purpose of
this planting was to compare the various varieties with each

other and with the F1, F3, and F3 generations from crosses of

these varieties. The beans were planted in rows 103 feet long add

 

 

 

 

 

-1o-

28 inches apart (Figure 1). Beginning at the west, the planthug
was as follows: one row of Robust for on edge; one row of Robust
for test; the F3 of Ac 359, two more rows of Robust for test;

one row F3 of crosses made in the fall of 1925; one row of the
mother parent varieties opposite their respective F2 progenies;
and two rows of the F1 of the crosses made in the spring of 1926,
two feet apart in the row with a Robust and a mother variety
alternating between them. In the first four rows the beans were
spaced three inches apart, as regular field planting, in the next
three rows, six inches apart to allow maximum development of
plants; the rest being space one foot apart to compare the F1
with each parent in as near the same environment as possible.

As the weather was cool, the plants did not grow fast but
a high percentage of germination was secured. Wind and sand
injured the leaves to such an extent that a few plants died. The
first cultivation was on June 29. The weather was dry and the
plants became very uneven in size some plants in each variety
being much larger than others in the same variety. On guly 17
many of the plants were beginning to bloom. The average number
of leaves per plant on this date was seven.

Measurements of leaflets began July 26 and were continued
until the necessary data had been taken. The mean, standard
deviation, and coefficient of variation with their probable
errors were computed. The biometric constants were arranged
in tables for convenience of comparison and will be taken up in

order in the discussion of the data.

R

-11-
Plate I

Plan of 1926 Field Planting.

E.

—e~—e—--e—-—e— ---e—~e——e—-e—e~- e~c—-—~e——~c——-e——~—-

Spaced 1 foot

 

N.

Mother parents of F- 6 in. planting

 

v—w-'- '— —_——

F of crosses listed in Table 3.
2 ' 6 ABLE ECG} 13.8

'7.— v—w—w v—vwwvv— ———'v'—— W‘—

6 in. planting

 

V'— -‘.. ‘—

Robust

-----s.- '-

3 in, planting

 

 

F of Accession 359 3 in. planting

 

 

 

“ ____ "-3 -
Robust 3 in. planting
Robust Edge
Rows 28 inches apart.
w...

R- Robust

F - F listed in Table 4.

1

1

M- Mother parent of the F .

1

-12-

Example 1.

Gwiess,correction,class range method used to compute

v- \v- "
’75— 473“) f (J—V; "

biometric constants.

 

 

 

 

 

v _ fw _ _g__ __
6.5 E 3 E -2 E ~6 E 18

7 E 12 E -1 I -18 Q 13

7.5 E 25 E o —18 S

e - 10 22 ”:L E 0 ha 2 1°

5 -_i
-::f§'- 0' 50732772“
' “‘T€§EI

ng----
C:( .14 W : -o16X .5 : -008 g”...
N

.6544 : .8089

r v-g e8989x '5 ='4O44
~ ”if f”; ‘}£ = —.16X -8e = * 1088 ‘

 

 

W=.5
8:7.5
c‘.':""e08
M ' 7.4300 z..0385
v- 3 iv? v- ‘—
6' : w (75+ --C' NT.“
6' = .4044 1, .0273 N

Em a: .67456— 4
—"""""" : .6745 x .4044 :2 .2788

A n .3728 + 7.07 .0385

E0’= .67456'
---—--- = sex we“
. ' ‘l' t . '—

CV x 100 O' ._. 40.44 _ 5,45
‘”i 7.42 ’
Ecv :.- 67450V 2.6745 x 5.45

__ = 0367
V2n 10

 

-13..

 

 

Example 2.

