E E R NI E N T S TAT I CLINTON L'IIBIR,...A...RIY ,, BERAUIEA I I 1N I- A161- 1126-6000—Ll8O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIIIN B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 349 FEBRUARY, 1927 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY VARIATION IN CERTAIN LINT CHARACTERS IN A COTTON PLANT AND ITS PROGENY III I I‘ R I ‘ ‘I M‘. ‘ E/I , g‘ -i* ‘~ ' _ " ‘I ' IHIIZIII: , I I‘ TIMI ' ' I I I‘ |" Z W I w .. I ,1 , n" ‘I II " I‘ I ' ‘ v ' AFTMWJIIHAAAQIEIUAE‘. ° URL-II ,5: IIIIKIHII III 0Q‘ v 4}> ‘ I I Q T O ll AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President SITATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION : *8. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M. S., Acting Director . E. KARPER, B. S., Acting Vice-Director . M. SCHAEDEL, Secretary . P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk . K. FRANCKLOW, Assistant Chief Clerk CHESTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE: **M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. Scmmm‘. D. V. M., Veterinarian J. D. JoNEs, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY: - G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist WALno H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist ' AnAR E. STURGIS, B. S., Assistant Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Assistant Chemist R. O. BROOKE, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, B. S_., Assistant Chemist J. G EVANS, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: W. B. LANHAM, M. A., Chie!‘ H. NEss, M. S., Berry Bree er RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JONES, M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman; Breeding I nuestigations W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINRARD, B. S., Entomologist W. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist S. E. McGREcoR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood Inspector Orro MAcRENsEN. Foulbrood Inspector GiLLis GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief A. B. CONNER, M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research R. E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research P. C. MANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist; v Corn and Small Grain Investigations D T. KILLOUGR, M S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding _ _ ‘E. C. CUsRiNG, B. S., Assistant in Crops uzug SUBSTATIONS V g No. 10, Feeding and Breeding Station, No. 1 Beeville Bee County: R. HALL, S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTcRKiss, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County: R H. STANSEL, M. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jetferson County: R. H. WYcRE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple Bell County: H. E. REA, S., Superintendent No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Slgur, Dickens County: R. E. ICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8 Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAmEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: . W. ADRIANCE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture . BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology I PI D. SCOATES, A H. P. SMITH, B. TAs of February 1, 1927. *On leave of absence. v "Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. ‘twin cooperation with U. , Associate GRouT, M. S., Professor of Dairy Husbandry LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance ., Professor i}; A ricultural Engineering _ _ S. ro essor of Agricultural Engineering PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIO l’ J. J. TAUBENBAUS, Ph. D., hief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chie l ~.~ *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., P . D., Farm" Ranch Economist. i G. L. CRAWFORD, M. S., Research Mo; v LSEeciaIisltVI S G ; . . oRY, . . razing Research w "*T. L. GASTON R., . S., Assistant, I Records and Accounts ***J- N- TATE, B. S., Assistant, Ranch R? and Accounts RURAL HOME RESEARCH: ‘ JEssiE WRrrAcRE, Ph. D., Chief SOIL SURVEY: '**W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief g. qHAwxEméSogl Surveyor . . EMPLIN . ., Soil S T. c. RErrcii. B. s., Soil s...‘.§£',’,‘.”,°’ BOTANY: H-Nrsss. M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: i, Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERWOOD. M. S., Chief ****AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATOB B(Sl:;n AIIIOéIIO) " - - ARKS. . S., Apiculturist in Ch A. H. ALEX. B. S., Queen Breeder a,“ FEED CONTROL SERVICE: . D. FULLER, M. S., Chief . D. PEARcE, Secretary . H. RocERs, Feed Inspector . H. W000, Feed Inspector . L. KiRKLANn, B. S., Feed Inspector .. . D. NORTHCUTI‘. JR., B. S.. Feed Inspect ~_ E- H- GARRE". Feed Inspector I.