INN IM | | o— © Nh IO patel Ln H LIBRARY Michigan State University MSU LIBRARIES a RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. VARTATICUS OF Viratsty CEVRACEURIS@T ICS IV TOMATO FRODUCTION. THESIS PRISSUuTSD BY ALRURT JACKSON OLITEAY BOR DiGREE OF ASTOR OF LORTICULLURA. |“ i> L/ ho INTRODUCTION. Variations in the behavior of tomatoes as influenced by various methods of culture and training have been noted by investigators for many years and careful study of their work reveals some real or nossibly apparent contradictions. Certain methods of training for example are said by some to greatly increase the size of the fruit while another re- vorts that the increase in size was very slight for this particular method. In order to determine the methods suited to Kentucky conditions, considerable data w2s taken, a part of which is given in the following tables. The seed for the varieties here considered were se- cured from the sime strain in order to eliminate any dif- ferences that might occur from that factor. Myers (6) found in his study of variety strains that -- "it has been Shown that variations occured in yield of more than thir- teen tons per acre of marketable fruit. These differences must be attributed, not to environment -- but to heredity, etc." The seeds were planted the first week in March in flats and transplanted into pots when the second leaves 103211 Ze appeared. The plants were grown in the greenhouse till about Avril 15th when they were put into cold-frames and planted in the field as neir May 10th as nossible. Ten plants of each variety were grown for comn2risons with one alternate to be used in case of accident. The plants which were neither pruned nor staked are spoken of as "running." These were set in the field 4 feet avart in rows 6 feet apart. St2ked and vruned vines were vlanted 2 feet apart in rows 4 feet apart. These were allowed to srow until they were 12 to 15 inches in height when they were staked and pruned to one stem. VARIATIONS IN CHARACTERS OF VARTETIES, RUNNIVG. Ten varieties were observed in this series thru 3 years except Santa Rosa as shown in Table I. Considersble variations occured from year to year. In 191” the veather conditions were very favorable while in 1918 and 1919 the cron was shortened considerably by draught. It will be no- ticed that the highest yielding variety one year may not be another. It is apparent therefore that varieties are not ail affected alike by the varying conditions of weath- er, soil and culture. Red Head, Stone, Greater Baltinore and Early Detroit suffered more than the others from draught in 1919. Beauty was uniform in size, shape and color, quality fair. Bonny Best w:s one of the most s3it- isfactory because of its auality and uniformity of size and shape of fruit, as well as productiveness. Chalk's 3 Jewell wis the most consistent in production, somewhat variable in size and fair in quility. Red He»d averaged rather small, uniform in size and shape, fair in auality. Stone w:s uniform in size 2nd shave, medium to large, pro- ductive, fair in cuality. Sunrise, sinilar to Harliana, irregular in size and shave, only fair in quality. San- ta Rose, similar to Ponderosa but not so large 2nd more regular in shape, cuality good. TABLE I Variations in Yield of Running Vines Yield of marketable fruit, in vounds from ten vniants Variety 1917 1918 1919 Average eee Beauty ? , 147.5 97.5 | 74.6 106.4 Bonny Best | 142.1 | 100.7 97.1 113.3 Chalk's Jewel. 