I! ...-- 1.-....
Width Length L Petiole 1x:
6? 3; 84 = .7261 +- 23 = .0215?-
75 " 95 = . 7684 38 = . 02744
41 L 53 = . 7755 + 1 3 = . 0565
70 " 98 = . 7142 4- 26 = . 02746
50 2' 68 = .7552 + 12 = .06126
65 *' 86 = .7558 + 18 - .04198
67 " 95 -= . 7204 4- 25 = . 05152
40 .. 57 = .7017 4- 12 - = .0584?
58 g 75 = .7755 4.. 14 = .05524
55 4- 70 = .7857 2.. 15 = .06043

“('51 = ~7450 9.- .0057

01%) = .0268 t .00404

w
Mm- ) : ~0460 i: .c0304

w
—-) 0 .01428 1: .00315

LxP

The ratios as shown in this table were computed for each
plant and the Standard Deviation and Mean with their probable
errors were computed as indicated in example 1.
l-—lidth of terminal leaflet. in m m.
L--Length of terminal leaflet, in m m-
P-—Length of petiole, in m.m.

0e

 

-14..

Table 1.

Plant selections

Variety

Robust
tarly Prolific

F of Early Prolifi

l
Darling

es 000.. ee ee es 0.

Crawford
Hunter
Putnam
Greiner
Canter
Miller
Pliter
1200—1

Hoggan
Bingham

made in the field from

x Robust:

Accession number

313
306

the 1925 crop.

O. O. O. O. O. O. O. .0 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. 00

N-umber of
_plants selected

H
GUI

fikfifikkfififikdb

 

 

Table 2.

Varieties used in the January 1926 planting.

 

Variety _' i- Accession Number
Robust 313
Darling 142
Crawford 153
Hunter 155
Greiner 214
Pliter 254
1200-1 265
Hoggan 266
Bingham 358
Early Prolific 306
Early Wonder 223
Mexican Tree 210
F of A0 359 359

3

Table 3.

List of crosses made

and December 1925.

Parents

-16-

in the greenhouse

:Agcgssion of F1,

 

Crawford x Robust

Darling x Robust

Putnam a Robust

Pliter x Robust

1200-1 x Robust

Hoggan (531602) x Robust

Roggan (531603) x Robust

Eingham (531501) x Robust
Bingham (553502) 1 Robust
Greiner x Robust

Canter x Robust

362
363
364
365

366

367

368
369

370

371

372

during November

Number of -
beans obtained

4

O) 43- 051 H H N

(DUIUCD

-1 7-

Table 4.

List of crosses made in the greenhouse during

March and April 1926.

Parents

Early Prolific x Robust
Darling x Robust

Hunter x Robust
Crawford x Robust
1200-1 x Robust

Mexican Tree x Robust

Greiner x Robust

Accession of

375
376
377
378
379
380
381

L?

O. O. .0 O. O. O. O. O.

O. O. O. O. O. 0.

Number of
bgggg_obtained

17
10

8
37

Table 5.

Mean widths and lengths of Robust seed, measured in groups

of 50 beans taken from bulk seed of the 1925 field crop.

 

Group # Width __ CV Length CV

1 6.820 f; .0140? 2.16 14146 :8.630 _e_- .0629: 7.56 3; .209
2 7.050 3; .0555; 5.16 3:.347 :8.949 t .0682: 7.91 3; .555
5 2 6.870 3; -°397§ 5.96 9401 :8.630 1- .0779: 9.57 3; ,631

Means of 50 seeds taken from individual plants selected

in the fields in 1925. Early Prolific
P1 t * Robust
an M Len th CV M. Len th
. __S 8 _‘ ——G¥

 

 

 

01 £9.290 z .0525 8.830 : .0400§4.75: 4520.

E5
03 $9.120 ; .0426 24.844- .326
$5.41.. .564. 8.7503: .039024.79_‘_' .519

8.820 3; .0450E4.77: .521

e ee so so ee ed

05 28.620 _._._.0450

M. Width . .
01 :7.090 g: .0450 :6.40 g .451; 6.260 t. .033025.58: .376
03 :8.860 3; .0400 £6.18 : .416: 6.260 ,3 014027.54: . .494
03 :6.250 " .0450 :7.20 4- .485: 6.250 :1; .0330:5.613_- .378

- i

M—- Mean
CV-- Coefficient of Variation.
Measurements in millimeters.

Table 5 is a list of biometrical constants computed from
seed measurements. Section (a) deals with bulk seed. Three
groups of 50 beans each were taken at random. The mean widths
and mean lengths are given. Section (b)is a comparison of
Robust and Early Prolific plants. Fifty beans were measured

from each plant and computations were made. While the range

If. I-

1 f.