‘ éwéuwq College Station, Brazos County: . M. RERw0oi), M. S., Animal Husban _ man in Charge of Farm “‘ L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll Nacogdoches Nacogdoches County: H. F: Monms, M. S., Superintendent "*No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: . R. UINBY, B. S., Superintendent "'**J. C. TEPHENS, M. A., Junior Agronomist No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: E. W. THOMAS, B. S., Superintendent W. L. BLACK, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. L. CoRY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanis I ***O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating i Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRiENi), B. S., Superintendent M. McPRAiL, B. S., Entomologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILSON, B. S., Superintendent S. Department of Agriculture. ****In cooperation with the School of Agriculture. SYNOPSIS This Bulletin reports the results 0f two years 0f study 0n the variation in the length 0f lint in an inbred plant of Mebane cot- ton and its progeny, and also reports on the variability in the percentage of lint in the progeny. Inthese studies it was found that the length of lint varied in dilferent bolls on the same plant, in the same boll, and on seed which were side by side in the same lock. These variations in the length of lintgwere found to exist in both the parent and its prog- eny. The percentage 0f lint was not as variable as the length of lint. Under the particular conditions of growing the cotton, as re- ported in this Bulletin, there appeared to be no correlation in the length of lint between individual seeds of the parent plant and their progeny. The mean length of lint of the progeny, however, approached closely the mean length of lint of the parent. - The results reported here should prove of practical value to those interested in the improvement of cotton, since they indicate that, for the purpose of selection, there is no consistent difference in the length of lint and the percentage of lint between bolls taken from different parts of the plant. For this reason bolls taken from all parts of the plant are of equal value for breeding purposes, pro- vided the seeds are viable. The average performance of the plant, therefore, should be considered as a unit in making selections for breeding purposes. CONTENTS PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 _Weather Conditions during Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Description of Parent Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '7 Data on Parent Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 Length of Lint . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Data on Progeny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Length of Lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Percentage of Lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Statistical Comparison of Parent and PFOQOII)’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1'7 Length of Lint . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Correlation of Length of Lint . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . 23 BULLETIN No. i349 - FEBRUARY, 1927 VARIATION IN CERTAIN ‘LINT CHARACTERS IN A COT- TON PLANT AND ITS PROGENY E. P. Humbert‘ and J. S. Mogford? It is the general opinion of observing cotton growers that the lint fibers on different parts of the cotton plant, and sometimes in. the same boll, vary in length. This Bulletin reports. a study of these vari- ations in an inbred plant of Mebane cotton. The plant was grown in 1916 in the open field, under average conditions and with the usual care. The plant selected apparently was typical of this strain of cotton. This particular strain of Mebane was known to compare favorably with the other strains of this variety. A plant of Mebane cotton was selected for this study because it is a very uniform variety and is one of the most widely grown varieties in Texas. The results presented in this Bulletin cover a period of two years. The parent plant produced 13 bolls. The distance of each boll from the ground and from the main stem of the plant was noted. This was done to determine the effect which the position of the boll on the plant had on the variability of the length of lint of these ‘bolls and their progeny. ~ The seeds from these 13 bolls of the parent plant were planted the following year (1917), those of each boll being planted to a row. At the end of the season each plant in these 13 progeny rows was harvested separately, and three combings of lint made from each plant prior to ginning. A total of 3'75 plants was grown in the progeny. Weather conditions were favorable for cotton in 1916, the year the parent plant was grown. The hot dry summer of 1917, however, was unfavorable to the growth of the progeny plants. This may account in part for the fact that the average length of lint of the progeny was slightly shorter than that of the parent plant, since a lack of moisture is known to affect the length of lint. WEATHER CONDITIONS DURING THE EXPERIMENT The weather records of the Main Station Farm, College Station, for 191.6, the year the parent plant was grown, show that there was sufficient rain in January to supply enough moisture. to last through- out March and April. The rainfall was sufficient for normal growth of crops. July was warm and dry, but cotton was far enough advanced in growth that the lack of moisture apparently did not affect the plants adversely. The precipitation during August was .80 of an inch. All the bolls except one on the plant opened during August. The lant did not seem at any time to be suffering for moisture. The rain- fall for 1916 was 28.05 inches, or 8.46 inches below normal. 1Professor of Genetics, A. and M. College of Texas. “Associate Professor of Agronomy, A. and M. College of Texas. 