160.1 ' 127.7 111.3 133. Red Head | 181.5 138.6 63.1 127.7 Stone 145.6 126. 50.1 107.2 Sunrise 172.6 101.2 88.6 130.8 Santa Rosa 124.5 82.6 103.5 Karliana 146.4 105. 87.9 113.1 areater | 144.3 106.1 76.5 108.9 Early Detroit’ 147.2 | 142.1 61. 116.7 Earliana, irregular in size and shape, productive, quality fair. Greater Baltimore, sinilar to Stone but earlier, smaller in size and somewhat irregular in size. Karly Detroit, uniform in size shape and color, auality 4, very good, often cracks bidly. All varieties were svrayed with Bordesux Mixture, and were very free from disezses. The srowth wis virorous and apparently normal. Conclusions: These data show that the better strains of tomato v2rieties such 2s were used for these dita, when grown with no training or nruning, do not have any very striking differences 2s fir 28s total production is concern- ed. The selection of 2 viriety denends larrely on the use that is to be made of the fruit and therefore, curlity and uniformity of size, shane and color should be considered as well 2s nroductiveness. VARIATIONS IN CHARACT&IRS OF ViRIETIES, STARED AND PRUINED TO OME STEM. The yield of marketable fruit from the ten v2rieties in this series will be found in Table II. It is often siid that cert2in vrrieties cinnot stind pruning while others resnond to it and vroduce imoroved crops from its practice. Green (4) says "avoid the ex- tremely e2rly sorts, such 2s the Earliczna class, which under most conditions cinnot st2ind severe vnruning." It will be noted in this connection thit the vxiri- ety Harliana cave the lowest :verzre for the three years but the difference in the averizre for Marliana is very Slisht. Other v:rieties of the Narliana tyne such 28 Red Heid ind Sunrise did not show a falling off in yield De as the result of pruning. Such v2rieties 2S Bexruty, Stone and Early Detroit, none of which ire of the Exurliana type, averaged slightly higher and in several inst2nces as in Beauty in 1917 and in 1919 exrve a yield less than that of Earliana. Santa Rosa g.ve a high averige for the two years but Bonny Best, Greater Baltimore and Chalk's Jewel gave the best :verages in the order nsmed. ‘TABLE IT Variations in Yield of Market2ble Fruit From Plants When Staked and Pruned, in Pounds From Ten Plants. Variety L917 1918 1919 _ Average Beauty 36.1 64.9 49.3 50.1 Bonny Best 61.4 50.4 67.7 09.8 Chalk's Jewel! 56.3 | 46. 64. _ 55.4 Red Head 47.8 50.1 53.1 50.3 Stone 47.1 } 65.8 ! 49 .6 54.1 Sunrise 52.5 42.7 61.1 52.1 Santa Rosa | 65. 70.46 67.8 EHarliana ; 41.9 45.7 58. 48.5 Greater 1 | | Baltimore i 57.6 71.6 | 43.5 57.5 Karly Detroit | 47.1 ! 68.9 45.35 | 03.7 Conclusions: From these facts we may conclude that the variations of yield in varieties as affected by prun- ing are not 2s creat as have been Supposed and it will be noted that the varieties gave a more uniform yield when pruned than when they received no pruning. Vu:urieties of the Karliana Type appear to be affected as much a8 any by severe pruning but the differences 2re not clesr cut. It will be observed by com»2risons between the rrun- ed and unoruned vines that the yield ner plant was re- duced by pruning but this is offset by the greater num- ber of vlants that may be used on 2n acre. ARTATIONS IN EARLINESS OF RIPENING AS INFLUENCED BY ST*KING AND PRUNING. The