.. Os 0. O.

-19...

in means of both length and width is a trifle greater for
Robust the means of the Early Prolific fall within the
range with one exception, the mean width of plant #03.

From the stand point of the coefficients of variation there

is no significant difference in the two varieties.

Table 6.

Coefficients of correlation of length to width of Robust

beans taken from plants selected in the field in 1925.

 

lant 4 Coefficient Plant # Coefficient

01 : .8606; .0570 .04 .5900 t .0816
02 .8606f_- .0370 .05 .4369 3:. .0779
03 .2400;- .0900 .06 .8980 1- .0187

The coefficients of correlation given in this table
were calculated from field selected plants, 50 beans being
measured from each plant. As the range is from (06)

.8980 1; .0187 to (05) .2400 2 .0900 the variablilty in the
correlation coefficient is too great to be of any value for

use as a criterion of identification.

o

-21..

Table 7.

Biometric constants taken from leaflet and petiole measurements

made in the green house upon Robust; 1200-1, and F1 plants.

 

 

Mg Robust {If};
Plant 0 . CV I ~G¥ ‘_
60201 E .7400 f .0117 E 7.455.12 : .0500 I .0040 340.00 3 .6.51
60202 .7000 -_l-_ .0140 9.55;. 1.44 ~0440 I °°°3° €34.09 21’._-5~75
60205 .6250 2 .0220 :170872 3.75 ; .0600 ‘_I_' .0050 £29.16 3; 4.82

1200-1
60801 : .7500 g: .0226 E1074: 1.62 f .0725 g .0077 555.05 2 5,93
60802 .6750 3 .0164 8.07% 1.21 .0925 g .0056 520.711- 5.25
60805 .7084 g .0102 5.25:“;791 370666 2 ‘0063 E33'63 3 5.57
60804 .7585 2: .0127 6.07: .915 g .0750 g .0066 ;51.86 t 5.17
F1 Ac 36§_;1200-1 x Robust'

62401 : .7750 t .0136 : 9.44; 13433 .0450 I .0027 28.44 t 4.55
62402 .7500 g; .0109 6.823 1.03; -0640 1' -0056 E 41.40 g 7.17
62501 .7917 g: .1089 8.67; 1.50: .0625 1' ~0039 23.04 33.64
62503 .7166 t .0252 :130142 3.03: .0750 g .0105 50.00 t 9.22

I—- Width of terminal leaflet in m m

L-Length of terminal leaflet in m m
P-- Length of petiole in m m
Table 7 is a comparison of Robust, 1200—1, and the F1

of this cross grown in the green house. The means of the ratios

W
L-of Robust have a spread of .1150, of 1300.1, .0835 and of the

F1, .0751 showing just a slight difference in spread while the
means themselves fall pretty closely in the same range. In the

I
iatioe LxP the spread for Robust is .0160, for 1200.1, .0259 and

for the F1 .0300. The spread here is in the reverse order of the

-23-

1'.
means L, the F1 having the greatest and Robust the least.
Again there are means in all strains practically the same.
At the same time there is no significant difference in

vrlriation of the three strains.

-23-
TameB.
A comparison of biometric constants calculated from

varieties and F1 plans grown in the green house in the spring

of 1926.
Early Prolific

 

 

m -B M -3-

Plant f L or 1x7 :cv

60402 E .7700 1,.0128E 7.79 1 1.17E.0900 1_.0245E61.11 : 12.98
60505 E .7950 ; .0152E 8.98 :,1.55E .0850 1..0157§87.05 :_21.00
50404 i .7250 £.~0098: 6.37 I..960E .0597 :.-°057;45.48 :_ 8.08

: Hunter

60601 : .7450 1 .0404: 25.46 3 4.02: .0900: .0096:50.00 1 9.22

60602 E .8000 1’.0185E 10.87 :_1.60E .0900_f.0107E55.50 1 10.55
60605 E .8000 :_.0195E 10.75 1 1.59E .0900_f.0125E64.44 :_15.01

