925-lOM AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 332 AUGUST, 1925 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY BIOMETRICAL STUDIES OF LINT AND SEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS TEXAS AERICIJLTIJRAL EXPERIMENT STATIIIN STAFF (As of August 1, 1925) ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M. S., Vice-Director A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Asst. Director -CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Asst. Chief Clerk J. M. SCHAEDEL. Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE _ *M. FRANCES, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Acting for Chief V. J. BRAUNER, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief of Division; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Asst. Chemist WALDO H. WALKER, Asst. Chemist J. K. BLUM, B. S., Asst. Chemist J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Asst. Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Asst. Chemist K. KITSUTA, M. S., Asst. Chemist ADAH E. PROCTOR, B. S., Asst. Chemist N. J. VOLK. M. S., Asst. Chemist HORTICULTRE A. T. POTTS,M. S., M. S. C., Chief of Division ,' Citriculturist H. NESS, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY J. M. JONES, A. M.,Chief of Division; Sheep and Goats JAY L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Breeder (Genetics) FRANK GRAYSON, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist E. HOBBS, B. S., Asst. Entomologist of Division ; C. S. RUDE, B. S., Chief Foulbrood Inspector S. E. McGREGOR, JR., Apiary Inspector AGRONOMY E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief A. B. CONNER. M. S., Agronomist, Grain Sorghum Research A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Agronomist, Small Grain Research G. N. STROMAN, Ph. D., Agronomist, Cotton Breeding _ C. H. MAHONEY, B. S., Asst. in Cotton Breeding _ R. H. STANSEL, B. S., Asst in Crops PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D.,Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Farm and Ranch Economics V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist (Sonora) **T. L. GASTON, JR., B. S., Asst, Farm Records and Accounts **J. N. TATE, B. S., Asst. Ranch Records and Accounts **B. P. HARRISON, B. S., Collaborator SOIL SURVEY **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY H. NESS, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS A. D. JACKSON, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY FRED HALE, B. S., Swine Husbandman DAIRY HUSBANDRY ,Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief MAIN STATION FARM D. T. KILLOUGH, M. S. Superintendent STATE APICULTURAL RESEARCH LAB- ORATORY (San Antonio) H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist in Charge A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief S. D. PEARCE, Secretary J. H. ROGERS, Feed Inspector W. H. WOOD, Feed Inspector G. M. MORRIS, B. S., Feed Inspector W. C. GAINEY, B. S., Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector W. D. NORTHCUTT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3, Angleton. Brazoria County V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County R. H. WYCHE. B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent No. 6, Danton. Danton County P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8. Lubbock. Lubbock County R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent FRANK, GAINES, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County, (Feeding and Breeding Station) R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal Hus- bandman in Charge of Farm L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. McNESS, Superintendent **No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County D. L. JONES, Superintendent **J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Scientific Assistant No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent D. H. BENNETT, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist **O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco-Mercedes, Hidalgo County W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent A. T. POTTS, M. S., M. S. C., Citriculturist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County E. J. WILSON, B. S., Superintendent MEMBERS OF TEACHING STAFF IN THE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE CARRYING COOPERATIVE PROJECTS G. W. ADRIANCE, M. S., Association Pro- fessor of Horticulture S. W. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Ento- mology F. A. BUECHEL, Ph. D., Professor of Agri- cultural Economics H. V. GEIB, B. S., Assistant Pfofessor of Agronomy G. P. GROUT, M. S., Professor of Dairy Husbandry V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Agricul- tural Economics E. O. POLLOCK, A. M., Assistant Pro- fessor of Agronomy W. L. STANGEL, M. S., Professor of Animal Husbandry (Swine) R. C. WHITE, M. A., Associate Professor of Rural Sociology *Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. **In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. SYNOPSIS This is a statistical study of sixteen varieties of cotton grown in the regular variety test plats on the Main Station farm at College Station, Texas in 1924. Six characters were measured as to type and variability and the relationship of each of these characters with the others was determined. This information should be of value to those desiring to improve a variety in any character. In mean yield of lint Bennett’s Lone Star led all varieties but was the most variable. Mebane was a close second in yield and showed medium variability. In mean yield of seed Belton led all varieties but was the most vari- able. Bennett’s Lone Star was a close second in yield as well as variability. In percentage of lint the varieties range from Star with 42.84 per cent and Kasch with 42.67 per cent, down to Snowflake with 29.67 per cent. For mean length of lint Snowflake led by far all other varieties, with 1 5/16 inches, though it was more variable than the others except New Boykin. In number of five-lock bolls Bennett’s Lone Star led with Watson sec- ond, though these varieties were high in variability. In