exrliness of rivening is a very importint fac- tor from the standpoint of profits in tomato production since the price usually drops very materially soon after the general crop begins to ripen. Any methods that will hasten the ripening period are therefore eagerly sought after by market gardeners. Stzking and pruning is the usu#l method emnloyed to accomplish this purpvose. How- ever, the crower is anxious to !mow to what extent the st king and pruning will hasten the maturity of the crop and very little data c2n be found on this pvoint. Rosa (8) says, "pruning to a single stem will give a comparatively early crop of fancy fruit." Green (4) found that a plant thus grow, ripens its fruits much earlier than does a vlant allowed to frow unvruned on the rround. Thomoson (11), Whipple (13) and Schermerham (15), Kyle (3), Bailey and Corbett (1), Stone (10) and others report that fruit will ripen earlier when staked and pruned. Tiloyd and Brooks (5) in their ezneriments found that "pl:nts pruned to single stems sometimes ripen their first snec- imen earlier than the unpruned plants but in other cases, the reverse was true. In every instance the niants prun- ed to single stems nroduced low yields of exrly tomatoes and on the iverise these yields were much lower thin those from plants less severely pruned or left unvruned."” TABLE III Days Increase in Barliness by Stiking and Pruning Season 1919. 10% 25% 50% Beauty 6 9 [ 9 Bonny Best 6 2 . 3 Chalk's Jewel 6 1 . 1 Red Head . 10 13 a 2 Stone -3 2 4 Sunrise 5 5 : 6 santa Rosa 2 3 2 Earliana 5 4 _ 4 Greater Baltimore 15 9 3 Karly Detroit 8 3 2 Average 7 days 5.1 day 5.6 d2ys In summing up these reports it 2nnears that it is generally acreed thit staking ind pruning hastens the ma- turity of the fruit while some indicate that the incresse in earliness is rather slight or may even be delayed by this treatment. In order to determine the extent thit staking and oruning have in hastening maturity, daily pickings (except Sunday) were made through the 1919 seison. In Table III will be found the increrse in euirliness in duys for 10, 25 -nd 50 nercent of the cron of exch viriety. In the cise of Greiter Biltimore the first 10% of the cron v.s nroduced 15 d:ys earlier thin on the un- pruned vines. This »3s the rreatest incre:se in exrrli- ness and \.2s followed by 2 rainid decline in yield to- ward the end of the se:son. Red Head was earlicr by 10 and 13 days, resnectively for the first 10 and 25% of the crop but hilf the crop »:s nroduced only two dys eirlier. In only one crise wis errliness delayed by oruning. The first 10%) of the Stone cron was 5 day later than those unnruned. However, by the time 25 ind 50% of the cron were produced there ¥:1s an incre:se of e and 4 days resnectively. ‘\verarine the varieties, 10% of the crop wis borne one week errlier on the pruned vines than on the unnrrunei. 25% of the crop was 5.1 days and 50:5 of the crov 5.6 days earlier ty st king and nruning. The relutive ezrliness of the v:rieties ire indicit- e. in Tible IV. In this t:ble the aver:re number of ounces oroduced ner plant iis taken for running 2nd those stiked and or nec to 2nd includins the following dites: July 25, August 1, iurust 10 and iueust 30 when the se.son closed. \ number of surprises were noteé in ex2mining this poemz{ PUS PEAv{S -— Id B Sux Suytuuny - uy vel [es es ve | [ea ur womeatyate 0°06 | 9° 