Early Wonder .
61101:.7125 : .0166 f 9.75 1.1.44= .0718 :_.0016: 9.53f_ 1.40
61102E.7200 :_.0074 E 4.86 I .752E .0560 ;_.0026E15.1o :_2.54

 

F1 A0 369 Bingham x Robust
61901:.7900 :_.0195 : 11.57 §_1.37: .0825 : .0046: 26.50 g 4.50
£1 Ac 363'Darlinggx Robu§t_

 

62501:.7500 .0134: 8.56 :_1.26 .0825 1,.0141: 87.87 :_21.05

,
62502E.7916 I .0152; 6.97 :_1.04: .0916 I .0200E 79.14 : 17.77
l--Width of terminal leaflet in m m 4
L--Length of terminal leaflet in m m
P--Length of petiole in m m

Table 8 is a list of biometrical constants for three
varieties and F18 of crosses of different varieties x Robust.
The mother parents of these Fls were not measured on account of
the small number of leaves present and the F16 of the parent var-
ieties given here were measured for the same reason. This table

is given to show how easily F18 or mother varieties may be confused

with each other unless properly labled and kept separate.

Q

Table 9.

Eyometric constants computed from terminal leaflets and

petioles of Robust plants measured at different times in the

green house.

 

Light 1 Date 1! ET. cv MEI} CV
in 1 49:21:. 7400 _+.0117E 7. 45+_1.12E.0500 '1- .0040E4o.oo ;; 6.54
n 3 19 E.7000_i; .0140E 9. 551' _.1 44E.04.40 ; .0050E54.09 3', 5.75
M a 19 : 6.250_ t. 0250E17. 874:2. 75E.0600 _i; .0030E29.16 1- 4.82
n 1 “a: §.7400 1.0140E 9. 454;}. 42 :.055 _i; .0010E18.19-1»__ 2.84
MB 6 :E7250 1: .0080. 5. 33"‘1803 E.0440 f .0050E35.45i-_ 5.97
113 a 3.7250 1‘ .0070E4.55 _i_-_.686E.0440 f .0027E29.09*_ 4.81
May '
in 19 :.7950 2.0097: 5.76 3.868:.0675+_ .0057:39.55 1' 6.79
Mg 19 :.7500 goist 8.2ii-_1.23E.0475 :1; .0035E34.75 g 5.77
113 19 ;.7250 2.0067E 4.55 g; :655E10590g; .0027E32.821-_ 5.50
June E
111 2 E.745o 3.0057: 3.59 f 541:.0460; 0050: 30.86-1-__ 5.02
113 2 E.7500 1.0190E11.92_ :- 1. 37E.0440:0015E 15. 90 i 2.82
113 2 : 7800 3.0128E 7.69 «_1; 1.16E.0400‘1‘.002é 53. 50%; 5. 90
l--wtdth of terminal leaflet in m m

L--Length of terminal leaflet in m m

P--Length of terminal petiole in m m

Table 9 deals with biometric constants computed from

measurements of Robust leaflets and petioles on different dates

to determine the influence of the state of growth on the

characters considered. All of the plants were measured on the

W

dates indicated. The plant m1 has the same mean ratio L'on

April 19, May 6, and June 2 but has a different mean on May 19.

”2
.4. _..:_Z

O . C
c I. s. no 0. so I. .-
O . I. C C
O 2
I
so

..:

soc. .- 00 0. so o. as s. s.

O - . I

0. v. as o. .0 a.
O O I O
a

s .
s I O O
.0 .6 .0 s. . on
v 0 s s

-oD-'

W
The mean of the ratio LxF was constantly changing and not
W

always in the same direction. The ratio f'of plant M3 showed
a gradual increase during the entire period while the ratio
E F remained practically constant. The plant M3 increased

in the ratio % but decreased in the ratio fgf'till may 19,
then remained constant for the ratio E f while the ratio 5
increased to be significantly different during the period
from May 19 to June 2.

In comparing plants for the same dates we find that
there is a significant difference in the ratios % for plants M1
and 1.53 on Ap ril 19 but no significant difference for the ratio
LEF. On May 6, these plants were not significantly differert
for the ratio“;L while on May 19 they were significantly

different for both ratios.

fin

Table 10.

