lNMERiYANCE ST’UDEES: OF GERM PROPORTION fiN MAIZE Thai. for ‘rho boar“ of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Paul Leighton Pfahier 1954 -~-. .wfi.‘ “His“; 0-169 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Inheritance Studies of Germ Size In maize presented by Paul L. Pfahler has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for b1 0 S 0 degree in Farm CI‘O p3 @flmm Major professor Date December 3, 1951; INHERITANCE STUDIES OF GERM PROPORTION IN MAIZE BY Paul Leighton Pfahler AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of MASTER or SCIENCE Department of Farm Crops 1954 Approved (ZZ- M /’// 11433945 THESIS ABSTRACT In 1952, 46 inbred lines were degerminated to determine their proportions of germ to kernel weight: An inheritance study was conducted using two crosses Wr3 x 0h2 and Wr3 x Hy2. Wr3 was the high ratio parent for both crosses and Oh2 and Hy2 were the low ratio parents. In 1953, the parents, F1, F2, BC1 and BC2 of each cross were planted at the College Farm, East Lansing, Michigan. The plants were self-polli- nated. Each population of each cross was harvested and stored separately. Degermination of the 1953 material was done using the method suggested by Watson et a1 (13). l. The method of degerminating corn suggested by Watson et a1 (13) was relatively more rapid and complete compared to the warm water technique. 2. The evidence for or against dominance is not clear- cut from the results of this study. Most of the evidence seemed to favor partial dominance for high germ proportion. 3. The observed means did not fit those calculated on the assumption of either arithmetic or geometric gene action. 4. The number of genes governing germ size in maize Was calculated to be at least 6. S. The heritability of germ size was found to be high, an average of 75%. 6. Correlations between proportion of germ and kernel wejisht were not significant. Therefore, total kernel weight could not be used as a measure of the prOportion of germ. Correlation of germ weight with kernel weight were highly significant. 7. The Wr3 x Oh2 cross showed no heterosis for either germ weight or kernel weight. Using the 1953 mean for Oh2, there was heterosis for low germ proportion. Comparisons made using the 1952 mean for Oh2 showed no heterosis. Wr3 x Hy2 showed heterosis for germ and kernel weights but no heterosis for germ proportion. INHERITANCE STUDIES OF GERM PROPORTION IN NAIZE BY Paul Leighton Pfahler A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farms Crops 1954 7133 ?5&% ACKNOWLEDGHENTS Thewriter wishes to express his sincere gratitude and appreciation to Dr. E. C. Rossman for his assistance and guidance throughout the course of this study. Thanks are also extended to Dr. S. A. Watson of Corn Products Refining Company for the description and approval for use of the commercial method of degerminating corn. For their aid in detailed portions of this study, appreciation is expressed to various staff members of the Farm Crops Department, Michigan State College. 344488 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.. ................. ......... 1 REVIEW OF IITERATURE.................... 3 METHODS AND MATERIALS................... 6 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS....................12 Node of inheritance................13 Dominance.....................13 Number of genes...............19 Heritability..................20 Correlations.......................2O DISCUSSION..............................24 CONCLUSIONS.............................27 LITERATURE CITED........................29 APPEBIDIXOOO0.000000000000000.0.00.00000031 INTR ODU C T I (I? 2‘} Oil and protein constitute valuable and important components of the corn kernel. Eighty-four percent of the oil contained in the corn kernel is in the germ. Corn oil is a valuable by-product in the industrial processing of corn and is also a high energy livestock feed. Approximately twenty—two percent of the total protein in the corn kernel is found in the germ. This protein is well balanced nutrition- ally whereas the endcsperm protein is deficient in tryptophan and lysine. From the standpoint of both the industrial pro- cessor and the feeder of livestock, a larger proportion of germ to total kernel weight might be a distinct advantage. If hybrids with a higher oil content and a higher per- <2entage of nutritionally balanced protein are to be developed, a more rapid and less costly method of determining the per- <2entages of these fractions would be advantageous to the plant loreeder in evaluating strains or selections. Brunson, et a1 (1) found that the prOportion of germ and percentage of total Cbil had a correlation coefficient of +.86. In the same experi- Inent, the proportion of germ and percentage of germ protein llad a correlation coefficient of +.81. These high, positive (torrelations would indicate that if the ratio of germ weight tRD total kernel weight was increased, the content of oil arid nutritionally balanced protein could be increased. I'Iowever, the correlation of percent 011 in the germ ‘Vith percent protein in germ was -.71 indicating that it would be difficult to increase both components through an increase in proportion of germ. The purposes of this study were to study the mode of inheritance and heritability of germ ratio; to determine the relationship of germ weight to kernel weight; and the relation- ship of germ ratio to the total kernel weight. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Brunson, Earle and Curtis (1) hand-dissected 57 hand- pollinated F2 ears into endosperm, embryo and bran. Each fraction was analyzed for oil and protein. They found a high positive correlation, 4.86, between oil in the kernel and the pr0portion of germ. A high positive correlation, +.81, was obtained between germ protein and the proportion of germ to kernel weight. Earle, Curtis and Hubbard (S) hand-dissected 11 varieties of corn and reported a high positive correlation between oil content of the entire grain and the oil content of the germ. It was found by Earle and Curtis (4) that oil content was genetically inherited and capable of being altered by breeding. In 1896, research was begun at the Illinois Agricult- ural Experiment Station on oil and protein content of corn. The experiment was set up in two parts; in the first part, selections were made for both high and low oil content and in the second part, selections for both high and low protein. Woodworth, Leng, and Jugenheimer (14) reported the re- sults for 50 generations of selection. The original founda- tion seed lot was the Burr White variety with a mean oil percentage at the beginning of selection of 4.70%. In 1949 after fifty generations of selection, the mean oil percentage of the high oil selection was 15.36% while that of the low oil selection was 1.01%. The mean protein percentage of the Burr White variety was 10.92%. After fifty generations of selection for both the high and the low protein, the mean protein percentage of the high protein selection was 19.45% while that of the low protein selection was 4.91%. Ear to row selection had a pronounced effect on raising or lowering the oil and protein content of the original parent. In conjunction with the Illinois Experiment, "Student" (11) determined the minimum number of genes necessary to account for the results obtained. On the basis of certain assumptions on gene action, he estimated that oil percentage in corn was conditioned by at least 2C to 40 genes and possi- bly involved ECU to 400 genes. Sprague and Brimhall (9) studied the effect of envir- Omental conditions and season on the oil content of the corn kernel. After testing nine inbreds for fifteen seasons, they concluded that genetic constitution was more important than environment in affecting the oil percentage of the kernel. Low oil percentage showed a slight degree of domi- Ilance and it was concluded that the minimum number of genes COnditioning oil content was twenty to forty. Sprague, Miller, and Brimhall (10) compared the relative effectiveness of recurrent selection with selection in selfed lines for increasing the oil content of corn. The parent \A material was a synthetic variety designated as Stiff Stalk. The mean oil percentage for the original pOpulation was 4.2%. II) the recurrent selection series, the mean of the first cycle was 5.2% and the mean of second cycle 7.0%. The range for the original population was from 2.5 - 5.C%; for the first cycle 4.0 - 9.6%, and for the second cycle 5.5 - 9.5%. Selection within inbred lines was effective in raising the general mean from 4.97 to 5.62% after five generations of inbreeding. However, it was noted that selection was not equally effective in all families. In the selfing and Selection series, some lines evidenced a decrease in mean 011 percentage whereas other lines showed a considerable increase in mean oil percentages. Recurrent selection was found to be 1.3 to 3.0 times as effective as selection within Selfed lines. Frey (6) found that total protein in the corn kernel was governed by at least 20 genes, zein by a minimum of six genes and tryptophan by 15 genes. He postulated that a r1"inimurr. of 20 genes conditioned the high and low lewels of both oil and protein in corn. Frey, Brimhall and Sprague (17) reported that the amount of non-zein protein appears to be a better guide in selection for increased tryptophan content than does the amount of total prote in. They suggested that corn grain with a moderate prote in content having a larger tryptophan-protein ratio is to be desired rather than merely a high protein corn. METHODS AND MATERIALS In the winter of 1953, the prOportion of germ to endo- sperm in the kernel was determined for 46 inbred lines of ccxrn. Twenty-five kernels were used for each test from a ' 'btilk lot of seed of each inbred line. Separation of the germ from the kernel was accomplished by soaking fifteen minutes in water at approximately lCCOF and dissecting the germ from the endosperm with a scalpel. The germ portion ieacluded that portion of the seed coat which covered the germ of the kernel. The endosperm portion included the seed Cxoat surrounding the endosperm and the tip cap. The dissected portions were oven-dried at lCO-llOOC for 24 hours. The Weight of the germ, endosperm and total weight of the kernel Was obtained and the ratio calculated. From crosses already on hand, two crosses were chosen for an inheritance study: 1. Wr3 x Oh2 high low ratio ratio 2. Wr3 x Hy2 high low ratio ratio In 1953, the parents, the F1, F2, BC1 and the BC2 or each cross were planted at the College Farm, East Lansing, .Nfiichigan. Single rows of twenty~five plants of the parents aJod Fl's were grown. Eight rows of approximately twenty- ffiive plants each were grown for each of the F2, BCl and BC2. Tile plants were self-pollinated by hand. Each ear was har- vested, dried by natural air circulation and stored separately. The process suggested by Watson et a1 (13) was used to dissect the germ from the endosperm. This method was faster 211d gave a more complete separation of germ from endosperm. A. solution of 1% lactic acid and .2% sodium bisulfite (sective ingredient—sulfur dioxide, $02) was used. Approx- ixnately three ml. of this solution was used per gram of corn 't<> be degerminated. The corn was immersed in the solution and incubated for 24 hours at 130°F. During incubation, uv caaccuum gnu .mcaoe couoficona ecu Happen one . HM uapag 15 Juzmmx 469.0... From; 5 :50 no.5: mflflflflmmm lelggggggggnrwww wumnmmmg umwwumumumgmsoso _d...4da fi-........Ta..aa e o .omma noel“ Jazmoz 43:38:» a... :0me 109% a. _ lll'll'lll \ _ \\ \\ e \IJ, \ x \ /\ +35. Ill Nom .3 N. c due... . N o .u Eek. ER _ lll'l'lllgllv qllllllllll'l [rulk . _ . N _ IIII.a v.35 . a l _ mmomo Nszm¢3 m1... “.0 29:55:90 >02u30mmul. wane... 16 random sampling from the same parent population. No conclusion can be made concerning the degree of dominance because the means of both parents were above that of the F1 population, actually showing heterosis for low germ ratio. The mean of the Oh2 parent was 5.4 when analyzed in 1952. Using this mean, the predicted arithmetic mean of the F1 popu- lation was 7.39 assuming no dominance. The actual mean was 7. 