981) GTy | g°9¢ | g°eT) 2@°8 | B84 | 4's | OSBLOAY v°sh | 9°46 | HTS | a*e2 ) 9° tr| See | cere | oe | qForyeq ATaeg 9°04 : rad g*ee | 2°22 O°PvT 9°9 O°OT) 9°9 | SLOUTATeg Teyeery 8°26 1 7 Ort 6°9¢ 1 Teag | OVE} S°OT| T's | o°9 | _ “BUST Tzeg 6°2TT | Tee] yroe | c°tz | S°g | e*g | are | ae | Bsoy Bq{UES “46 | ult] 2°v9 | e°4e | 9°FT| B'S | 62 | eta | estaung o°6L | Toe | 2°82 | 6°12 | got, got] 9°9 | wre | euorg 6°78 | 6°O0T| T°6S 0°97 |] a° 62 | 9°ST| 8°Ss! O°ST pEeH pexY 7° SOT ult G*ey | 9°L9 ic 9°9T| TOT] 6 O°OL Temer S,XTeUO e-eor|esst| eas | ays | Oot] eu oS 8y q8eg Kuuog SCZ FOr era erat ee ee wae pet Aynwog ad @s *Y | aes °g ies Ea Siz “As SOTPOTIVA og *3ny | OT my) Tn ge Arne *6L6L Uosees *4UeTI IO 4IuI_Z eTqeyoyreyy soound ‘Buyuedty FO SSOUTTAVY UT SUOCTYBTIBA AT @Tava 10. data. It was found that some of the varieties usually spoken of as mid-season or late, produced more market- able fruit by August 1, th=n some varieties called early. However, the order was changed considerably by August 10. Since the price usually declines ranidly after August 10, the varieties are given in order of their production of marketable fruit from unpruned and unstaked vines on or before that date. Chalk’s Jewel, Bonney Best, Sunrise, Red Head, Earliana, Early Detroit, Greater Baltimore, Stone, Santa Rosa and Beauty. The staking and pruning changed the order as follows: Sunrise, Eurliana, Bonny Best, Chalk's Jewel, Red Head, Santa Rosa, Beauty, Early Detroit, Greater Baltimore and Stone. Earliness of ripen- ing is often calculated by the ripening of the first specimens. If the date of ripening of the first fruits is taken as a criterion of their earliness the order stands as follows: Red Head, Chalk's Jewel, Greater Baltimore, Earliana, Stone, Bonny Best, Early Detroit, Sunrise, Santa Rosa anc Beauty. This order is quite at variance with the quantity of early fruit that each produced. Therefore we may conclude that the date of the first ma- ture fruits are not always a correct basis for classify- ing varieties according to earliness. By reference to Table IV it will be noticed that on the average the staking and pruning increased the early product per plant in the fore part of the season, By 1l. July 25 the difference in favor of pruning was 2.1] ounces per plant and increased to 5.3 ounces ty iAucust 1 and 5.2 ounces by Aucust 10 after which they fell off rapidly in yield and at the end of the se2son produced 36.6 ounces per plant less than those that were not stcked and pruned. Figures I to V show that the advantzre in early vro- duction by staking and pruning is in the first part of the season. After the first 25 to 50% of the crop is pro- duced on the stuked and pruned vines, the yield does not equal th:it of the untriuined vines. Conclusions: Staking and prunins hasten the onrrly production of the first 10 to 25% of the crop by 2pvrox- imately one week and the first half of the crop by 3 or 4 daySe Varieties are usually disturbed from their normal period of ripening by staking and pruning and sometimes results in retarded ripening altho this is not usually the casee From the stondpoint of varieties which will bear a larze proportion of their crop early in the senson, Chalk's Jewel, Bonny Best, Sunrise, Srrliana and Red Head 2re denendible,. ViRT TIONS Il THe CICK OF PRYVIT OF TEN V RIOUS VantIetTizs \S INFLUSUCHD By ST KIVG AMD PRUPIVG. Observations