mean number of four-lock bolls Snowflake is highest. In the sixteen varieties an average range of 72.9 days to 77.3 days to first bloom was noted and an average range of 111.8 days to 115.8 days to first open boll resulted, showing some possibility for development of earli- ness through selection for this character. The Star variety leads all others in weight of both five-and four-lock bolls per plant, and the five-lock bolls outweighed the four-lock bolls in practically all cases. p All varieties showed positive correlations between yield of lint and seed, yield of lint and number of five-lock bolls, yield of seed and number of five-lock bolls, yield of lint and number of four-lock bolls, yield of seed and number of four-lock bolls. No consistent relation is shown in the case of different varieties be- tween yield of lint and per cent lint; yield of lint and length of lint; yield of seed and per cent lint; yield of seed and length of lint; per cent lint with length of lint, nor with the per cent or length of lint with either five- lock or four-lock bolls. (3) FIGURE 1 (4) Bulletin No. 332 August, 1925 BIOMETRICAL STUDIES OF LINT AND SEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON G. N. Stroman The usual variety tests of cotton at this Station compare certain va- rieties as regards their average production when all the individuals studied are taken as a massed whole. We have not, so far, described any of the characteristics of these varieties. This has hardly been possible, because of their similarity in qualitative vegetative characters. The only way that we can describe the type of varieties is to employ statistical or biometri- cal methods. ‘Therefore, in describing a certain variety as to lint lengths, an average lint length was named. A variety might have a fair average length of lint and still vary in length to such an extent that it would be of little use to the spinner. Childs (1923) has called attention to the fact that it was the short mixed staples that made some Georgia varieties objectionable to the spinners. We desire to know, then, of a variety of cotton not only its average lint length but also something in regard to the fluctuations or limits of the latter. In a statistical or biometrical study of varieties we measure the type and variability by taking the flpctuations into consideration. By such a study something in regard to the genetic behavior of the certain varieties can also be ascertained. ' ‘To be able to strengthen a variety in any given character, the breeder needs statistical information regarding this variety as compared with others. Such information will enable the average farmer, if he is a close reader, to decide upon the proper variety for planting. The purpose of this Bulletin is to give the type and variability of the principal characters of sixteen Texas varieties grown at the Main Station in 1924. These varieties are also compared as regards simple correlations between certain characters. MATERIAL AND METHODS The data were obtained from sixteen varieties of cotton grown in reg- ular variety test plats on the Main Station Farm in 1924. These varieties were grown in triplicate on three acres, 16" plats to the acre and one va- riety in each plat. The rows were 3 feet apart and the plants were thinned rather uniformly to 12 inches in the row. The source of the seed of the dif- ferent varieties is given in Table 17 (appendix). When the plants neared maturity, fifty plants in a guard row of each variety plat of each acre were counted off and staked. Individual notes were taken before harvest on all plants so staked off. At harvest time the bolls of each plant with the seed cotton enclosed were picked and kept sep- arate by placing in a twelve-pound paper bag. The plants of each variety (5) BULLETIN NO. 332, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION FIGURE 2 BIOMETRICAL STUDIES OF LINT AND SEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON 7 were numbered from 1 to 50. The bag which enclosed the bolls and seed cotton carried the individual plant number. Each plant was ginned separ- ately and all calculations on characters were made on the basis of the indi- vidual plant as a unit. The data for each plant were recorded on a 3”X5” card, thus making the information conveniently available for use in obtain- ing not only the biometrical constants for each variety but also for corrre- lations between the characters involved. It will not be necessary to use the notes taken before harvest in this report; however, they are available for later work. The characters noted herein were obtained at ginning time and are as follows: (1) Yield of lint in grams per plant. This was obtained by weighing on a small gram scale the clean lint of each plant after ginning. (2) Yield of seed in grams per plant. Obtained by weighing the clean seed after ginning. (3) Per cent of lint. Calculated by multiplying the weight of clean lint by 100 and dividing the product by the weight of clean lint plus the weight of clean seed. . (4) Length of lint. The actual measurement of the fiber on the seed in sixteenths of an inch. Kearney and Harrison (1924) measured the length of fiber on different bolls at different heights on the cotton plant but found no significant difference in mean length of fiber. The work was done by taking a seed at random and measuring the staple in sixteenths of an inch. Our work at this station checking against large numbers of seed shows that such a measurement is very accurate. (5) Number of 5-lock bolls. Count at ginning time of bolls having 5 locks. (6) Number of 4-lock bolls. A like count at ginning time of bolls having 4 locks. The seed cotton from the 5- and 4-lock bolls was weighed separately but was mixed together for ginning. TYPE AND VARIABILITY IN SEED CHARACTERS The method of obtaining the data has been given above. In the follow- ing pages are given the varietal statistical constants of all characters used in this report. In Tables 9 to 14, inclusive (appendix), are given the varietal frequency distributions of all characters. For example, in Table 9 will be found the varietal