Robust, Darling and the F1 grown in the field in 1928.

 

Mat.
Plant 0 M 1L CV 151-11313 CV
67101 .8250-1-70399;21’3. 6613.54E.0830‘_'.0102E 56. 47 4- 10.75
67102 E .6950;I-_. 0239E16. 14:2. 48E.0750;‘_'. 0071E 44. 66 3; 7.80
67103 E .8100:.0834E13.96t;.98E.0675:.0062E42.963; 7.50
67104 .7600f.0173§10.61£l.60E .0800?0136E80.00 318.20
67105 E".7750:.0320El9.482_'3.O4EE.0575:.0046E37.%1 3; 6.40

Darling
.7300 1;.0128: 8.21.; 1.24:.0650 1:: 0050: 36.15 3; 6.09

.7400 3;. 0177E11. 21+“ 1. 73E.0750 «0071E 44. 66 4- 7. 80

613301 :
513303 £31800 1’. 0201:.13 30 4- l. 90..0575 3:. 0056: 46.43 2 8.73

613303

613304 .. .7500J-0165: 10. 320' 1.56..0575 1".00533: 42. 43 4_- 7.50

613305 74004._.0234E:2. 9.41 3; 1. 42E .0575 t. 0086. 70.08 9; 14.87

F1 376 Darling X Robust.

 

617806: .7600 33.0114: 7.07 _4_- 1.07:.0625 4- .0041: 30.88 g 5.13

617807E .7300 ;I_-.0128E 8.21 :- 1.24E.05301-_.
617808
617809

C)
C)
a)
.9.

18.30 £3.84
41.37 g 7.21

.7500 110134E 8. 41 4- 1. 27E. 0800 + .0070

.7300 5. 0085. 5. 47 1- :834E.0540 +. 0017 14.81 g 2.58

617810. .7300 110159E10. 24 4- 1. 54E.05003_. 4:.0028 26.80 g 4.30

.0 .0, I.
so so so 00 00

l-- Width of terminal leaflet, in m m
L-- Length of terminal leaflet, in m m
P-- Length of petiole, in m m

4

4.

4 M

+ _

I: _

1+.

.1

+._

4 _

4H.

4..

.2

4 _

+_

4 _

.1

4m 4.

4 .

+ .

u:

1*: 1

-37-

Table 10 gives Robust, Darling and the F1 of this
cross raised in the field of 1926. Robust has a range of
!_
.8250 : .0299 to .6950 t .0239 for the ratio L and of

W
.0850 i .0102 to .0575 f; .0046 for the ratios in. Darling

has a range of .7800 t .0201 to .7300 t .0120 for'the ratio {-
and .0750 1;. 0071 to .0575 3; .0052 for the ratio LXF. The F1
has a range from .7600 t .0104 to .7300 _l; .0085 for the ratio
§Eand .0800 +-.0070 to .0500 4-.0028 for the ratio W

" "' Iii-(IT. This
shows that F1 would fit into either parent group as far as the
means are concerned. However from the coefficients of variniibn
it is seen that the F1 is more uniform than either parent group
but not significantly different from them on the basis of
probable error. The F1 plant 617809 is a very uniform plant
and Just from casual observation appears in a class by itself
ho'ever there is no significant difference between this plant

and 613301 in the Darling group.

-28-

Table 11.

A comparison or Robust, Mexican Tree and the F1 of

this cross grown in the field 1926.

Plant #

W
“i:

Robust

c M L

.4

l...

x?