63. Using the t test to determine significance between these two means (assuming the standard error of the predicted and ac tual means of the F1 to be equal), a highly significant t Value of 3.27 was obtained. This indicates slight partial dominance for a high ratio of germ. Frequency distributions 01’ the two backcrosses and. their means indicate partial dom- 1nance for a high ratio of germ. Using the mean obtained in 1953 for the Oh2 parent, both the predicted arithmetic and geometric‘means were significantly different from the actual means as shown in Table II. Possibly, both types of gene action were operating in the inheritance of germ size. Using the mean obtained in 1952 for the Oh2 parent, . the predicted arithmetic means for the F2, BC1 and 1302 were 7' 51 . 8.50, 6.52 respectively and the geometric means for the F2 9 B01 and BC2 were 7.37, 8.45 and 6.42 respectively. The pr‘e‘iicted means were significantly different from the actual 17 El tam; i. :50 ESE .H .H H c. v v .v .9 r. .c. .c. c. emu mmwmmmmamgm a1. aaaaaaa-aqm e lull-lllw>m30 0 Guy: 4453.02 lav-humour..— Nu. N. lllllllll ll1lllllllllll e w .ouma -iIINom .Il.om N. /\ I c .cuma _ o :3“ _.._ 22x -- new _ nllllVlfil>l llllll \ z x , A . _ mmomo NI... xmai m..:. “.0 ZO_._.Dm_m._.m_o >ozw30mmu IN maze—u , Tllllnllli N .a c .03.... 18 Frequency distributions for the Wr3 x Hy2 cross are given in Figure 2. The theoretical normal frequency curve distribution is shown in comparison to the actual F2 frequency distribution. The actual frequency distribution fits a normal curve distri- bution as shown by the Chi Square test. The Chi Square value was 11.58 when the least value for significance at the %5 level was 16.92. The distribution of the actual F2 population indicates no dominance was present in this cross. The actual means, the predicted means, the standard deviations, and the standard errors of each population of this cross are given in Table II. Partial dominance for a high ratio of germ was shown by the relationship of the actual F1 mean compared to the predicted F1 mean. If no dominance was present, the mean of the F1 should approximate 7.43. The actual mean obtained was 8.29. The t value was 5.55, highly significant. Partial dominance for a high ratio of germ was indicated. If partial dominance for a high ratio of germ was present, the frequency distribution of the F2 should be skewed towards the high parent. However, there was no evidence of a skewed distribution in the F2 as the Chi Square test indicated that the actual F2 frequency distribution fitted a normal curve. The two backcross means in this cross were the reverse of the expected means if partial dominance was present. 19 The predicted arithmetic and geometric means were signif- icantly different from the actual means in the Wr3 x Hy2 cross. It was impossible to determine which scheme of gene inter- action was predominant. 2. Number of genes Since the mean of the Oh2 parent was higher in the 1953 analysis than expected, the 1952 mean for this inbred was also used in calculations for gene number in the Wr3 x Oh2 cross. Only the 1953 results were used in the gene number calculations for the Wr3 x Hy2 cross. Table III - Calculated gene numbers governing the expression of ratio of germ for two crosses Formula Wr3 x Oh2 Wr3 x Hy2 1953 1952 Mean _ Mean Burton (2) formula .728 2.84 1.8 Castle (3) formula .0345 2.79 1.7 t test 5% level 5.8 6.4 1% level 4.4 4,9 The number of genes responsible for the expression of germ size in these two crosses ranged from .0345 to 6.4, the lowest value being the result of the unexpectedly high mean for the Oh2 parent in 1953. The mean of the Oh2 parent 20 analyzed in 1952 was 5.4. When the 1952 mean for Oh2 was used in the calculations instead of the 1953 mean, a more plausible estimate of the gene number was obtained. A minimum of six genes were responsible for the inheritance of germ ratio. 3. Heritability The heritability of a character gives an estimate of how much of the variation may be due to the genetic make-up of the plant. The results of the heritability studies on each cross are presented in Table IV. Table IV - Heritabilities for germ proportion in two crosses J._ Formula Cr» 5 Wr3 x Oh2 Wr3 x Hy2 Burton (2) formula .85 .83 Warner (12) formula .38 .97 These high heritabilities indicate that germ size was largely an inherited characteristic. Correlations Correlation coefficients for each population in each cross were calculated to determine relationship between germ and total kernel weights and between the ratio of germ to the total kernel weight. The results are given in Table V. Two“ levels of P are given to show the extent of significance. 21 Hoaoa «a on» em acaoaoaomam .. Hoeoa am one am ooaoauaomHm . NemN. ocNN. omma.+ .ameee.+ on Na acmN. euNN. omNN.- aaeamu.+ mu mom Haem. awNN. oNcN.- ..ooea.+ on a m Hmmm. mmmc. m 00.: aammvm.+ OH Nb cmom. mneN. m Ho.+ aamumm.: me a mcom. mmMN. cNoN.- ..ech.+ on He Nam a mag HomN. euNN. wmea.- .amaom.: me NNm acoN. euNN. .HNmN.r .armom.+ me Hum HomN. euNN. Neoo.+ .aaemm.+ mu m «Hem. mmee. cHNH.