hsve frejyuently been recorded of in- crensed size of fruit by st:king and nrumins and occis- ionly evidence is produced to show that there is no in- 12. crease in size from this practice. Stuckey and Temole (9) state that "the fruit on the pruned, staked vines was larger---than on the unpruned, unstaked vines." Green (4) says "The fruit averages larger in :.ize”™ in speaking of the effect of staking and vruning to one stem. Lloyd and Brooks (5) find that "Pruning to single stems not only failed to increase the size of the early fruit but also reduced the foliage to such an extent that the fruit was badly exposed, sunburning and cracking of the fruit followed." Earle (2), Stone (10) and others find the size def- initely increased by pruning. Olney (7) reports that "the average increase in the size of the fruit for the twenty-seven v2rieties grown in 1918 was 10¢ percent." Dati taken on this point in 1919 is found in Table Ve. It will be noticed that there is considerable var- lation among varieties. Besuty, Bonny Best, Red Head, Sunrise, Harliana and Early Detroit showed only slight increases in the size of the fruit from pruning. Tie fruit of Chalk's Jewel, Stone, Santa Rosa and Greater Baltimore was decidedly larger on the staked and pruned vines. The greatest incresse in size was made in the case of Stone in which the increase was 2.1 ounces ver fruit or 37% percent. An average of the ten varieties give an increase of nearly 17 percent. Reference to figures Ios. 6 to 15 show that the greatest difference in size occurs during the latter part of the season when the unvruned vines dwindle ranidly in size. TABLE V Variations in Size of Fruit on Pruned and Unpruned Vines, Average Weight of One Fruit. ' ! Staked and | Increase by Variety running Pruned Pruning Beauty | 5.8 02S. : 6.5 028.6 05 O27S. Bonny Best 5.2" 5.7" 5" Chalk's Jewel 5.1 " 6.4 " 1.3 =" Earliana _ 5.8 " 6. =" 2" Early Detroit : 5.1 " 5.4 " oo Greater Baltimore 5.2 " 6.2 " 1. " Red Head 4.7 " 5.5 " 08 Santa Rosa 7.5 " 9.5 " : Qe " Stone (5.6 "| 7.7" ! 2.1" Sunrise 5.5" | ga" i Average | 5.5 " 6.4 " 9 " Conclusions: The average size of the fruit is def- initely increased by staking and pruning. The amount of increase in size depends larrely on the variety and ran- ses from zero to two ounces per fruit. Varieties of the Earliana tyne appear not to be very responsive to increases in size of the fruit by pruning. 14. The size of the early fruit is not materially affect- ed by pruning but the size during the latter part of the season when the fruit of unstaked, unvruned vines dwindles rapidly in size. SUMMARY 1. Untrained, unpruned tomatoes of good strains fave no striking differences in total production but there was a marked difference in the quality and the uniformity of size, shape and color. 2e Staking and pruning to one stem gave a more uniform production of marketable fruit than when unvruned and untrained. Varieties of the Earliana type appear to be least suited to severe pruning altho the total yield of marketable fruit was vractically equal to the others. 53e Stiking and Pruning hastens the maturity of the first 10% of the crop by approximately one week and the first half of the cron by three or four days. The date of ma- turity of the first specimens is not a true indication of the relative earliness of a variety. 