CV

 

67101 E
67102

67103 E
67104 E

67105

619101:
619102:
6191552
619104:

619001:
619002E

619003
619004

619005:

.8250‘:

.6950
.8100
.7600
.7700

2.7100
.7650
.7200
.7400

.7100
.7300
.7400
.7800
.7200

W--I'idth of

L--Length of

P--Length of

.0299E22.66 3.54E.0850

.0239E12.96 1.982.0750

.0224E12.96

I? It

1.98E.0675
1.60E.0800
3:04E.0575

.0172E10.61
.0320E19.48

-l4

'4

Mexican Trgg_

I +

.0141: 9.33 1.41:.0335

.0250E15.68 2.35E.0385

I-O

.0097E 6.36

I * It’lv It
|+

.0170E10.81 1.63E.0380

‘
E1

.0104: 6.88 :,1.04:.045o
.0128E 8.21 1.240.0425
: e

.0201E’12.30 1.96E.0450

P* I? l'. 1€1|7

.0136E 8.88 1.34E.0475
terminal leaflet in m m
terminal leaflet in m m

petiole in m m

.959E.044o

|* l9

I * P’ l*

.0102E 56.47
.0071E 44.66
.0062E 42.96
.0136: 80.00
.0046E 37.91

.0019:25.35
.0017E18.96
.0014:15.90
.0018:12.89

A0 280 Mexican Tree x Robust

.0034: 35.55
.0032E 35.29
.0049: 46.00
.0034: 35.55

.0035? 34.73

I+Ifilfilfl¢

| + I0-l 9

l+

I‘P 1* l‘*l * l*

10.75

7.80
7.50

18.20

6.40

4.01

P
U

2.3?
1.97

5.94
5.92
8.22
5.93
5.78

4

-“9-

Table 11 is a comparison of Robust, Mexican Tree and

the F1 of this cross. Robust has % spread of .8250 i .0399
to .6950 t. .0239 for the ratio of “L and .0850 : .0102 to
W

.0575f__.0046 for the ratio LxF. Mexican Tree has a spread
W

of .7650 _*_ .0250 to .7100 _t .0141 for the ratio 3 and
w
.0440 _f .0014 to .0335}. 0019 for the ratio —Lx—P. The Ft has a

spread of .7800 g .0201 to .7100 : .0104 for the ratio T.” and
.0500 I .0049 to .0425 : .0033 for the ratio —%-xP. Here
again the means of the F1 could be classed with either parent
group. The coefficients of variation show, however, that‘for
the ratio E¥F’ there is greater variation in the F1 than in
the mother parent indicating that the Robust parent may have
affected the F1. Putting them on the basis of probable error
there is no significant difference between the F and the

1
mother parent.

-30....

Table 13.

Comparing Robust, Crawford and the

 

F1 of this cross

 

 

grown in the field 1926.
ROBUST
w w
Plant 4 M f .017 1:: hr? .07
67101 .8250 f: .0299 :22.66 253.54: .0850 1' .0102; 56.47 1' 10.75
67102 i .6950 t .0239 :16.14 12.48: .0750 3; .0071: 44.66 1: 7.80
67103 .8100 g .0224 :13.96 11.98: .0675 3; .0062: 42.96 .t 7.50
67104 .7600 t .0172 :10. 61 11.60:; .0800 4: .0136? 80.00 118.20
67105 .7700 3; .0320 §:19.48 $2.04; .0575 g .0046; 37.91_+ 6.90
CRAWFORD
612401: .7750 _+_ .0373: 22.59 : 3.54:.0800 .__ .0136: 80. 00 g 18.20
612403: .8050 g .0378: 16.22 _._- 3.50:.0675 f; .0046: 32.14 5; 5.28
618403: .7250 3 .0170: 11.03 t 1.71:.0786 1- .0111: 66.15 _._- 13.55
512404§ .7350 I .0212: 13.52 4_- 2.04§.0650 3 .0060: 42.53 g; 7.67
612405: .7800 4_- .0201: 12.30 : 1.96:.0750 ._. .0042: 26.80 1; 4.30
F1 Ac 378 Crawford X Robust
618401: .7700 3; .0159: 9.66 g; 1.46:.0570 _t; .0015: 12.98 1- 1.99
618403: .7500 g .0214: 1.3.40 1- 2.04 .0675 3.0039; 27.70 1- 4.51
618403: .7300 t .0188: 8.21 1- 1.24:.0650 : .0096; 69.23 g: 14.99
618404: .7500 g .0095: 5.96 f; .898§.0525 : .0036: 31.42 t 5.15
618405: .7000 4; .0106: 7.14 3; 1.08:.0475 t .0036: 25.68 t 4.01

I--lidth of terminal leaflet

in.m m

L--Length of terminal leaflet in mm.