- .ammae.+ 0N Ne omom. mumm. aavoem.u recomm.+ 00 Ha mQOm. mmmN. cNoN.- .aech.+ on e Nno a my; unmaos ma am Honour Hoeaox Hate» HavOHuoHaam aunmavs snow 0 «ca H Hem H‘oou guano honesz coauanocoo nacho a Nam x my; on: N23 N may no unoHamHuaoa mnwuamonmom on» new nacouaa on» now unwaos Hoanox Hugo» neat (anew mo capan one unmaos Hounox Hugo» an“: unmaot Show you nucoaoauuooo acoHpmHvunoo u > canes 22 Correlations between germ weight and total kernel weight were highly significant showing that large kernels tended to have large germs. Correlations between proportion of germ and kernel weight were not significant except in the Oh2 parent, which showed a highly significant negative correlation, and the backcross to Oh2 which showed a significant positive correlation. In the Uh2 inbred, the smaller kernels tended to have a higher proportion of germ. Since the correlations were not significant in the other populations, there appeared to be no consistent relationship between proportion of germ and kernel weight. The mean germ weights and the mean kernel weights for each population of both crosses are given in Table VI. Table VI - Mean germ weights and mean kernel weights in grams for each population of two crosses Cross [Generation] Mean germ weighthean kernel weight Wr3 x Oh2 P1 .0177 .1892 22 .0229 .2572 F1 .0194 .2510 F .0184 .2366 381 .0190 .2120 302 .0175 .2565 Wr3 x Hy2 P1 .0177 .1892 P2 .0090 .1631 F1 .0228 .2758 F .0198 .2336 B 1 .0157 .2082 302 .0195 .2264 23 The F1 p0pulations should show the maximum amount of heterosis, if present. The F1 and other populations of the Wr3 x Oh2 cross showed no heterosis for either germ weight or kernel weight. The F1 in the Wr3 x Hy2 cross showed heterosis for both germ weight and kernel weight. The F2 and backcross populations of this cross showed hybrid vigor to a lesser extent. None of the ratio means of the Wr3 x Hy2 cross were lower or higher than the parent means. Thus, it appeared that heterosis affected both the germ and endosperm equally. 24 DISCUSSION Since Brunson et a1 (1) found a high positive correlation between germ oil and proportion of germ in the kernel, use of the ratio, germ weight to kernel weight, in evaluating lines for oil content might be an effective measure for selection -2-.- 2.... i- . fl! 9 toward higher oil content. They also found a high positive 1 -'1‘ -—-..ae - correlation of percent protein in the germ and the proportion of germ. Thus, this ratio might also be used as an indication 7 of the proportion of balanced protein in the kernel. Since these workers found a highly significant negative correlation of - .71 between percent protein in the germ and percent oil in the germ, it appears that selection for a larger proportion of germ would not lead to maximum increases in both oil and germ protein. Soaking the kernels in the sulfur dioxide sol- ution provided more complete separation of germ from endosperm than soaking in warm water. In both crosses, there was some evidence for a slight degree of partial dominance for the high ratio of germ. Due to the inconsistencies in the results, the study or these crosses and possibly other crosses should be repeated. Sprague and Brimhall (9) found low oil percentage to be slightly dominant over high oil percentage. Frey (6) found that low percentage of protein, zein, tryptophan, valine and iso-leucine was completely dominant over high percentage. Genes other than those determining oil and balanced protein 95 contents of the germ might be exerting major effects leading to a show of partial dominance for high ratio of germ. It was impossible to determine whether the observed means con- formed to either arithmetic or geometric gene interaction. The number of genes responsible for the expression of as germ size in these two crosses ranged from .0345 to 6.4. . The lowest value was the result of the unexpectedly high v - n4. ,1 . ..; . ‘ a,, a mean of the Oh2 parent. Frey (6) postulated that at least 20 genes were responsible for inheritance of both oil and 5 protein. Other genes, besides those conditioning oil and balanced protein content, with major effects may be involved in germ proportion inheritance. Since the standard deviations of the parents were large in relation to the segregating populations in each cross, it appears that the parents were variable in the germ ratio characteristic. Thus, the formulae which were used to calcu- late gene numbers would give rough estimates of the number of genes governing the expression of germ proportion. Heritabilities for germ size were relatively high in both crosses indicating that environmental conditions had a relatively minor effect on germ proportion which_appeared to be largely an inherited characteristic. Sprague and Brimhall (9), after testirg nine inbreds for fifteen seasons, concluded that the genetic constitution is more important than environ- ment in determining the oil percentage of the kernel. Earle and Curtis (4) concluded that oil content was a varietal characteristic rather than-being due to environment. 26 Coefficients were highly significant in all populations of each cross for the germ - total kernel weight correlations, showing that the larger kernels tended to have larger germs. If there was a high correlation between the ratio of germ and the total kernel weight, the weight of the kernel could be used as an indication of the proportion of germ. The value of using an easily measured characteristic, such as kernel weight as a guide to the proportion of germ and possibly the oil and balanced protein content of a line, would be great. The correlations between the ratio and total kernel weight were not significant. The proportion of germ seems to be largely independent of kernel weight. Brunson et a1 (1) also reported no relationship between proportion of germ and kernel weight. No heterosis for germ weight or kernel weight was exhib- ited in the Wr3 x Oh2 cross. Heterosis for low germ pr0portion was shown in the Wr3 x Oh2 cross with the 1953 mean for Oh2. ‘When the 1952 mean for Oh2 was used, there was no evidence for heterosis but partial dominance for high germ proportion was indicated. In the Wr3 x Hy2 cross, heterosis for both large germ and kernel weights was evident in all of the pop- ilrlations except the backcross to the Wr3 parent. (There was no irflication of heterosis for germ proportion in this cross. 