6 BULLETIN NO. 349, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure L-Structure of parent plant. VARIATION IN CERTAIN LINT CHARACTERS IN A COTTON PLANT 7 The rainfall for 1917, the year the progeny plants were grown, was 1.5.50 inches, or 21.01 inches below normal. This departure from the normal increased progressively, “month by month, throughout the year, although in February, August, and September the monthly precipitation Was not greatly deficient. During August and September, the rainfall approached normal, but this was too late in the season to be of much benefit to the plants. Dry Weather began to affect adversely the plants used in this study during the latter part of June. It appears that this lack of moisture was one of the factors which caused the lint of the progeny to be shorter than the lint of the parent plant, . On many plants, squares and bolls were shed freely, indicating that lack of moisture reduced the yield. a ' The average annual rainfall for the 2'7 years, 1891 to 1917, in- clusive was 36.51 inches. DESCRIPTION OF PARENT PLANT The plant selected was not exactly ideal in shape. One very large branch came off from the main stem near the ground, but otherwise its branches were well placed and of desirable length. The 13 bolls were so situated that seed could be obtained from nearly any distance desired from the ground and also nearly any distance from the main stem. For instance, boll No. 1 was 24 inches from the main stem but the branch bearing it came off from the main stem 5 inches from the ground. Boll No. 13 was in the very top of the plant and close to the main stem. All the plants of this strain were uniform in type. By referring to Figure 1, a fair idea of the structure of the plant may be obtained. The parent plant was grown from self-fertilized seed, which came from a uniform strain of Mebane cotton. Cross fertilization in cotton, which is caused by insects carrying pollen from other plants, will vary from 2 to 20 per cent, and will not average over 15 per cent under normal conditions. Allard (1) in Georgia reports an average of 20 per cent cross fertilization; Balls (2) in Egypt reports 13.5 per cent; Kearney (3) in Arizona reports 12 to 28 per cent; Kottur (4) in India reports 6 per cent; and Stroman and Mahoney (5) in Texas report 2.5 per cent. Six bolls of the parent plant were self-fertilized and produced progeny as variable in length of lint as the progeny ofqthe seven open-pollinated bolls of the same plant. a Table 1 gives dates of opening of bolls on the. parent plant. In general, the first flowers to bloom on a plant set the first bolls to open, if no shedding occurs. Boll No. 1 was at the end of a long limb. It was late in blooming and consequently, late in opening. Where two bolls are on the same branch, the one nearest the main stem generally opens first. This is to be expected as the squares are set and bloom as the branch grows out. The location of the bolls on the plant can "be seen by referring to Figure 1. 8 BULLETIN NO. 349, TEXAS AGRIICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 2.———Combed lint of Bolls Nos. 1 and 2 from the parent plant. VARIATION IN CERTAIN LINT CHARACTERS IN A COTTON PLANT I - Figure 3.—C0mbed lint of Bolls Nos. 8 and 13 frdm the parent plant. 10 BULLETIN NO. 349, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 1.——Opening dates of bolls of parent plant. Boll Number Date of Opening 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sept 7 1916 2..' . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug. 5, 1916 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug. 7, 1916 Self-fertilized 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 7, 1916 Self-fertilized 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 7, 1916 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 21, 1916 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 8, 1916 Self-fertilized 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 24, 1916 Self-fertilized 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 20, 1916 ‘ 1O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 18, 1916 Self-fertilized 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug. 25, 1916 12.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug. 21, 1916 Self-fertilized 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug. 25, 1916 DATA ON PARENT‘ MATERIAL Length of Lint To determine the length of lint, the fibers on every seed were combed out, and then the fibers Were pulled ofi and measured (Figures 2 and 3). Where the lint was not uniform in length, several measurements were made and the average of these measurements Was used. Since there Was considerable variation in the length of the fibers on the seed, it was not physically possible to measure the length of these fibers more accurately than in siXteenths of an inch. For this reason the data on the length of lint could only be divided into a relatively small number of classes in the population. This, of course, prevents too literal interpretation of the significance of the standard deviation and coeflicient of variability for this character. It should be borne in mind that probable errors, standard deviations, and coefficients of variability givenin this Bulletin are probably somewhat smaller than they would have been had it been possible to measure the length of fiber for each seed more accurately. Table 2 gives the mean length of lint, standard deviation, and coeflicient of variability, of the various bolls of the parent plant and also the number of seeds from each boll. There was consid- erable variation in the mean length of lint in the various bolls. For instance, the lint in boll No. 1 Was 262451.05 millimeters, While the length of lint in boll No. 6 Was 22.68a_—.07 millimeters. There Was apparently no consistent difference in the mean length of lint from bolls that opened at different dates, as may be seen by com- paring 'l‘ables 1 and 2. Table 3 gives the average length of lint on each seed of each lock of every boll on the parent plant. The length of lint appears to be slightly more variable near the top of the plant, as may be seen by comparing Table 3 With the location ofbolls on the parent plant as shown in Figure 1. For instance, the length of the lint in bolls 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, which were produced near the top of the plant, was slightly more variable than the length of lint in the other bolls; but VARIATION IN CERTAIN LINT CHARACTERS IN A COTTON PLANT 11 the mean length of lint from these bolls did not differ greatly from the length of lint from bolls produced 0n other parts of the plant. Table 2.