F--Length of petiole.in m m

4. _

.6.

-51-

In Table 12 is shown Robust, Crawford, and the F1 of

a

this cross. Robust has a range in means of .8250 t .0399
W

i?
to .6950 f; .0209 and for LxF from .0850 g .0102 to
.0575 g: .0046. Crawford has a range from .8050 t .0278 to
W
.7350 1: .0170 for the mean ratiowf and from .0800 1' .0136 to -

.0650 ty.0060 for the means of LxF. The F1 has a range from

man

.7700 *- .0159 to .7000 3; £105 for the means of and from

.0675

[a

.0039 to .0475 t .0026 for the means of Lxr. In this

I?

table the three groups may be considered identical when based
upon variation and upon probable error as the means fall so

nearly within the same range.

-33..

A comparison of Robust, Early Prolific, and the
F1 grewn in the field 1936.

Robust
L.
I! M LIP I
glant # L1 CV CV

 

2 8 3 3

:.s250 ' .0399: 22.66 1 3.54:.0850 I. .0102: 56.47 I 10.75
3 2

.6950 1 .0239: 16.14 : 2.48:.0750

3 o
.0071: 44.66 __ 7.80
: .
67103 :.8100

3 f

.0062: 42.96 __ 7.50
,

.0136: 80. 00 1 18.20
1

.0046; 37.91'. 6.40

2 .

It'l *I *l 4

f
. " 1 :
67104 3.7600 _"_ .0172:.1o.61 ; 1.60:.0800
: : :
67105 3.7750 g; .0320: 19.48 1 3.04:.0575

Earl: Prolific

 

617601:.6700 ; .0159: 11.16 3; 1.72:.0370 3; .0014: 18.37 3; 2.82
617602;.7400 1 .0149: 9.45 11.433.0950 1 .0034: 35.55 _t 5.92
617603§.7900 I. .0170: 10.12 1 1.25:.0600 1 .0038: 22.33 1 3.57
617604§.7500 x .0165: 10.32 1" 1.5310490; .0024: 22.46 : 3.70
617605;.7600 3; .0064: 3.49 _‘_’_ .594:.0430 : .0014: 15.81 I 2.36
51 A0 375 Earlthrolifio 3 Robust
617511: .6500 1 .0095: 6.87 :_ 1.04:.0410 1 .0017:19.51 t 3.04
6175123. .7300 1 .0085: 5.47 1 .824:.0450 f; .0016:17.11 1 2.70
617513: .7300 g .0185: 11.93 : 1.74:.0550 _fi .0034§29.09 f; 4.82
617514: .6600 1.0114: 8.15 3; 1.23:.0480 j: .0024§24.16 1 3.83
617515: .7800 1 .0128: 7.69 1 1.16:10475 I .0026i25.68 : 4.01

W-«Width of terminal leaflet in m m
L--Length of terminal leaflet in m m

Pr-Length of petioles in m m

-33-

Table 13 gives Robust, Early Prolific and the F1
grown in the field 1926. Robust has a spread of .8250 1 .0399
w

to .6950 1 .0209 for the means of E and of .0850 _f_ .0102

4.

W
to .0575 .0046 for the means of L F. The Early Frolific

has a spread of '7900.: .0170 to .6700 1 .0159 for the means
W W
E and of .0950 : .0034 to .0370 : .0014 for the means of LxF.

The F1 has a spread of .7800 :_.0188 to .6500 :_.OO95 for the
1:

means E and of .0550 1 .0024 to .0410 1 .0017 for the means

11

LTP. As indicated by this tab1e the means of all three
groups fall so nearly in the same range that individual F1
plants may fit into either parent group. On the basis of

variation, there is no significant difference between the F1

and the other plants.

-34...

CONCLUSIONS
1. Seed measurements cannot be used as a criterion of
identification of

(2) F1 seed from the parent.