4. The fruit of some varieties average materially larg- er when the vines are stiked and pruned while others are only slightly increased in size, as an average for the season. The early or first part of the crop is not material- ly increased in size but the size is maint:ined thruout the season, whereas those on unpruned vines dwindle rap- idly in size toward the end of the season. Varieties of 15. the Earliana tyne do not resvond to increased averse size of fruit to the oe . - . . . . . rocé 7 . 1 to + . . - ve were . oo to voor oe ' eo pe soe rk fee fp ot cee gee ee pene —— ee ¢ ' | woe he topo en os we ee - ’ . — ’ . . . . ~ . . eo . - + c - soe . v ° . ee - vow ce . 1 cht rome. i . * ee ow ~ . ~ . 1 7 +e wre ° t > + + 1 1 ° . a : s eon. - . ' * . . “+ ’ : “+ - t 7 ‘ 1 1 a 7 - ° - ' ' : + wort le . vo . ’ + tps tm eee 1 . Hl ene eee i — - -+ . , , - . : : ' . , - ‘ t . , - pow os - . ' . ° . woe , tome oF : + ' - _+ ot . ' ’ t 7 ! --~y— ee "r+ 4 : : 1 soe ey eH 1 + , , | orem eee cw woe - : t 1 a ' tote , . *—F+ nN + woe * woe et . . - . r . . . . . 1 - -- - ‘ + , Sony tose .- nye pd ' i x 7 - . . r + + ’ . See ae see ee . . Hi > ~ * ° t eo . . + ~ ew o-e- . » re > 4 ’ -- - - . 7 eta : -~--- . ' + - + . + ced . a> ee - ve os « 7 sd ‘ . bone cote ee pee pee ne Se w-> homme te ° - a--4- -+ . + . - +- —~ “ ~ twee i -° . . cee ee + eH ve me « ow 7 . ' t . r ' y BG Sey ppp peo ' . ‘ ' t pcb peesenig apy woo s+ — ‘ va oe ope f N® - ° we 7 - 7 4 . ‘ — > az ect : o- a re . i , . ~ . 1 + tm . er e ” . we ert 1 ee + .- yey . - a ‘ . . - 1 oe 7 . . - ' + . t- eae “ee o * + * . ~ ro : 1 - - ee 1 —~ eee Hl ee * +e - cons : soe -4 . . + . . ~~ oUF ’ goo 1 wpe . . mee wo . r 1 . nd . eons + ' : . -— . . - t ° " ‘ yo. 1 “ wee ee . ’ : - - rtp tee won ee ee ae te ee — +. i te ape “fe ’ rf ¥ ae fees Hl “t oe tombe et +: ene A, I. \ : : . ~~ - , - , ‘ - oe * - 6 * ' - - ’ , . . t t . . t . - ' - ' . . ’ . a ° * 4 ‘ . t * eo --9 «7% , . tore eose -+ ' * ° * ‘ . ' . tcc . : . ’ , oc a 7 ‘ + . . , , ° - 1 . - -- . ~ . > . * - . , - + ° r . . - ' . 7 + r - 4 . - ‘ « . . -- . +- - +—- 4 cote roe . —. a- ote 7 4 . + 1 7: + . 1 ’ ' . ' . + 7 ‘ * ~ T 1 ' > . - ~ . . a - + ect . ’ . . -e . . * . + t . . r . “we ee Boe . + . e- oY ’ . *- -—¢ 7 oF . a ~~ 4 » -* -- ~ . + ' * . . 4 o- 8 4 . « ' + . . * ' . ” - 4 ' ' ? -+ - . ° + . er i , * ‘ * . + . - . . ; o - . * , t + - . -- ’ e ’ * . ~. , = : + 7 7g ponte e--) —-» —+ + - . + ’ ’ eo . + 7 o-— + + 7 yoo oor. + ; ’ ‘ \ ' . | ‘ i . - - o> . soot ‘ , — oe —- , ~ ve - + - . one ’ 1 -- -4 * * : : . . - + > + ’ , wy “6 w- roo. . . t 7 r ° ~~ 2 +e + -e . t t + . ’ - ' t ’ t ‘ r ' . too vo to i 1 ere + ‘ ' . ’ wore ms . . . . t - . . : Ad ’ - t . . - 7 778 . -¢ roe to-> ne 7 7. T ro ote Ss a tro wtne toc _ 7 ’ ' y-o4 s- 49 o- 8 toc -_ + y -* , ~~ . -7 . oe , : : : \ | I ~- rons ene =~ . -- ” roc - _ “e- 4 7 to - . - . ~ eo poo . t . ° ee ’ 7. -?f pone c+ roy ° a TOF vot ont yy en “Y -e yom: © +f ’ 7 , -9 ‘ * * ’ * . ° -e oo : vo he . . ' 1 . 1 ? : ' i , 1 : wooce 8 + wo : oe ee eee we oe - 4 - + toe . + sooo woe . ~ 1 ° woo wane yee Tp cpr repens a ~tTocs se ere Tom Beer pes . -¢ * o-- ' ~ ~ ‘ . * ' . +? ,- toot ’ t vont . vo +e : : 1 . : ' : ' ' 1 1 : : : : : ‘ : i - ——-+ ee wore «-+7 wee ey se meee ee . 