—‘—Statistical analysis of the length of lint from bolls of the parent plant. Number Mean Length Boll Number of Seed of Lint in Standard Coefficient of Per Boll Millimeters Deviation Variability 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 26.245;.05 0.475;.04 1.795114 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 25.72112 1.065108 4.125;.32 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 23.045;.12 0.955;.08 4.125;.37 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 26.145117 1.315112 5.015145 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 24.005; 10 0.955;.07 3.96;b.30 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 22.685; 07 0.58i.05 2.565122 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3O 24.335; 13 1.045109 4271.37 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 23.805; 00 0.00 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 24.235; 14 0.96i.10 3.96140 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 25.505; 15 1.115110 4.35i.41 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42 24.555; 13 1.255;.09 5.095137 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 24.715112 0.985108 3.975133 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 24.675111 1.155108 4.66;b.33 24.585111 0.915108 3.685131 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The seed occurred in the lock of each boll in the order given in Table 3. The figures given at the top of the two columns for each lock represent the length of lint from the seed produced at the top portion of these locks, and vice versa. It will be noted that in most of the bolls the lint was slightly more uniform on seed produced at the base of the lock, as represented by the figures on the last line for each boll. There was no consistent difference, however, in the length of lint from seed located in other parts of the lock. DATA ON PROGENY Seed from the parent plant were planted April 24, 1917. The seeds from each boll of the parent plant Were planted in separate rows. Germination was practically 100 per cent, but cold weather prolonged it over a period of at least two weeks. Just after planting, a hard cold rain fell for several days, causing the soil to pack, and a few of the seedlings died, possibly on account of the fact that they were not strong enough to break through the baked surface caused by the drying- out. i The young plants grew off vigorously and were given the necessary cultivation to keep them in good growing condition throughout the season. All of the plants in the progeny showed a close resemblance to the parent plant. The effect. of the drouth became serious about the 'middle of July, and many of the young squares and bolls were shed. Very little difference was noted in the dates of blooming of the dif- ferent rows. 12 BULLETIN NO. 349, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION wwéwww RwawwwRR w.R RRR R.RR w.R R RR RRR RRR R.RR w.R w.R R.RR R.RR R RR R.RR R RR R.RR R.RR R.RR w.R w R R.RR w.R R.RR w R.RR R.RR R RR w.R R.RR QwR R.RR R RR R.RR Rwnmwww wfiHwQwR w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R R.RR w w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R R.RR NQHQRA hfiflwfiwR w R w.R w.R w.R w R QR w.R w.R . w R w.R w.R w.R w R QR w.R QR w w R w.R w.R w.R w R w.R w.R w.R w R w.R w.R w.R wwnmwww RfiHwQwR w.R QR w R w R w R QR w R w R w.R w.R w.R w R w R w R w.R R RR w R w.R w R w R R RR w.R R RR w R w R RR w R wwR QwR w wR wwilwww; RfiHRQwR QR w.R. w.R w.R w R w R QR w R w R w.R w.R QR w.R w R w R QR w R w R w.R QR QR w R w R w.R w R w R w.R R w.R w.R w R w R w.R w R w R w.R w R w R wwkhww wQHwQwR w.R w.R w.R w R w.R w R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w.R w R w.R w R w.R w.R QR w.R w.R w.R w R w.R w R w.R w.R _ w.R w.R w R w.R w R w.R w.R w.R w R w R w.R w.R wwswarvm wwfiwEwww/H w w w R _ wfiwfiww E ES we . wwwnEz =wm summed G602 wonisZ xwoJ Jami wnowwa on» we =cn who?» Eob uvww n23 no whwwwEzmE E in: “o a~w:vw~|.m Bash. VARIATION IN CERTAIN LINT CHARACTERS IN A COTTON PLANT 13 m 1 0 ‘ 0 ‘ m I w w Q 5 5 Q Q Q H H H H H H H‘ O <0 v-< m o0 I m Q Q @ 5 Q 9 T v-i @ @ v4 I-l @ F4 . m o w m m N N v-l Q v-i v-l v-l v4 v-l H H H H H H H m o m 0 m ~ h m w N m Q u 0 w m fi m w Q Q N N N N N N N N QNQQ NT NNQY m mmmm mm mmmm N NNNN NN NNNN TN QNNQQ ** YNQT” mm mmmmm mm mmmmm NN NNNNN NN NNNNN w@@w @ Q Qw” QYQ §§** Mmmm m mh mmm mmm mmmm NNNN N NN NNN NNN NNNN N @@@@ Q? QNQ wwwq “QT NQNQ m mmmm mm mom mmmm mmm mmmm N NNNN NN NNN NNNN NNN NNNN . @@@@ N? N? @@Y@ “N? Y@@”” mm mmmm mm mm mmmm mmm mmmmm NN NNNN NN NN NNNN NNN NNNNN .* ”@@@Q QQ NY? QNNNQ Q??? NQQQ” m mmmmm mm mmm mmmmm mmmm mmmmm N NNNNN NN NNN NNNNN NNNN NNNNN ””@** w@@ww QQQN N??? *9?” QYN N?” mmmmm mmmmm mmmm mmmm mhmm mmm hmmm NNNNN NNNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN NNN NNNN <1" wwww <=<2