27 CONCLUSIONS In 1952, 46 inbred lines were degerminated to determine their pr0portions of germ to kernel weight. An inheritance study was conducted using two crosses, Wr3 x Oh2 and Wr3 x Hy2. Wr3 was the high ratio parent for both crosses and Oh2 and hy2 were the low ratio parents. In 1953 the parents, F1, F2, BCl and BC2 of each cross were planted at the College Farm, East Lansing, Michigan. The plants were self-pollinated by hand. Each population of each cross was harvested, stored separately and later degerminated. l. The method of degerminating corn suggested by Watson et al (13) was relatively more rapid and complete compared to the warm water technique. 2. The evidence for or against dominance is not clear— cut from the results of this study. Post of the evidence seemed to favor partial dominance for a high proportion of germ. 3. The observed means did not fit those calculated on the assumption of either arithmetic or geometric gene action. 4. The number of genes governing germ size in maize was calculated to be at least 6. 5. The heritability of germ size was found to be high, an average of 75%. 6. Correlations between proportion of germ and kernel weight were not significant. Therefore, total kernel weight 28 could not be used as a measure of the proportion of germ. (Sorrelation of germ weight with kernel weight were highly significant. 7. The Wr3 x Oh2 cross showed no heterosis for either germ weight or kernel weight. Lsing the 1953 mean for Oh2 there was heterosis for low germ proportion. Comparisons made using the 1952 mean for Oh? showed no heterosis. Wr3 x Hy2 showed heterosis for germ and kernel weights but no heter- osis for germ prcportion. 7. 29 LITERATURE CITED Brunson A. M., Earle, F. B., and Curtis, J. J. Interre- lations among factors influencing the oil content of corn. Agron. Jour. 40:180-185. 1948. Burton, G.W. Quantitative inheritance in Pearl Millet 7 (Pennisetum glaucum) Agron. Jour. 43:409-417. 1951. i Castle, W. E. An improved method of estimating the number h of genetic factors concerned in cases of blending in— a heritance. Science 54:223. 1921. Lurtis, J. J. and Earle, F. R. Analysis of double-cross hybrid corn varieties produced on farms. Cereal Chem. 23:88-96. 1946. Earle, F. B., Curtis, J. J. and Hubbard, J. E. Compo- sition of the component parts of the corn kernel, Cereal Chem. 23:504-511. 1946. Frey, K. J. The inheritance of protein and certain of its components in maize. Agron. Jour. 41:113-117. 1949. Frey, K. J., Brimhall, B., and Sprague, G. F. The effects of selection upon protein quality of corn. Agron. Jour. 41:399-403. 1949. Henry. G- F-. Down. E. E. and Baten, w. D. An adequate sample of corn plots with reference to moisture and shelling percentages. Agron. Jour. 34:777-781. 1942. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 30 Sprague, G. F. and Brimhall, B. Relative effectiveness of two systems of selection for oil content of the corn kernel. Agron. Jour. 42:83-88. 1950. Sprague G. F., Miller, P. A. and brimhall, E. Additional studies of the relative effectiveness of two systems of selection for oil content of the corn kernel. agrcn. Jour. 44:329-332. 1952. "Student." A calculation of the minimum number of genes in Winter's selection experiment. Ann. Eugen. 6:77-82. 1934. Warner, J. N. A method of estimating heritability. Agron. Jour. 44:427-430. 1952. Watson, 8. A., Williams, C. B., and Wakely, R. D. Labora- tory steeping procedures used in a wet milling program. Cereal Chem. 28:105-118. 1951. Woodworth, C. M., Leng, E. B., and Jugenheimer, R. W. Fifty generations of selection for protein and oil in corn. Agron. Jour. 44:60-65. 1952. 31 APPENDIX Table I - Oven-dry weights in grams for the germ and endo- sperm and the ratio x 100 for each kernel from individual ears of the three parent inbred lines. 1953. A. Parent - Wr3 Germ Weight Endosperm Weight Ratio Bar 1 .023 .203 10.1 0019 0197 807 .020 .184 9.8 .023 .206 10.0 .023 .215 9.6 .013 .152 7.8 .025 .206 10.8 .022 .206 9.6 .022 .186 10.5 .022 .215 9.2 Mean- 9.6 Ear 2 .019 .150 11.2 .019 .146 11.5 0015 0139 907 .013 0153 708 .018 .144 11.1 .018 .141 11.3 .019 .147 11.4 .017 .143 10.6 .017 .148 10.3 .019 .149 11.3 Mean- 10.62 Ear 3 .020 .180 10.0 .019 .184 9.3 .015 .178 7.7 .019 .170 1000 .019 .187 9.2 .020 .164 10.8 .020 .191 9.4 .021 .170 10.9 .019 .161 10.5 0019 0179 9.5 Mean- 9.73 Germ Weight Endosperm Weight Ear 4 Ear 5 Ear 6 Ear 7 .020 .014 .014 .016 .015 0015 .016 .014 .014 .013 O 018 .019 .019 .016 .016 .015 .020 .019 .021 .019 .019 .015 .014 .013 .013 .015 .017 .018 .015 .015 .019 O 020 .019 .016 .016 .171 .131 .134 .135 .131 .139 .140 .145 .168 .141 .210 .180 .212 .178 .201 .169 .202 .191 .182 .193 .171 .161 .144 .161 .165 .178 .1 1 .152 .168 .161 .170 .190 .160 .162 Mean- . I . U'ICT) O O\ \OUJOOH DUNN Do @0000) \JCDGKOV C I 8. ooomo\0\1 Qumooo I I \m—JOOV but-WC M9311- 8 o 43 F‘ F4 nooomo \l\0 O\\nC) Germ Weight EndOSperm Weight .018 .019 .016 .019 .017 B. Parent Oh2. Ear 1 Ear 2 Ear 3 .021 .023 .024 .023 .023 .023 .022 .027 .022 .021 .020 .021 .021 .024 .020 .029 .020 .028 .028 -.186 0170 .196 .179 .220 .245 .229 .259 0234 .295 .215 .261 .261 .190 Mean- Mean- Mean- Ratio 8.8 1 O