frequency distributions on yield of lint; Table 10, yield of seed, etc. In tables 1 and 2 are found the varietal means (arithmetical averages) and standard deviations respectively for all characters. These data were obtained, as has been mentioned, on the first 50 plants appearing in a guard row on one side of the regular variety test plats. It was planned at the beginning of the season to obtain this statistical record on plants grown in a special plat planted for this purpose. This plat was accordingly planted in the spring of 1924 in three-foot checks, but owing to the wet season in the spring and to the fact that the plat was highly in- fested with nut grass and the wilt fungus, it had to be abandoned. Rather 8 BULLETIN NO. 332, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 1 Summary showing the means (arithmetical average) of the following characters in Texas standard cotton varieties ‘é 3 ‘é a. m =2: i: = "a .. ‘Se, , ‘Ba “SQ i?“ is 4: E t‘ i s‘ 35.. v52» 3% t. at as w i 52$ i 52 1 52 we'd >+wE p.58 : Am. 1 ZN; g z; I I Acala . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.651 49 20.671 .89‘35.631.37 16.331.124.801.283.631.17 Belton . . . . . . . . . .. 12.561 78 24.0311.3835.571.28 16.3l1.1l3.651.28 1.921.17 Pennetfs LoneStar15.931.8523.6211.1940.081.2216.021.095.431.261.90117 Cliett’s Superior ..11.631.5615.831 .7143.281.2914.851.083.741.19 * Durango . . . . . . . .. 5.091.3414.l11 .67132.811.3117.471.192.361.193.681.19 Kasch . . . . . . . . . .. 15414112591 .5s§42.67i-.32 154351.08 2.72112 1.28110 Lone Star . . . . . . .. 10.541.5015.961 19.10.091.24 16.39109 2.87118 1.65112 Mebane . . . . . . . . .. 15.471.77 22.4911.09‘0.491.19 16.571.12 4.831.215 2.111 21 New Eoykin . . . . .. 12.061.50 19.481 .81'38.181.43 15.141.11 3.721.20 2.701 20 Rowden . . . . . 11151.52 22.6w .9s34.27l~.23 16.60109 3.96121 1.94»; 1e Snowflake . . . . . . .. G.711.2716.001 .6829.671.3121.041.14 * 4.541.19 Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.091.55 15.841 .83v‘42.841.30 16.201.092.821.201.411.14 Startex . . . . . . . . ..13.071.58 21.531 .99_37.611.4216.991144.151.261.991.15 Sunshine . . . . . . . ..|10.97+_-.5s||1s.e5i .9939.121.3815.601.102.961.21 1121.12 Truitt . . . . . . . . . .. 12.381.5317.041. 8440.581.3715.131.113.471.201.691.12 \Vats0n . . . . . . . . ..]|10.581.43;19.861 .77|,34.721.25{15.721.09'4.881.281241.20 *Too small a number to get a reliable probable error. than leave out this statistical work altogether for 1924, a guard row of the regular variety test was used, as has been described. Of course, on these guard rows there is some variation in stand, but it is the writer’s opinion that there was not enough difference in the spacing to be significant. There is no doubt that the data and results would have been more valuable if they had been obtained on a special plat where the spacing was exactly the same for all varieties concerned. In mean yield of lint per plant in grams, Bennett’s Lone Star leads all varieties giving 15.93185 grams per plant; Mebane is second with 15471.77 grams; Durango is lowest with 5.091.341 gramsper plant. In mean yield of seed, Belton is the highest with 24.031138 grams per plant with Bennett’s Lone Star about the same with 23.621119 grams. The lowest yield of seed per plant is Kasch with 12591.53 grams. In mean percentage of lint the varieties range from Star, with 42841.30 per cent and Kasch with 42.67132 per cent down to Snowflake with 29.671131 per cent. For mean length of lint the highest was Snowflake with 21.04114 six- teenths of an inch and the lowest was Cliett’s Superior with 14.851108 sixteenths of an inch. Snowflake is in a class by itself. Its closest com- petitor is Durango with 17.47119. Although Cliett’s Superior shows the lowest length, it has two close competitors, namely, New Boykin, 15141.11 and Truitt 15131.11. In mean number of 5-lock bolls Bennett’s Lone Star has the highest with 5.431126 bolls per plant. Durango has the lowest number with 2361.19. Snowflake has so small a number that calculations were not made. BIOMETRICAL STUDIES OF LINT AND SEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON 9 TABLE 2 Showing the standard deviations of Texas varieties as to certain characters1 a g s-i m m .5 o o c: ‘H "5': w: v-a p m a 8 o Q 0Q "5 5 "a l: l»; *8 1C3 H; n; Varieties w "I'd, T’ 2% 3,5 ° 5E2 3.x 2x 75%;, Ed ma” 210a": 88 S3 --*-'o ---~$ wc$ wc” 5".‘ 5".‘ FUD. WUQ fl-dSiw QS-E Zn: Zwr | gcala . . . . . . . . . . . ..4.96i.34 3.g1-_l-.261.l8i.082.86i.2()1.74i.12 eton . . . . . . . . . . . ..8.05j-_.551 .2 i. 7 2. 3i.201.13i.0S2.96i.201.74_-t.12 Bennett’s Lone Star. . 8.79i.60 12.38i.‘84i 2.29i.16 0.981.437 2.691.118 1.73i.12 Cliett's Superior ....'5.62i.40 7.17i.50l 2.88i.20 (l.78i.05 1.881.113 * Durango . . . . . . . . . .. 3.491.241 6.781.417 3.l1i.221.90i.131.91i.131.96j_l-_.14 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . ..4.l6i.29 5.351.538 3.241.2330.S1i.061.19i.081.01i.17 Ldneistat‘ . . . . . . . . .. 5.03i.35 7.92j-__.56 2.45i.17 0.94i.07 1.801.113 1.16i.12 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.80i.54 11.081377: 1.90i.131.22i.082.67i 19 11571.15 New Boykin . . . . . . ..5.25i.35 8.54i.58‘ 4.55i.31 l.13i—.()7 2.081.111 2.081.111 ROWdGII . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.38i.3710.03i.69| 2.36i.16i0.88i.162.lli.151.68i.12 Snowflake . . . . . . . . .. 2.79i.19 6.99i.48, 3.19i.221.49i.10 * 1.90j_'.13 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .66i.39 7.471.581 3.08i.21().95i.062.05i.l4l.09i.10 Startex .90i.4110.11i.70‘ 4.26i.301.41i.102.67i 191.49i.10 Sunshine .36i.3710.07i-.70‘ 3.88i.271.00i.072.17i.151.35i.09 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . .. .25i.37 8.35i.59; 3.64i.261.11i.081.98i—.141.21i.09 Watson .46i.30| 8.03i.54|~ 2.66_-|;.l80.94i.()62.93i.202.12i.14 *Asymetrica1 causes make this calculation unreliable. 