(b) Early Prolific from Robust seed.
Since a single bean may fall within the range of
either parent or in the case of Early Prolific and
Robust, single beans from either variety cannot be
identified.
8. Coefficients of correlation of length to width of beans
cannot be used as a criterion of identification.

(a) As indicated in Table 6, the range in these values
obtained from Robust is great enough to include
all varieties tested.

3. F1 plants of crosses between similar strains of white beans‘
cannot be identified by leaflet and petiole measurements
as taken and computed in this experiment.

(2) Examination of Tables 7-13 shows that whether
plants are grown in the green house or in the
field, the means of all varieties tested are the
same when based upon probable error.

(b) There may be plants in the same variety which are
significantly different from each other.

(0) There are plants in each variety tested identical
or nearly so with plants in each of the other

varieties.

4. On the basis of the coefficients of variability there is no

significant difference in F1 plants and the parent varieties.

(a)

in Table 10 the F1 of the Darling x Robust cross
appears more uniform than either parent while in
Table 11 the F1 of the Mexican Tree x Robust is
apparently more variable than the mother parent.
Placing these two F1 progenies on the basis of
probable error there is no significant difference

in either case from the mother parent.

8

W

5. Bean plants are constantly changing in the ratios 3 and LxF

as indicated by Table 9.

(a)

(b)

(3)

A plant may remain constant for one ratio for
several weeks while the other ratio changes or
both ratios may change as to be significantly
different in a period of two weeks.

One ratio may become wider as the other becomes
narrower showing that the ratios change indepen-
dently of each other.

A plant may remain constant for both ratios for

six weeks which was the duration of this part of

the experiment.

6.

10.

-36-
-Bibliography-

Emerson, Dr. R. A. '1902. Preliminary account of variation in
bean hybrids. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta.
15th Annual Report 30-43.

Emerson, Dr. R. A. 1908. Hybridization. Nebraska Agr. Exp.
Sta. Record 16: 583-4.

Emerson, Dr. R. A. 1909. Inheritance of color in seeds of
common beans. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta.
22nd Annual Report 67-101.

Halstead, Byron. 1916. Been growth. Neleersey Agr. Exp.
Sta. Report. pp 444-5.

Johannsen, W. 1985. Inheritance of size of beans as
cited by F. Jones in Genetics. pp 176-8.

Jones, J. W. 1936. Growth of the Mung bean on submerged
land. Journal of the American Society
of Agronomy. 18-366.

Kristofferson, K. B. 1921. Spontaneous crossing in the garden

beans. Hereditas 2 : 395~400.

Norton J. 8. 1918. Inheritance of habit in beans.
Massachusetts Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 185.

Rostie, G. P. 1919. Inheritance of anthracnose.
thtOpathology 9:141 - 8.

Rostie, G. P. 1921. Inheritance of disease resistance

in the common bean. Journal of American

Society of Agronomy. 13:715232.

11.

12.

13.

14.

-37-

Shaw, J. K. and Norton, J. B. 1918. Inheritance of seed
coat color in garden beans. Massachusetts
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 185-pp 59-104.

Sax, K. and McPhee, H. C. 1923. Color factors in tean hybrids .
Journal of Heredity 14: 805-8.

Uphof, T. C. 1923. F1 polymorph generation of a cross
between Phaseolus vulgaris and Phaseolus
multiflorus. Int. Rev Sci. and Fract.
Agro. n. s. 1:112-113.

Uphof, T. C. 1923. Transmissibility of stringiness in
Phaseolus vulgaris. Int. Rev. Sci. and
Fract. Agro. n. s. 1:636.

Wentz, J. B. and Stewart, R. T. 1924. Hybridization of
soy beans. Journal of the American

Society of Agronomy. 16: 534-40.

- CKNOWLEDGMENT-

The author is indebted to Professor E. E. Down
for constructive advice during the work and wishes also
to acknowledge appreciation to Professors J. F. Cox,

E. E. Down and Mr. S. M. Brown for the final review of

this thesis.

“0y“ ‘7
Oct 28 'i

.-,.m

x; ,.'

,- 3‘s '
(y
\f’t‘h‘

 

RIES

 

“'1 111111 1111111111“