O\CD\QO O 7 8 8 9 o e. e. e o. oo mucosa) O\\J'l\DCDCD (1) (13330030 GDCDODCDCD oo >D\OCDCD \JCDG)\1\O O O O\ O\O\U'l\0 \O-bkwo Germ Weight EndOSperm Weight Ear 4 .021 .220 8.7 .025 .223 10.0 .023 .223 9.3 .023 .228 9.1 .022 .242 8.3 .022 .231 8.6 .023 .234 8.9 .020 .225 8.1 .019 .245 7.1 .023 .241 8.7 Mean- 8.68 Ear 5 .021 .243 7.9 .029 .285 9.2 .024 .232 9.3 .023 .224 9.3 .026 .259 9.1 .022 .267 7.6 .023 .229 9.1 .023 .242 8.6 .024 .230 9.4 .022 .228 8.8 mean- 8.83 Ear 6 .026 .283 8.4 .02 .248 8.4 .02 .289 8.8 .023 .293 7.2 .022 .253 8.0 .022 .262 7.7 .022 .248 8.1 .022 .266 7.6 .023 .228 9.1 .024 .267 8.2 Mean- 8.15 Ear 7 .025 .221 10.1 .021 .239 8.0 .027 .224 10.7 .023 .229 9.1 .025 .246 9.2 Ratio Germ Weight Endosperm Weight C. Parent - Ear 1 Ear 2 Ear 3 .028 .022 .022 .022 .024 Hy2 .011 .012 .010 .009 .012 .010 .009 .009 .011 .010 .009 .009 .009 .010 .009 .010 .008 .009 .009 .009 .009 .C06 .007 .010 .010 .010 .009 .009 .009 .008 .248 .209 .204 .249 .243 .163 .174 .139 .164 .155 .164 .153 .149 .169 .162 .165 .148 .152 .149 .159 .149 I159 .143 .156 .162 .126 .142 .162 .156 .150 .149 .147 .141 .136 Mean- Mean- Mean- Ratio ? \flO‘U'lU'ly'l \IU'IV O\O\ H oar- O\\J'l\‘l HMNCDUJ m powum wmmmH U1 “U1“ :5 0‘ \J'lo‘mU'lU'l he \J'tOI-‘O‘N ooooxxnw 35 Germ Ear 4 Ear 5 Ear 6 Ear 7 Weight Endosperm Weight .010 .010 .009 .010 .006 .010 .010 .010 .010 .011 .009 .C08 .009 .010 .010 .007 .007 .009 .009 .008 .008 .010 .010 .009 .009 .008 .008 .005 .005 .009 .010 .009 .007 .008 .008 .189 .182 .185 .181 .169 O 182 .178 .181 .191 .175 .151 .149 .144 .149 .155 .139 .145 .142 .149 .149 :22 2148 .141 .148 .135 .139 .119 .149 .155 .141 .158 .135 .132 .149 Mean- Mean- Mean- Ratio !) mammm burn-mm O \0 \OQMWN #MCfiNO \O :11 “mm-b? O\O\\J't\J'lU'l O a OO\\OO\V ONCDI—‘O\ U1 \nthmn}n \nshowrxn to #LUCL#\H ~QCH» e O\ O\T\OWO\ 36 ‘ui—‘fllaie; 37 Germ Weight Endosperm Weight Ratio .008 .008 .C10 .010 .138 5.4 .144 5.2 .152 6.1 .149 6.2 Mean- 5.60 38 Table II - Oven-dry weights in grams for the germ and endo- sperm and the ratio x 100 for the F1, F2, B01, and B02 of the Wr3 x Oh2 cross. Two samples of five kernels each were taken from each ear. Sample 1 I Sample 2 erm A. F .122 .090 .079 .095 .104 .107 .111 Endosperm Ratio 1 .0erm Wei ht Wei ht Endosperm Ratio Weight Weight 1 1.33 8.40 .118 1.27 8.50 g} 1.16 7.20 .090 1.11 7.50 g4. .94 8.60 .079 .92 7.91 g 1.21 7.28 .091 1.19 7.10 i 1.17 8.16 .097 1.19 7.54 i 1.19 8.25 .110 1.18 8.53 I 1.17 8.67 .122 1.30 8.58 1.19 7.39 .091 1.22 6.94 1.33 7.32 .111 1.28 7.98 1.14 7.17 .099 1.20 7.62 1.18 7.23 .104 1.13 8.43 1.28 7.85 .098 1.34 6.81 1.23 7.59 .098 1.22 7.44 .87 8.23 .074 .89 7.68 1.09 7.55 .095 1.10 7.95 1.20 7.97 .102 1.16 8.08 1.10 7.17 .093 1.14 7.54 1.09 7.71 .090 1.12 7.44 .99 7.56 .082 1.06 7.18 1.25 7.54 .111 1.19 8.53 1.05 6.58 .070 1.05 6.25 1.01 9.09 .096 1.07 8.23 .90 9.18 .090 .94 8.74 1.30 9.03 .128 1.41 8.32 1.51 7.13 .129 1.54 7.73 1.02 8.11 .091 1.03 8.12 1.27 8.57 .115 1.21 8.68 1.20 6.90 .081 1.16 6.53 .76 6.06 .047 .74 5.97 1.59 7.18 .122 1.50 7.52 1.02 8.52 .103 1.03 9.09 1.29 7.06 .099 1.29 7.13 1.05 9.48 .107 1.05 9.25 083 9088 .091 e 9067 .85 8.26 .072 .8 7.56 V 1w— -‘-.‘"q- - Sample 1 _ ngple 2 g_ Germ EndospermLRatIo Germ Endosperm RETTE Weight_ Weight _ Weight Weight 9103 1.22 7078 0117 1.25 8.56 .089 1.06 7.74 .079 1.03 7.12 .111 1.42 7.25 .103 1.g5 7.09 .083 1.02 7.32 .070 . 9 7.29 .091 1.07 7. 4 .101 1.11 8.34 .098 1.34 6.81 .101 1.26 7.42 0071 1004 6039 .078 1.14 6.40 .089 1.21 6.85 .095 1.23 7.17 .059 .83 6.64 .059 .90 6.15 .081 084 8079 0081 .86 8.61 .069 .91 7.05 .070 .9 g.00 .088 1.07 7.60 .095 .9 .84 .097 1.19 7.54 .095 1.12 7.82 .105 1.39 7.02 .103 1.42 6.76 .116 1.55 6.96 .122 1.40 8.02 .084 1.02 7.61 .085 1.00 7.83 .081 .95 7.86 .071 .92 7.16 .095 1.26 7.01 .102 1.25 7.54 .104 1.27 7.57 .099 1.24 7.39 .096 1.16 7.64 .095 1.15 7.63 0078 .85 8.40 .092 091 9018 .090 1.19 7.03 .088 1.15 7.11 0089 09‘ 8.65 .085 .97 8006 .122 1.04 0.50 .119 1.09 9.84 .099 1.25 7.34 .111 1.26 8.10 .092 .92 9.09 .091 .88 9.37 .081 1.08 6.98 .089 1.12 7.36 .102 1.21 7.77 .088 1.17 7.00 .090 1.09 7.6% .099 1.32 6.98 .098 1.13 7.9 .094 1.10 7.87 .082 .99 7.65 .082 .97 7.79 .071 .99 6.69 .068 .97 6.55 .089 1.28 6.30 .095 1.36 6.53 .130 1.52 7. 8 .129 1.37 8.61 .069 .87 7035 0069 092 6.98 .108 1.24 8.01 .111 1.22 8.34 .075 .95 7.32 .079 1.00 7.32 .077 .82 8.58 .071 .84 7.79 .078 .89 8.06 .0g8 .94 7.66 .089 .90 9.00 .0 8 .83 9.59 .080 .99 7.48 .07 .97 7.18 .091 1.21 6.99 .08 1.03 7.87 .089 1.04 7.88 .081 1.02 7.56 .135 1.36 9.03 .141 1.29 9. 5 .081 1.03 7.29 .085 1.00 7.83 #ISamETE I 2 g—__—r—‘f:T-—_1EfiEflE—2‘ Germ Endosperm LRatio I Germ Endosperm Rafi? Weight_ Weight _ Weight Weight .069 .95 6.77 .060 .87 6.45 .080 .84 8.69 .081 .84 8.79 .087 1.12 7.21 .089 1.11 7.42 .115 1.30 8.13 .104 1.28 7.51 .083 .94 8.11 .088 .94 8.56 .066 1.08 5.76 .072 1.16 5.84 .117 1.29 8.32 .104 1. 27 7.57 .129 1.35 8.72 .122 1. 46 7.71 .071 1. 08 6.17 .071 1. 04 6.39 .079 .80 8.99 .079 .79 9.09 .079 .74 9.65 .076 .68 10.05 .090 1.02 8.11 .089 1.05 7.81 .066 .77 7.89 .070 .79 8.14 .120 1.18 9.23.110 1.18 8.53 .116 1.32 8.08 .121 1.24 8.89 c. 1301 .123 1.21 9.23 .122 1.22 9.09 .095 .98 8.84 .698 1.00 8.93 .118 1.07 9.93.111 1.06 9.48 .078 .87 8.23.083 .87 8.71 .075 79 8.67 .066 .70 8.62 .061 .83 6.85 .060 .77 7.32 .100 1.00 9.09 .111 1.08 9.32 .102 .97 9.51 .100 .96 9.43 .099 .89 10.01 .108 .92 10.51 .099 .89 10.01 .110 .95 10.38 .116 1.17 9.02 .116 1.21 8.75 .095 1.01 8.60 .100 .95 9.52 .09 1.04 8.69 .107 1.10 8.86 .09 .88 10.02 .098 .86 10.23 .091 .96 8.66 .095 .99 8.76 .079 .80 8.99 .082 .81 9.19 .095 .97 8.92 .105 1.09 8.78 .106 1.11 8.72 .101 1.00 9.17 .082 .83 8.99 .081 . 6 8.61 .091.85 9.67 .089 .86 9.38 .129 1.02 11.23 .129 1.05 10.94 .099 1.07 8.47 .101 1.02 9.01 .089 .92 8.82 .088 .92 8.73 .113 1.02 9.97.106 1.01 9 .50 .088 .91 8.82 .085 .94 8. 