1The standard deviation is the most commonly used method of measuring variabil- ity and is so constructed that on the average 68 per cent of the individuals in the group differ from the average of that group by less than the standard deviation. For example, the average (mean) yield of lint for Acala is 12.65 and its standard devia- tion is 4.96. This means that out of the Acala plants whose lint was weighed, about 68 per cent of them had a lint yield between 12.65——4.96 and 12.65—{-4.96 (that is be tween 7.69 and 17.61 grams per plant). In mean number of 4-lock bolls per plant, Snowflake is first with 4.54i.19. Several varieties compete for the lowest rank; for example, Watson, with 1.24+.20; Kasch, 1.28i.10; Star, 1.41i.14, and Cliett’s Su- perior, which has so few as to make calculations inaccurate. The standard deviations given in Table 2 for all the varieties show the variability of the varieties for the different characters under discussion. The coefficient of variability is not used here, owing to the fact that the means with which we are dealing are so low as to render variability per cents unduly light and for that reason might be misleading. Bennett’s is the most variable of all varieties in regard to yield of lint, having a stan- dard deviation of 8.79i.60 grams. Especially is this deviation significant when compared to its mean, which is 15.93i.85 grams. Snowflake shows the least variability as regards yield of lint, having a standard deviation of 2.791119 grams with a mean of 6.71127 grams per plant. For yield of seed, Belton has the largest variability, having a standard deviation of 14.29i.97 grams with a mean of 24.031138 grams. By inspection of Table 2 the variability of the other characters for the varieties can be noted. TIME OF FLOWERING AND MATURITY The time in days from the planting date to first flower and to first open boll is rather important as far as earliness is concerned. Notes on these 10 BULLETIN NO. 332, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 3 Varieties compared as regards days ‘from planting to first flower and to first opén boll i 3 No. random Varieties ‘Days to first‘; Days to first plants g flower 1 open boll averaged i i Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.5 111.8 19 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.5 113.6 10 Bennett’s Lone Star . . . . * Cliett’s Superior . . . . . . . 73 . 6 112 . 8 5 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.9 112.1 13 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.1 113.8 11 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.4 114.1 14 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.7 114.0 7 New Boykin . . . . . . . . .. 73.7 111.9 16 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.9 115.8 11 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.7 114.5 18 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.6 114.6 5 Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.6 114.5 12 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.1 115.0 20 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.7 113.0 7 Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.3 113.1 9 Half and Half . . . . . . . . .. 75.8 114.1 12 *Seed received too late to be included in this test. two characters were taken on several plants of different varieties in a test other than the regular variety test. These data appear in Table 3. It is t0 be noted that four days is the largest difference between any two varieties from planting to flower and planting to open boll. Selection with regard to these characters should bring out much greater differences. There seems to be a good opportunity for breeders to improve our varieties in regard to earliness, a very important factor in some sections every year and in all sections in some years. WEIGHT‘ OF BOLLS At ginning time as has been said, the 5- and 4-lock bolls were separated and each class weighed. By dividing the weight of its class by the num- ber of 5-lock and 4-lock bolls, respectively, average weights of 5-lock and 4-lock bolls for each plant of all varieties were obtained. The means of these boll weights appear in Table 4 and the frequency distribution of the 5-lock bolls for all varieties is found in Table 15 (appendix), and for 4-lock bolls in Table 16. The Star variety leads others in mean weight of 5-lock bolls per plant, with 7.41i.15 grams; it had also the largest 4-lock boll, 6.26i.28 grams. The data show that in practically all cases the 5-lock bolls out-Weigh the 4-lock. Bennett’s Lone Star shows no significant contrast between the two types of bolls, having a difference of only 0.57 $.17 grams. The largest difference in weights is found in Belton, where the advantage in favor of the 5-lock bolls is 1.51i.18 grams. ' Standard deviations of both 5-lock and 4-lock bolls will be found in Table 4, which show much variability in all varieties examined. BIOMETRICAL STUDIES OF LINT AND SEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON Showing the mean and standard deviation weight of 5-lock 11 TABLE 4 and 4-lock bolls of some Texas cotton varieties -. . Standard Deviation Mean Weight 1n Grams Weights Varieties 5-lock bolls k N* 4-lock bolls‘ N* 5-lock bolls 4-lock bolls Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.321.09 45 3.981.08 42 .941.07 .761.06‘ Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.461.14 47 4.951.11 40 1.381.10 1.091.08 Bennett’s Lone Star..... 5.811.11 48 5.241.13 39 1.081.07 1.191.09 Cliett’s Superior . . . . . . . .. 5.991.13 45 5.271.17 31 1.251.09 1.421.12 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3.93111 41 3.411.07 45 1.051.08 .711.05 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.821.12 46 4.841.14 34 1.161.08 1.241.10 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.171.134 43 5.471.14 37 1.301.05 1.251.10 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.811.11 45 4.601.14 40 1.141.08 1.311.10 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.451.11 48 4.481.10 41 1.111.08 .931.07 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.071.12 47 5.541.13 41 1.181.08 1.191.09 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.701.10 25 3.951.07 48 .781.07 .771.05 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.411.15 41 6.38114 37 1.461.11 1.251.10 Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.701.l3 44 5.361.14 39 1.241.09 1.341.10 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.391.15 41 5.841.14 37 1.431.11 1.231.10 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.191.17 44 5.091.15 39 1.661.12 1.391.11 Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.331.11 48 4.441.12 24 1.151.08 .871.08 *Number of individuals. CORRELATIONS Dunlavy (1923) publishes some correlations on a variety of Texas cot- ton, and found the following correlations: Correlation coefficients between y some Texas cotton varieties TABLE 5 . Lint index and weight of seed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boll size and weight of seed. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. Per cent 5-lock bolls and boll size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weight of seed and per cent lint . . . . . . . . . Boll size and lint index. . .. Per cent lint and length of lint. . . . . . . . . . . . Weight of seed and length of lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boll size and per cent lint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . - - o - o a - o o o o o o - o o o -.~7’04-_~.021= .664i.034 .533i.058 —-@ELZL'.O38 4801050 ——.455i.042 .426i.043 —~.394i'.051 Leligfwlint and the other characters specified, in v l i Yield of Per cent Length of Number of Number of Varieties seed of lint lint 5-lock bolls 4-lock bolls i Acala . . . . . . . . .92 1.01 None —-.161.09 .741.04 .44+.08 Belton . . . . . . . . .97 1.01 None a one .901.03 1 .24$.09 Bennett’s Lone Stan .95 1.01 421 08 341.08 .741.04 .63—T.06 Cliett’s Superior ..[ .9821.004 401 08 — 151.10 .871.02 _ 2 Durango .87 1.02 391 08 —- 121.10‘ .731.05 .58+,05 Kasch . . . . . .. .; .93 1.01 38+ 0s None 0751.04 011.09 Lone Star . . . . .96 1.01 None None .731.05 .47$.08 Mebane . . . . . . . ..; .97 1.01 None - 141.10 .s91.02 .40T-.0s New Boykin . . . . .1 .89 1.02 18+ 09 None 1 .761.04 171.09 Rowden . . . . . . . .. .97 1.01 None None .791.04 611.07 Snowflake . . . . .92 1.01 .191.09 211.09 1 _71+_05 Star . . . . . . . . .. .9731.003 .241 09 171.09 .781.04 .10:f_—.10 Startex .91 1.02 .301 09 None .s01.0a .11I.10 Sunshine .97 1.01 —.111.10 191.10 .731.05 .481—_.02 Truitt . . . . . . . . .. .90 1.02 .191.10 None .651.06 221.10 Watson .95 1.01 .191.09 — 251.09 .821.03 -——.111.09 lNot enough 5-lock bolls to calculate. ‘Not enough 4-lock bolls to calculate. 12 BULLETIN NO. 332, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 6 Correlation coefficients between _yield of seed and other characters in some Texas cotton varieties Per cent Length of Number of Number of Varieties of lint lint 5-lock bolls 4-lock bolls Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. None —.121.10 .761.04 1 .521.07 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. -.19i.o9 None .92i.01 ‘ 281.09 Bennett's Lone Star..... .221.09 .151.09 .671.04 .581.06 Cliett’s Superior . . . . . . . . .271.09 .211.09 .861.03 None Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None .121.10 .631.06 .451.08 Kasch . . . . . . . . None None .801.04 .341.09 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. ——.291.09 —.221.09 .791.04 i .421.08 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. —-.121.l0 None .881.02 I .441.08 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . .. —.251.09 None 1701.05 ‘ .411.08 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , None None .821.03 .541.07 Snowflake —.131.10 .131.10 None .731.07 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None .191.09 .831.03 None Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. None —.131.10 .871.02 .221.09 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —.311.09 .111.10 .811.03 .401.08 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —.]51.1O None .581.07 .271.09 lVatson . . . . . . . . . . . None None .821.02 —.101.09 TABLE 7 Correlation coefficients between percentage of lint and other characters in some Texas cotton varieties Length of Number of Number of Varieties lint 5-lock bolls 4-lock bolls i l Acaia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.52i.o"1 431.10 i None Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..* —-.191.09 ——.141.09 None Bennett's Lone Star . . . . . . . . .5 None . 17 1 . 09 . 42 1 . 07 gliett/s Superior . . . . . . . . . . . .l " None 10 .1331 . 09 gone urango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' -—. 9 1 . one one Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 ——.371.09 None None Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None —-.351.09 .151.10 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘ —-.411.08 None .201.09 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None —. 401.08 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211.09 -—.181.09 None gnowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . 1g IIIIIQne gone tar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 —. 1 . 0 one one Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..[ -—.181.10 None —.161.10 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —.%I21 .10 —.§I91 .08 gone ruitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . one one one Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —-.381 .08 None None BIOMETRICALSTUDIES OF LINT AND SEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON TABLE 8 Correlation coefficients between certain other characters in some Texas varieties 13 Length of lint with Number 5-lock Varieties Number of Number of bolls with No. 5-lock bolls 4-lock bolls 4-lock bolls Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. —-.30i—.O9 —.15i.10 None Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None ——. 20¢ . 09 None Bennett’s Lone Star . . . . . . . .. .41i.08 .11i-.10 131.09 Cliett’s Superior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 i- . 09 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None --. 181.10 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None None Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None None Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. —.l5—l_—.l0 .23i—.O9 .16i.10 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None —. 22 i . 