1 ee to. a- sot any toe por tof ~ or epee eee poy ---e-- Te pt py pe roo B toe go + - t Y . ' ence e- 4 1 Sa qoo7e- sep ee we -e 6 oo . : | ' ' : - : ' ' tl ‘ : : : : \ ; 1 \ i mae genie ett . —e boa - + wee be so . -- tro ---¢ 7 9 r . + — . ” s- = o—-* ° So et poe e ocr! wee : ' \ \ — + 4 . e se ee - -- ' ‘ . oe ele ‘ “+ . to 6 --- e . ~ . “- 4 . . ,- -+ ° . - + "omy . 7 - eons tome pe og - 1 ‘ I 7 . * -- = wee — -- . - s- . - vot oes - . - ' . . , . x . . + . . ’ . . . . 4 e rs — yo to eee ee pte eo ee ‘ —-y oe . . — . -e . ‘ or * , * . . wf roe } - * ~- -- wore . . + * ~ -e¢ roof “1 . T . 1 + . 1 - 7 “—, - . * . -- . ene — en root . . * * - . + tose 1 « . t ° , . . whe . v , = 1 ’ oor . * ve oy 4 1 ' ‘ - 4 . + + ' o-- . =e ’ oo 4 . + - . oe tooce . 7 + . + : * t t + . + - er . ' . -~--¢ - eer . + * roe rc \ : 1 i ~ . . ~ or - — - eo tee 7 - . mo ’ . . . - . ‘ . ‘ ~ + * . , - + - ° , - wo eee ' -- + . coe wee : ? : ‘ poctc o- + - - eng oes - + op . : —- ' 7 roo . 4 . r , - wooo o- ‘ ’ : * -- roy 7-4 vow oF ‘ + 4 \ ' 1 woe wo -- wees 4 : -- . ts oe ~- to —- - - o- 5 oH '— e . t - =e . - . . ' - + . ' - + . -~ 1 Bp tte ee \ \ ' ' \ ' 4 — 4 ~ . ee pe fh aye — so —-~ -+ + -* r - . + , > ree t 7+ + 7 1 . -_ = a - ee oe ay . boo ene ve oo? , i - yee , roa cee . * o- eee “ ‘ - o-- ‘ 1 ess —y- oe + . wont tots .- . o-- ' * o +e T Ot soe \ ' i -- -- - . . —-1 o— mee _ e- - — too e-o -+ ence ‘ ° we - t . ’ e- e —-y eo aot . ~ . - + ’ — + ' 7 --) woo \ , —s ~ - - . , * - + ~ . wo 4 - » e- -- 4 - ’ . . « acct ‘ . 1 + . ' ty “-— oy pote -- r tr . - oe ' cae aes - - - . . - + - . woos . 7 4] . yo . 1 - ' + oot : ' . . . . too . - _ . to7- 4 eo a a - pot . . . . - . - ~ , ore coe - . . ‘ ro so-e - t . - - ‘ + + . + ¢ : tose ee > t ee ° i! : \ 1 - ofr . - . - -— +e a = -~ : ~- + + -+ . -- . . : 4 +e ‘ . oo + - ‘ - Y . . 4 . . . ’ 2c. . ee see - oe w ~- * t - - - . . . 4 . ~ . t ‘ .- 8 sone to- . . + t - . wore +9 7 + ~ -. ‘ \ , . se ony . ~+ . t - . - . .- . * e378 Pe 4 - . - ' * ou? rote .- - ee we wee a om ee ee oe 4 t . torre ae ee Bop. woe ee - poe . ‘ : +o: Sp 7. \ | : , ' . . we Ye eee . * o - + f+ — —+ ~ . . 1 I eo. wey ee ££. . . =e eg noe 7: Tyo ge : * , rome woot pp eee tae pe eee 4 . -. . Pee ep a ray hoe aaa ial --e. a : foe re pe pes - too ree wo eg ee oe - eae oo soe ae - \ : ee re re Fe ye Fee ns ee np - ea eee yey es - - . tee ee - ne - oF ~ poe + Sp pe -- --t oy ee cee _- woe oS poe eg _ poe 8 Hy + 4 toc. . Ce ee a : 4 ee ewe -* ' _—- at - r - +o set ete ' reo =" , 7 . . to-- . ’ + . _— + > . ’ tr .- . ’ -w-- r - - — : 1 — - pee eee See ce ee ee ee ee ‘ a py eee ee ee . ' ! ! : : - . pt 9 om 7s 1 eo . : “- 8 af -+ . ’ + 1 - . ' ' rd e ene + > -- + oo oo ’ - — ' - * ae y vw moms + . wo + . a yosrp oo + ' ’ . . ‘ ~~ wore fee e---2 _ 1 7 eon + vo ee e we pon cenmipegense pan nap ce ge See ee Zi cay ee wee pete ee a a . 1 \ - + “ty v-- oe e+ soo we ee le t ° . i 1 . i : poh ee ee me ge ee Soop etree toy oo + T 7 ro pp oe a oe eo aa eee ~p oe 1 - a - no ee es _ woe an Fm Bap — + -@—e- wee wee ee .- -* . - - v4 _— ’ rt + r ' 7 Tt > ‘ To — + ' r 7 7 tT - te RT r root 7a ey rT Hoes . e 7- Ff . - r * cd ' ~— v* e wort 7 + t er et ' ~~ * t ' ce 4 ~- —- ' : ' . 4 -- - + er ne te pre ry ee ~-9-- 0 ' . o- + a oe ea +- 4 . 1 7-4 ote eo ose be-fhe eye o- y ~ css os \ ' : ' 1 “ : - Pot ccm ores e-t- . t em ete r- ~ 4 . + co 7 ' 1 . ’ v t . 7 1 vere to tT ’ 7 sgn * : ! ' ’ 1 1 i | ' ‘ ' Lo . Lo. Cee foe + . ee woe eee .- bo ek ee pe ee pe ee ee epee ee ee ey gee a eee oe . oe 1 ’ , .3 we yo ar Ci Uer 7 at “ 4 Ny ee