29 - Sample 1 A 83mple2 Germ Endosperm7lRat10 Germ Endosperm‘[ Ratio ngght _Weight Weight Weight .096 .98 8.92 .097 .96 .18 .091 .99 8.42 .091 .93 .91 .075 .77 8.87 .078 .77 9.20 .089 .95 8.56 .088 .96 8.40 .099 1.08 8.40 .101 1.13 8.20 .081 .92 8.09 .101 .91 9.99 .076 .82 8.48 .076 .83 8.39 .081 .81 9.09 .089 .86 9.38 .088 .85 9.38 .084 .87 8.81 .099 .94 9.53 .100 .93 9.71 .114 1.27 8.24 .118 1.29 8.38 .125 1.31 8.71 .119 1.19 9.09 .070 .75 8.54 .071 .72 8.98 .099 .94 9.53 .096 .88 9.84 .102 1.00 9.26 .099 1.00 9.01 .083 .85 8.90 .086 .84 9.29 .033 .83 8.08 .071 .79 8.25 .' 2 .81 9.19 .088 .86 9.28 .073 .83 8.08 .077 .8g 8.49 .085 .87 8.90 .087 .8 9.00 .116 1.09 9.62 .119 1. 09 9.84 .070 .79 8.14 .073 .80 8.36 .119 1.10 9.76 .121 1.10 9.91 .109 .91 10.70 .107 .89 0.73 .081 .92 8.09 .120 1.17 9.30 .102 .89 10.28 .105 .97 9.77 .107 1.13 8.65 .105 1. 09 8.79 .120 1.15 9.45 .120 1.13 9.60 .088 1.02 $.94 .091 1. 02 8.19 .101 1.09 .48 .100 1. 07 8.55 .093 1.07 8.00 .095 1. 09 8.02 .101 1.04 8.85 .105 1.17 8.24 .102 1.11 8.41 .107 1.09 8.94 .109 1.09 9.09 .090 1. 04 7.96 .109 1.02 9.65 .105 .97 9.77 .091.88 9.37 .101 .96 9.52 .118 l. 16 9.23 .114 1.08 9.55 .108 1. 27 7.84 .098 1.12 8.05 .097 .96 9.18 .095 .98 8.84 .076 .74 9.31 .074 .75 8.98 3 P ‘ :4" “agar ““ ..- -.—;. .ul -r.‘-D.‘c Al Sample—1 1_ Sample 2 Germ Endosperm Ratio Germ Endosperm Ratio Weight Weight Weight Weight .090 .89 9.18 .081 .79 9.30 .086 .87 9.00 .089 . 9.38 .073 .89 7.58 .072 .99 6.78 .082 1.06 7.18 .092 1.08 7.85 .111 1.04 9.64 .102 .91 0.08 .110 1.06 9.40 .119 1.15 9.38 .091 .94 8.83 .091 .94 8.83 .071 .84 7.79 .078 .94 7.66 .063 .g4 7.84 .061 .74 7.62 .076 . 3 8.39 .083 .91 8.36 D. BC2 .080 1.20 6.25 .085 1.25 6.37 .077 1.11 6.49 .069 1.16 5.61 .123 1.56 7.31 .125 1.53 7.55 .108 1.31 7.62 .109 1.36 7.42 .069 .94 6.84 .071 .94 7.02 .061 1.07 5.39 .061 1.00 5.75 .088 1.28 6.43 .076 1.19 6.00 .100 1.02 8.93 .095 1.08 8.09 .099 1.49 6.23 .101 1.36 6.91 .060 1.11 5.13 .061 1.12 5.17 .098 1.27 7.16 ..O90 1.31 6.43 .050 .98 4.85 .051 1.02 4.76 .059 1.09 5.13 .059 1.10 5.09 .071 1.11 6.01 .072 1.13 5.99 .092 1.29 6.66 .101 1.21 7.70 .079 1.19 6.23 .081 1.19 6.37 .101 1.30 7.21 .089 1.32 6.32 .092 1.24 6.91 .096 1.24 7.19 .062 1.03 5.68 .065 1.02 5.99 .095 1.66 5.41 .101 1.66 5.73 .081 1.25 6.09 .082 1.19 6.45 .069 1.12 5.80 .070 1.06 6.19 .109 1.34 7.52 .098 1.36 6.72 .101 1.15 8.07 .100 1.17 7.87 .082 1.23 6.25 .086 1.21 6.64 .058 1.06 5.19 .059 .99 5.62 .072 1.21 5.62 .074 1.23 5.67 .091 1.30 6.54 .097 1.33 6.80 .085 1.13 7.00 .099 1.18 7.74 .085 1.33 6.01 .091 1.32 6.45 Samgle 1 4 2 1 - Sample 2 065m Endosperm I Ratio 1 Germ Endosperm Weight “Weight Weight Weight .079 1.24 5.99 .081 1.18 6.42 .095 1.18 7.45 .085 1.17 6.77 .120 1.38 8.00 .1C4 1.38 7.01 .070 1.17 5.65 .070 1.19 5.56 .119 1.44 7.63 .101 1.40 6.73 .092 1.17 7.29 .097 1.23 7.31 .109 1.35 7.47 .099 1.36 6.79 .074 1.01 6.83 .069 .94 6.84 .079 1.25 5.94 .064 .95 6.31 .063 .99 5.98 .062 1.04 5.63 .086 1.15 6.96 .088 1.14 7.17 .129 1.49 7.97 .125 1.36 8.42 .111 1.40 7.35 .108 1.33 7.51 .102 1.40 6.79 .102 1.37 6.93 .103 1.09 8.63 .100 1.15 8.00 .071 1.12 5.96 .071 1.17 5.72 .102 1.37 6.93 .094 1.38 6.38 .101 1.23 7.59 .121 1.26 8.76 .122 1.31 7.48 .130 1.51 7.93 .049 . 6 5.39 .051 .93 5.20 .099 1.15 7.93 .095 1.16 7-57 .105 1.20 8.05 .100 1.13 8.13 .07 1.00 6.80 .074 1.02 6.76 .07 1.36 5.42 .076 1.36 5.29 .103 1.33 7.19 .116 1.31 8.13 .105 1.20 8.05 .101 1.14 8.14 .062 .82 7.03 .060 .87 6.45 .069 1.09 g.95 .069 1.0 6.28 .101 1.15 .07 .091 1.0 7.77 .082 1.10 6.94 .083 1.09 7.07 0091 1.26 6074 .089 1.25 6.65 .073 .91 7.43 .070 .92 7.07 .098 1.26 7.22 .092 1.15 7.41 .072 1.10 6.14 .072 1.04 6.47 .108 1.28 7.78 .096 1.31 6.83 .111 1.23 8.27 .110 1.23 8.21 .088 1.11 7.34 .079 1.06 6.94 .068 .98 6.48 .06 .97 6.46 .100 1.09 8.40 .10 1.21 8.19 .110 1.26 8.03 .123 1.28 8.77 44 _—_‘_‘ Sagple 1 _ “17 Sample 2 Germ Endosperm I Ratio ] Germ Endosperm Ratio Weight_ Weight ' Weight Weight .099 1.32 6.98 .111 1.35 7.60 .092 1.14 7.47 .089 1.14 7.24 .095 1.45 6.15 .098 1.42 6.45 .063 .96 6.16 .063 .99 5.98 .075 1.05 6.67 .078 1.05 6.91 E‘FI ‘34. v 45 Table III - Oven-dry weights in grams for the germ and Bendo- sperm and the ratio 1 100 for the F1, F and B02 of the Wr3 x Hy2 cross. Two safiples1 of five kernels each were taken from each ear. ‘_fi _Sample 1 _ I Sample 2 Germ Endosperm I Ratio Germ Endosperm Ratio Weight Weight Weight Weight A. F1 .101 1.18 7.78 .116 1.15 9.16 .099 1.15 7.93 .091 1.14 7.39 .119 1.33 8.21 .119 1.27 8.57 .100 1.17 7.87 .130 1.20 9.77 .141 1.54 8.39 .121 1.47 7.61 .139 1.41 8.97 .126 1.24 5.22 .101 1.16 8.01 .109 1.10 9.01 .120 1.28 8.57 .119 1.26 8.63 .111 1.28 7.98 .113 1.19 8.67 .125 1.29 8.83 .118 1.19 9.02 .117 1.23 8.68 .101 1.24 7.53 .131 1.36 8.79 .108 1.29 7.73 .104 1.35 7.15 .121 1.37 8.11 .111 1.31 7.81 .110 1.29 7.86 .129 1.38 9.16 .120 1.32 8.33 0109 1.23 8014 0128 1.24 9.36 .101 1.29 7.26 .115 1.35 7.85 .101 1.28 7.31 .104 1.17 8.16 .108 1.17 8.45 .102 1.19 7.89 B. F .111 1.18 8.59 .104 1.20 7.97 .103 1. 28 7.44 .100 1.19 7.7g .061 1. 02 5.64 .063 .99 3.9 .102 1.19 7.89 .100 1.15 .00 .074 1.09 6.35 .070 1. 00 6.54 .071 .87 ".54 .080 .94 7.84 .131 1. 