09 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. None —.22i.05 .11—_1_—.10 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15: . 10 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .25i.09 —.23i.09 —- 46i.08 Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .14;+—_.10 —-.13i.l0 None Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .20i.09 —.23i.09 None Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. -—.12i.10 None —.32i.09 Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ——.12i.09 None —.54_—9_—.07 Hodson (1923) gave correlation coefficients between certain characters in four different varieties and showed a wide difference in the coefficients in different varieties. ‘The coefficients of correlation between all characters studied at our station in 1924 appear in Tables 5, 6,7, and 8. Yield of lint and yield of seed are very closely correlated in all varieties. / The coefficients range from +0.87i.02 up to i0.982i.004. This might have been expected. Yield of lint and per cent of lint show fairly significant correlations in“ only four varieties, namely: Bennett’s Lone Star, C1iett’s Superior, Durango, and Kasch. ' Yield of lint and length of lint show coefficients that are fair indica- tions of a correlation in but two varieties, Bennett’s Lone Star with a co- efficient of i0.34i.08 and Watson —O.25i.09. ' The yield of lint and number of 5-lock bolls show significant positive» correlations for all varieties. Yield of lint and number of 4-lock bolls show some significant positive correlations. Snowflake, a 4-lock strain, shows the highest correlation be- tween these two characters. Yield of seed with percentage of lint shows slight correlations in four" varieties, namely: Cliett’s Superior, +0.27i.09; Lone Star —0.28i'.09; New Boykin, -—0.25i'.09; and Sunshine, ——2.21i.09. Hodson (1920) found ~' correlation between weight of seed and per cent of lint in two varieties out of the four studied. No significant correlation was found between yield of seed and length““' ' of lint. Hodson (1920) found a correlation between these characters in the Trice variety, +0.33i.10. ‘ Yield of seed and both 5-lock and 4-lock bolls show correlations similar to those found with yield of lint. 14 BULLETIN NO. 332, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _p Percentage of lint and length of lint give significant negative correla- tions in only four varieties: Acala, Kasch, Mebane, and Watson. Possibly these results are dependent upon the method of breeding followed in the improvement of these varieties. Hodson (1920) found a correlation of —0.31i.10 between lenght of lint - and per cent of lint in the Foster variety. Between percentage of lint and 5-lock bolls, three varieties show sig- nificant correlations: Cliett’s Superior, +0.33i.09; Lone Star, ——0.35i.09; and Sunshine, ——0.39i.08. Two significant correlations are found between percentage of lint and 4-lock bolls in Bennett’s Lone Star, +0.42i.07; and in New Boykin, —~0.40i.08. Length of lint is correlated significantly with 5-lock bolls in only one variety, Bennett’s Lone Star, +0.41:*:.08. In the relationship between 5-lock bolls and 4-lock bolls, two signif- icant correlations are found. In Star, a correlation of —0.46i.08 was ob- tained, and in Watson, one of —0.54i.07. Truitt also shows a slight cor- relation between these two characters, having a coefficient of —0.32:*:.09. The correlation coefficients discussed above are 1n most cases positive for all varieties with respect to the following characters: 1. Yield of lint with yield of seed, positive. 2. Yield of lint with number of 5-lock bolls, positive. 3. Yield of lint with number of 4-lock bolls, positive. 4. Yield of seedfl with number of 5-lock bolls, positive. 5. Yield of seed with number of 4-lock bolls, positive. The correlation coefficients which vary a great deal in different va- rieties, being positive in some varieties and negative or insignificant in others, are as follows: 1. Yield of lint with per cent of lint. 2. Yield of lint with length of lint. 3. Yield of seed with per cent of lint. 4. Yield of seed with length of lint. 5. Per cent of lint with length of lint. 6. Per cent of lint with number of 5-lock bolls. 7 . Per cent of lint with number of 4-lock bolls. 8. Length of lint with number of 5-lock bolls. 9. Length of lint with number of 4-lock bolls. 10. Number of 5-lock bolls with number of 4-lock bolls. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Acknowledgement is made for valuable suggestions and active assis- tance rendered by Dr. Jay L. Lush and Mr. C. H. Mahoney, both of the Station staff. - BIOMETRICAL STUDIES OF LINT AND SEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON 15 SUMMARY 1. Sixteen Texas varieties of cotton are described with respect to yield of lint, yield of seed, percentage of lint, length of lint, number of 5-lock bolls and of 4-lock bolls per plant. The mean and standard deviations of these characters are shown. 2. The varieties are compared as regards the average number of days from planting to flowering and to boll maturity. A difference of about four days is shown between the varieties showing the extremes with respect to both of these two characters. p 3. Mean weights per boll per plant are shown for all varieties. The Star variety had the largest boll, its mean weight for 5-lock bolls being 7.41i.15 grams, and for 4-lock, 6.381114 grams. Standard deviations show- ing the variability of each variety is also given for the boll weights. 4. Correlation coefficients are shown between all characters named above for all varieties. The following characters were con_s__i_s’_t_e_ntly corre- lated in the same direction in all varieties. (1) Yield of lint with yield of seed. (2) Yield of lint with number of 5-lock bolls. (3) Yield of lint with number of 4-lock bolls. (4) Yield of seed with number of 5-lock bolls. (5) Yield of seed with number of 4-lock bolls. The characters whose coefficients of correlation were notwconsistent in all the varieties are as follows: A (1) Yield of lint with per cent of lintr (2) Yield of lint with length of lint.’ (3) Yield of seed with per cent of_lintr (4) Yield of seed with length of lint. I (5) Per cent of lint with length of lint.