42 8.44 .123 1.48 3.67 .101 1.14 8.13 .110 1.15 .37 .118 1.1 9.45 .104 1.08 8.78 .115 1.2 8.24 .096 1.25 7.13 .138 1.32 9.46 .131 1.30 9.15 .119 1.09 9.84 .119 1.06 10.09 .118 1.19 9.02 .112 1.19 8.60 .120 1.11 9.75 .119 1.04 10.26 .090 1.11 7.50 .1LO 1.15 8.00 Sample 1 Germ Endosperm Ratio Germ Weight Weight Sample 2 Endosperm RatIE Weight Weight .091 1.07 7.83 .098 .98 9.09 .095 1.66 8.22 .092 1.11 7.65 .122 1.12 9.82 .133 1.23 9.75 .099 .97 9.26 .095 .92 9.36 .091 1.05 7.97 .101 1.00 9.17 .140 1.29 9.79 .141 1.39 9.20 .083 .77 9.73 .076 .74 9.31 .101 1.22 7.64 .089 1.15 7.18 .091 .90 9.18 .089 .86 9.37 .105 .95 9.95 .101 .92 9.89 .111 1.22 8.34 .112 1.14 8.94 .129 1.25 9.35 .114 1.21 8.61 .081 1.19 6.37 .078 1.21 6.C5 .071 .78 8.34 .067 .82 7.55 .115 1.06 9.78 .114 1.07 9.62 .052 .87 5.63 .058 .88 6.18 .099 1.10 8.25 .089 1.07 7.67 .104 1.08 8.78 .114 1.06 9.71 0062 073 7083 .050 .73 6.41 .109 1.13 8.80 .119 1.11 9.68 .125 1.10 10.24 .120 1.04 10.34 .110 1.27 7.97 .121 1.20 9.16 .128 1.04 10.96 .135 1.16 10.42 .101 .99 9.26 .101 1.07 8.63 .075 .89 7.77 .076 .91 7.71 .094 .97 8.83 .099 .98 9.18 .079 .99 7.39 .085 1.02 7.69 .080 1.14 6.56 .091 1.13 7.45 .066 .87 7.05 .062. .85 6.80 .075 .77 8.87 .068 .70 8.85 .121 1.19 0.23 .120 1.18 9.23 .077 .77 9.09 .069 .73 8.64 .120 1.07 10.08 .131 1.14 10.31 .098 .91 9.72 .101 .96 9.52 .161 1.27 11.25 .159 1.29 0.97 .085 1.13 .00 .085 1.08 7.30 0086 .93 ‘946 0074 090 7060 .089 .99 8.25 .101 .96 9.52 .079 1.18 6.27 .082 1.17 6.55 .092 1.13 7.53 .091 1.11 7.58 47 SampIe 1 Sample 2—_—_—___—_’ fiérm Endosperm Ratio Germ Endosperm1— Ratio WeightWeight Weight Weight 0060 073 70 59 .C62 .74 7073 .099 1.12 8.12 .099 1.17 7.80 .091 1.04 8.05 .099 1.08 8.40 .103 1.14 8.29 .094 1.14 7.62 .125 1.21 9.36 .123 1.16 9.59 .071 .84 7.79 .071 .82 7.97 .109 1.26 7.96 .109 1.23 8.14 .086 .95 8.30 .083 .86 8.80 .117 1.37 7.87 .112 1.32 7.82 .089 .95 8.57 .092 .99 8.50 .110 1.20 8.40 .10 1.27 7.64 .080 .89 8.25 .07 .92 7.82 .078 .78 9.09 .075 .74 9.20 .165 1.1C 8.71 .107 1.12 8.72 .099 1. 25 7.34 .109 1.12 8.87 .100 1.26 7.35 .108 1.20 8.26 .124 1.31 8.65 .119 1.22 9.11 .071 .99 6.69 .071 1.02 6.51 .091 1. 28 6.64 .095 1.24 7.12 .146 1.15 11.27 .148 1.24 10.66 .115 .99 10.41 .1C5 .91 10.34 C. BC1 .091 .97 8.58 .081 1.00 7.49 .076 .89 7.87 .073 .92 7.35 .068 .92 6.88 .069 .91 7.05 .085 1.12 7.05 .085 1. Cl 7.76 .084 1. 01 7.68.079 .99 7.39 093 1 14 7.54 .090 1.08 7.69 .068 .73 8.52 .069 .73 8.64 .099 1.19 7.68 .107 1.19 8.25 .080 .98 7.55‘ .080 .95 7.77 .064 .82 7.24 .059 .73 7.48 098 1 14 7.92 .091 1.10 7.64 079 .97 7.5% .076 1.02 6.93 080 .99 7.4 .078 1.01 7.17 .C89 1.11 7.42 .087 l. 12 7.21 080.89 8.25.073 85 7.91 Sample 1 _Sample 2 Germ Endosperm Ratio 1 Germ Endospermf1 Ratio Weight Weight Weight Weight 082 1.09 7.00 .079 1.01 7.25 101 1.22 7.65 .099 1.14 7.99 .077 .92 7.72 .074 .91 7.52 .081 .94 7.93 .082 1.01 7.51 .068 .84 7.49 .069 .85 7.51 .082 .92 8.18 .085 .89 8.72 072 .97 6.91 .073 1.03 6.62 .069 .81 7.85 .069 .87 7.35 .104 .91 0.26 .080 .91 8.16 .090 .88 9.28 .090 .84 9.68 0081 1015 6058 .080 1.18 6035 .064 .80 7.41 .061 .81 7.00 .051 .69 6.88 .049 .71 6.45 .063 .90 6.54 .065 .93 6.53 .090 1.06 7.83 .081 1.02 7.36 .083 .92 8.27 .082 .88 8.52 .091 1.22 6.94 .073 .91 7.43 .095 1.02 8.52 .092 1.03 8.20 .071 .96 6.89 .077 1.01 7.08 074 1.05 6.58 .074 1.01 6.83 .081 1.16 6.53 .078 1.11 6.57 080 086 8.51 .081 075 9075 .071 .91 7.24 .069 .93 6.91 082 1.10 6.94 .079 1.06 6.94 069 .96 6.71 .063 .96 6.16 .075 1.02 6.85 .077 1.02 7.02 .071 .94 7.02 .074 .94 7.30 .059 .73 7.48 .060 .75 7.41 080 1.06 7.02 .079 1.03 7.12 .084 .89 8.62 .088 .90 8.91 .071 .93 7.09 .072 .94 7.11 065 .73 8.18 .065 .73 8.18 .080 1.03 7.21 .075 1.00 6.98 .088 1.10 7.41 .088 1.15 7.11 .085 .94 8.29 .085 .92 8.46 D. BC .101 1.09 8.48 .099 1.04 8.69 .091 1.07 7. 84 .084 .93 8.28 .082 .81 9019 0086 .82 9049 .099 1.24 7.39 100 1.26 7.35 .100 .90 10.00 .099 .96 9.35 49 Samp 6 , ‘ _amp e Germ Endosperm Ratio Germ Endosperm Ratio Weight Weight Weight Weight .067 .87 7.15 .071 .88 7.47 .095 1.17 7.51 .099 1.26 7.28 .090 1.14 7.32 .098 1.11 8.11 .090 1.27 6.62 .098 1.24 7.32 .075 .91 7.61 .073 .85 7.91 .090 1.15 7.26 .102 1.09 8.56 .098 1.02 8.77 .097 1.06 8.38 .091 .99 8.42 .095 1.05 8.30 .104 .99 9.51 .109 .98 0.01 .079 .84 8.60 .059 .69 7.88 .112 1.25 8.22 .115 1.15 9.09 .128 1.35 8.66 .130 1.35 8.78 .100 .99 9.17 .100 1.00 9.C9 .lgO 1.09 10.66 .071 .61 10.43 . 9 1.11 7.42 .089 1.12 7.36 .099 .97 9.26 .103 .92 10.07 .090 .94 8.74 .090 .96 8. 7 .1C5 1.05 9.09 .101 1.04 8. 5 .091 .93 8.91 .090 .9 8.49 .119 1.17 9.23 .099 .9 9.18 .099 1.16 7.86 .103 1.20 7.90 .113 1.18 8.74 .110 1.10 9.09 .082 1.02 7.44 .081 1.00 7.49 .097 1.13 7.91 .096 1.15 7.70 .091 1.06 7.91 .071 .83 7.88 .091 .95 8.74 .088 .87 9.19 .032 .92 7.26 .079 .98 7.46 .0 5 1.17 6.77 .072 1.21 5.62 .072 .73 8.98 .075 .73 9.32 .101 1.07 8.63 .101 1.09 8.48 .110 1.18 8.53 .080 .96 7.69 .099 .99 9.09 .089 .94 8.65 .099 1.09 8.33 .098 1.12 8.05 .085 .80 9.60 .090 .84 9.68 .078 .C3 7.74 .078 .91 7.89 0089 1.3 6.27 .089 102 6.65 .CQC 1.0 g.69 .091 1.0 g.g7 .131 1.35 .85 .121 1.25 . 3 .101 1.27 7.37 .094 1.24 7.05 .081 .80 9.19 .075 .85 8.11 1 Sample—1 4 ‘ I §ampIe 2 Germ Enaosperm [ Ratio l Eerm Endosperm fiatio weight Weight , 7 Weight Weight .089 1.03 7.95 .093 1.02 8.36 .112 1.18 8.67 .111 1.09 9.24 .089 .87 9.28 .C88 .89 9.CO .120 1.35 8.16 .116 1.30 8.19 .090 .95 8.65 .101 1.10 8.41 .108 1.02 9.57 .100 1.05 8.70 .1C9 1.17 8.52 .105 1.27 7.64 .091 .82 9.99 .097 .87 10.03 .099 1.06 8.54 .100 1.01 9.01 .121 1.16 9.45 .121 1.13 9.67 .091 .93 8.91 .092 .94 8.91 .089 .g9 10.13 .082 .84 8.87 .070 . 2 7.87 .069 .78 8.13 .133 1.25 9.62 .123 1.23 9.09 .130 1.26 9.35 .122 1.05 10.41 .092 1.10 7.72 .101 1.10 8.41 o 099 o 94 9. 53 o 098 e 88 10. 02 .067 .84 7.39 .061 .82 6.92 .114 1.26 8.30 .111 1.20 8.47 .119 1.14 9.45 .119 1.18 9.16 .104 1.11 8.56 .121 1.22 9.02 .116 1.14 9.23 .109 1.18 8.45 .130 1.20 9.77 .121 1.16 9.44 .099 100C‘ 9000 0101 1002 9.00 .105 .94 10.04 .116 .97 10.68 .128 1.23 9.43 .130 1.28 9.22 .111 1.21 .40 .116 1.33 8.02 .091 .83 9.88 .C9O . 9.47 .099 1.02 8.85 .095 .92 9.86 .075 .72 0.43 .073 .75 8. 7 50 1100;: 3.35 8...? in" 1 ~-:*‘\ {2 "R 113/ b "57 " ' “Y 4 1 39' .. p- 217‘?“ 4‘) » M .1: If .44L4333J .. _- ,l APR 18 1961 Ef- mulmtltulwwlguflullln 3 1293