‘ (6) Per cent of lint with number of 5-lock bolls. (7) Per cent of lint with number of 4-lock bolls. (8) Length of lint with number of 5-lock bolls. (9) Length of lint with number of 4-lock bolls. (10) Number of 5-lock bolls with number of 4-lock bolls. LITERATURE CITED Childs, R. R. 1923 Establishing and maintaining a desirable staple of cotton. Ga. Agr. Col. Bul. 288 : 1-12. Conner, A. B. 1923 ‘The interpretation of correlation data. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 310. Dunlavy, H. 1923 Correlation of characters in Texas cotton. J our. Amer. Soc. Agron. 15 : 444-448. Hodson, Edgar A. 1920 Correlation of certain characters in cotton. Ark. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 169. Kearney, T. H. and Harrison, G. J . 1924 Length of cotton fiber from bolls at different heights on the plant. Jour. Agr. Research (U. S.) 28 : 563-565. Martin, Ballard, and Simpson 1923 Growth of fruiting parts in cotton l l plants. Jour. Agr. Research (U. S.) 25 : 195-208. 16 BULLETIN NO. 332, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 9 Frequency distributions of all varieties for yield of lint in grams per plant Classes —— — — —l_ ' I Varieties 1—- 3- 5- — 9—11- 13- 15- 17- 19-21- 23-25-27-29-31-33-35- 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 I l l l I I pronounce vbibcmwr-lvihoom l l l OHNQ l 2__ I .ca.la.* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1| elton * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ennett’s Lone ‘Star* . . . liett's Superior . . . . . . . 1 Iurango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |one Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . few Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . I5 O . é $9 W‘ (‘D P-‘l-JDQIW F4 7-‘ F-l Qr>|§FIQ9QQ€§I€IOQhCHCA9NCS F‘ l-J I-l fflldOCififlOmh-‘Nwwwfififiibb l-l IJQ>F~®Q>BCDU§QMKOO$WC5HQ P-l l-Hfl KTJ|§UTQQDO$CAPMH®QIH§O® F4 QOQHWhOKKOOQUINOQWWh Whit-IN [Ob-‘CW Owl-IQ OwNr-I NQCI-‘Jb-l r-lilv-‘IO I-lsb- F‘ i-‘IQ O OO N 7-4 Oi-l I-lld P‘ IQQOOJ-Q USWQWWD-IMQNM UIWODUIGSWGKOODWWODCDNO5A hlUlNub-Ob i-‘OUOQP-l Uhhfifllx‘) *Calculations made on different groupings into classes different from that shown in this table. '; as TABLE 10 Frequency distributions of all varieties for yield of seed in grams per plant Classes Varieties I .... 1- 6-11- 16-21- 26-31— 36—41— 46- 51- 56- 61— 5 5 10 15 20-{25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 a Acala* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 11 5 12 6 3 2 1 46 Belton* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 6 10 6 3 5 5 2 0 2 1 1 49 Bennett's Lone Star‘ . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 4 8 7 10 4 5 1 0 0 1 1 49 Cliett’s Superior* . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 13 11 8 7 4 0 1 46 Durango* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 17 13 8 4 2 2 47 Kasch* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 18 10 10 5 46 Lone Star* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 10 14 7 5 3 4 46 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 10 6 1 1 2 5 5 1 2 47 New Boykin* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 7 11 11 8 3 1 1 50 Rowden* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5 10 8 5 8 3 2 48 Snowfiake* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11 14 7 2 2 48 Star* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 10 14 8 7 4 3 49 Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 7| 7 13 8 1 1 1 1 0 1 47 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1O 12 9 4 3 4 0 1 1 47 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 13 13 6 4 1 0 0 0 1 45 Watson* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 7 10 10 8 6 50 ‘Calculations made on different groupings into classes different from that shown in this table. BIOMETRICALISTUDIES OF LINT AND SEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON 17 TABLE 11 Frequency distributions of all varieties for percentage of lint* Classes Varieties ~3- 21- 23- 25- 27- 29- 31- 33- 35- 37- 39- 41- 43- 45- 47- 49- +3 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 ‘38 40 42 44 46 48 50 [.7 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 8 8 9 8 4 4 2 46 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 10 2 1 7 4 1 1 49 Bennett's Lone Star. . . . 1 0 2 9 13 18 6 49 Cliett’s Superior . . . . . 2 1 1 4 1 1 22 3 2 46 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 4 15 7 12 5 47 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 0 5 10 14 10 4 46 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O 2 8 16 12 5 2 46 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 12 18 6 1 47 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2 1 8 5 7 6 11 7 1 1 50 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3 3 19 17 5 48 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 9 14 7 6 5 48 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 2 7 11 14 8 6 49 Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7 4 6 7 7 9 5 1 47 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 8 12 11 1 8 3 0 1 47 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 4 5 10 7 10 5 1 45 Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3' 7 11 19 5 4 1' 50 *Some of the calculations were made on the basis of a grouping into classes dif- ferent from that shown in this table. TABLE 12 Frequency distributions of all varieties for length of lint. In sixteenths of an inch Classes Varieties I I I I I I I I I 12I 13] l4] 15] 16 17] 18| 19? 20) 21 22 23 24 25 26 Total I I I I I I I I I Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 19 9 7 0 1 46 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 21 13 4 2 49 Bennett’s Lone Star. 4 10 17 17 1 49 Cliett’s Superior 16 23 5 2 46 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 8 6 12 5 5 3 47 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 15 21 8 1 46 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 24 11 5 1 46 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 12 12 12 1 47 New Boykin 2 0 9 20 16 3 50 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . 3 23 12 10 48 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 15 6 16 3 1 0 1 48. Star . . . . . . . . 5 32 9 3 49 $tartex . . . . 2 1 16 13 12 0 2 0 1 47 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 19 12 8 47 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 8 19 13 2 1 45 Watson . . . . ... . l0 22 13 4 I I 18 BULLETIN NO. 332, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 13 Frequency distributions of all varieties for number of 5-lock boils per plant ‘ Classes ‘ Varieties I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0‘ 1‘ 2‘ 3‘ 4‘ 5‘ 6‘ 7‘ 8" 9‘ 10‘ 11‘ 12‘ 13‘ 14‘ Total I Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 4 4 8 6 9 2 5 2 3 O OI OI 2 46 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 8 4 9 8 1 5 0 3 1 1 0‘ 0 1 49 Beniaettfs Lone Star. . 1 2 5 4 8 5 6 7 5 3 1 1 1 49 Clietifs Superior 1 3 10 8 10 6 2 5 1 46 Durango . . . . . . . . . . .‘ 6 10 15 5 7 1 1 0 1 1 47 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 17 12 7 3 1 46 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . 3 8 12 7 7 5 3 0 1 46 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 7 6 5 7 4 6 3 2 3 47 New Boykin . . . . . . . . 3 4 8 11 6 6 7 3 2 50 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 7 6 7 12 3 4 0 2 .43 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . 23 10 9 4 2 43 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 9‘ e s‘ 1o 8| 5 s 1 1 I I 49 gtartfi; . . . . . i,‘ S‘ 1g‘ g 12 2 g é g ‘ 0 2‘ 1| ‘ uns me . . . . . . . . . . Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . 1‘ 8 8 7 6 8 3 3 1 l I 45 Watson . . . . . . . . . . 2‘ 8 3 3 5 10 3‘ 3 9‘ 3‘ 0‘ O‘ 0‘ 1‘ ‘ 50 TABLE 14 Frequency distributions of all varieties for number of 4-lock bolls per plant Classes Varieties I I I l ‘ I 0 1‘ 2 3 4 5‘ 6 7‘ 8 9‘ 10 11 12 13 Total I Acala. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 9 11 7 6 1 0 0 0 1 46 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 17 10 5 1 5 1 1 49 Bennetifs Lone Star. . . . . 10 16 9 4 6 3 0 0 1 49 Gliett’s Superior . . . . . . . . 15 15 14 2 46 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 5 13 6 6 7 1 2 47 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 15 14 4 1 46 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13 11 11 2 46 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12 12 9 3 2 1 0 1 47 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 13 10 4 5 3 0 2 50 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 14 15 2 3 6 0 1 48 Snowflake .... .... .. 1 5 12 6 10 7 3 2 2 48 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14 16 5 2 49 Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11 13 9 3 1 2 47 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 14 11 10 1 1 1 47 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 17 12 7 1 2 45 Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9 5 7‘ 1‘ 1‘ 0‘ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50. BIOMETRICAL STUDIES OF LINT ANDSEED CHARACTERS IN COTTON 19 _ TABLE 15 owing frequency distributions of all varieties for average weight of seed cotton of 5-lock bolls K . 1 t Classes 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11 Total U1 lb O 4. U! QR C U! U! 2.02.5 O0 O 3. i I 1 F I I I-l own-IN: i-IcNMOwOOr-Awgi-l l-l mmmwhwmwn-l-IIMOOOMQO: i-l r-IWOSNO d! 0501M OM00 I s Lone S. n-l nhOl-lnli OIODND-INMONINNJ I-l l-l QUH-lfifim Aoowwwoodwm OHQ b W l-l r-n-l Q-Jwmnhwr-n-ubr-lccwmwoom D-l v-l ®l-*U\G3I—l@®l§C7\lQb3Ulnk-JU\Q5 r-l [Or-l O r-ll-IFHNI O10 p-IM 1 UIOhHQ-IMI-I-JWOMmNNCADQD 0-1 Cr9~1®¢5hl flhfifl-llGfl-ltbrPm r-u-‘czu-nb- v-l ooaw or-lo: r-Ir-n-l o: O h-ll-l ab 0-4 N) O r-l uh l-i ne plant not shown that averaged 14.5 grams per boll. ‘é TABLE 1s owiiig the frequency distribution of all varieties for average weight of seed cotton of 4-lock pant Classes Varieties I l-l - - - . - - - - . . . - - - - - . ¢ . . . . - - . - . - . - . - . - . . ; ’s Lone Star . . . . . . Superior 1 N: l-lNOr-l - r-I NOOOONi-IQ: MhOOOQUINHQU-J . r-I Nwoo-locmwphci-Ir-Iv-lcmn r-l l-ll-l caoooaooonmmwoor-I-qcnovwiaq » . - » - . . . . . - . - . - . l-l OOMl-lvbi-lfiil-ilidlbrfiliwl-l-JQN h! h‘ n-I tomato-Mk flmmqaq 400g, HOP O KONG! H O9 CD ~ . - . . . - - . - - - . . - Nolhwm uh NJMI-l NON) OQGAQM 0o 0303b! obnklQ l5 O mm H° H O "H o»Hc~w mawmwawwmbmmwcwm Hnbfllmwbiwwwuhw comp»: 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.06.5 7.07.5 8.0 8.5 9.09.5 Total 20 TABLE 17 BULLETIN NO. 332, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Source of seed used in planting regular variety test in 1924 at the Main Station, College Station Variety Firm Name Address Present Breeder - - . . - - . n Bennett’s Lone Star Cliett’s Superior Durango Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . Lone Star Mebane . . . New Boykin . . . . . . . Rowden Snowflake Startex Sunshine Truitt . . . . . - - - - . . . . . - - - . - - . . - - - . - John D. Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . .. Texas Substation No. 5 . . . . . . R. L. Bennett & Sons . . . . . . . . San Marcos Valley Seed Farms Texas Substation No. 8 Ed Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saunders Seed Company . . . . .. A. D. Mebane Sales Agency. . Ferguson Seed Farms, Inc.... Rowden Bros. & Company. . . . John McLernon . . . . . . . . . . . . Lankart-Bred Seed Farms. . . . Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . . .. J. W. Davidson . . . . . . . . . . . .. Truitt Seed Company . . . . . . . . Ferris Watson Allenfarm, Texas. . . . Temple, Texas . . . . . .. Paris, Texas . . . . . . . . San Marcos, Texas. . . Lubbock, Texas . . . . . . San Marcos, Texas . . . Greenville, Texas. . . . Lockhart, Texas . . . . . Sherman, Texas . . . . . . Wills Point, Texas . . . Clarksville, Texas . . . . Waco, Texas . . . . . . . . College Station, Texas McKinney, Texas. . . . . Ennis, Texas . . . . . . . . Weslaco, Texas . . . . . . .John D. Rogers McDonald A. B. Cron G. N. Stroman R. L. Bennett Oran W. Cliett Not breeding variety Ed Kasch D. A. Saunders Paul Mebane A. M. Ferguson Rowden Brothers John McLernon C. S. Lankart J. W. Davidson Hugo Endler {Ferris Watson