^{page 4 note 1} Girard and Lindet, Le Froment et sa Mouture, Paris, 1903, p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} The figures are a general average—they do not refer to the abnormal prices of this season.

^{page 5 note 1} See also Maurizio, , Getreide, Mehl and Brot, Berlin, 1903, andGoogle ScholarLandw. Jahrb. Bd. XXXIII. Heft II. p. 242, 1904.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} For further evidence see Hall, “The Quality of English Wheat,” Journ. Farmers' Club, 1904, p. 123, and Journ. Board of Agric. 1904, p. 321.

^{page 6 note 1} See De Vries, Die Mutationstheorie.

^{page 6 note 2} Vilmorin, , Bull. Soc. Bot. France, T. XXXV. p. 49, 1888; T. XXVII. p. 73, 1880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 6 note 3} Rimpau, , Landw. Jahrb. Bd. XX. p. 335, 1891.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 4} Minnesota Agric. Expt. Stat. Bulletin 62.

^{page 7 note 1} The original paper in the Verh. naturf. Ver. in Brünn Abhandlungen, IV. 1865, is almost unobtainable. Translations will be found in the Journ. Hort. Soc. 1901, Vol. XXVI. Parts 1 and 2, and in Mendel's Principles of Heredity, Bateson, Camb. 1902.

^{page 8 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 8 note 2} Spillman, , Science, Vol. XVI. p. 794, 1902; seeCrossRefGoogle ScholarHurst, , Journ. Roy. Bort. Soc. 1903, Vol. XXVII. Part 4;Google ScholarTschermak, , Zeits. Landw. Versuchs. Oesterreich, 1901, Heft II. p. 1029.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 3} Couteur, Le, The Varieties, Properties and Classification of Wheat, Jersey, 1837, p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} Compare p. 29.

^{page 9 note 1} I have never met with a case of natural cross-fertilization, but Rimpau cites a number of undoubted examples.

^{page 9 note 2} Figured in Vilmorin, Les meilleurs Blés, Paris, 1880.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 1} Focke, , Pflanzenmischlinge, Chap. IV. p. 469.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} See Weldon, , Biometrika, I. 1902, Pt. II. and Bateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} For farther proofs see Evolution Report of the Roy. Soc. Pt. I.

^{page 16 note 1} They have white and red grain respectively, but for the time we will neglect this difference.

^{page 16 note 2} In certain cases complications occur: see Evol. Report, Pt. I. p. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Linnaeus, , Species Plantarum, T. I. Pt. I. p. 478, 1797.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 1} Vilmorin, Les meilleurs Blés.

^{page 21 note 1} That is in 1902. Both 1902 and 1903 were peculiarly bad seasons for work of this kind. They were too wet and sunless. 1904 on the other hand was excellent.

^{page 23 note 1} Rimpau, loc. cit.

^{page 23 note 2} Science, 1902, Vol. XVI. p. 794.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} Tschermak, loc. cit.

^{page 23 note 4} Vilmorin, , Bull. Soc. Bot. France, T. XXXV. p. 49, 1888. See also T. XXVII. p. 73 and p. 856, 1880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 24 note 1} Vries, De, Mutationstheorie, Band II. p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 1} The figures for Polish × Rivet and its reciprocal have not been ascertained yet.

^{page 30 note 1} loc. cit.

^{page 30 note 2} loc. cit.

^{page 30 note 3} loc. cit.

^{page 31 note 1} Spillman, loc. cit.

^{page 35 note 1} W. L. B.

^{page 38 note 1} No actual proof of this has been given in the case of wheat, but Guignard has shown that this double fertilization occurs in maize.

^{page 38 note 2} Some 200 individuals examined.

^{page 39 note 1} Presidential Address, Zoological Section, British Association Meeting, 1904.

^{page 40 note 1} The difference between these types of endosperm is too subtle for me to attempt to describe. They are the slight differences which can only be appreciated by those who continually handle grain.

^{page 40 note 2} As far back as 1815, Thomas Andrew Knight suggested that varieties proof against the mildew (or rust) should be raised. Pamphleteer, Vol. VI. p. 402.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 3} Cf. Eriksson, Die Getreideroste.

^{page 41 note 1} Farrer, , Agric. Gazette of New South Wales, 1889, Vol. IX. p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Eriksson, , Ann. d. Sc. Nat. T. XIV. p. 107, 1901.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} For negative evidence see Klebahn, Die wirtswechselnden Röstpilze, p. 79, 1904.

^{page 42 note 3} Ward, Marshall, Proc. Roy. Soc. Vol. LXXI. p. 353, 1903, andGoogle ScholarPhil. Trans. Vol. CXCVI. p. 29, 1903.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 4} Eriksson, , Comptes Rendus, 1903.Google ScholarCf. Archiv für Botanik, Band I, p. 143, 1903.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 5} Ibid. and Rev. gén. de Bot. 1898, T. X. p. 44.

^{page 43 note 1} Ward, Marshall, Anns. Bot. Vol. XVI. p. 233, 1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 43 note 2} Cf. Hartig's Diseases of Trees, Engl. edit. 1894, p. 171, where the cultivation of a woolly-leafed willow hybrid is recommended in place of its glabrous-leafed parent in districts where Melampsora hartigii is abundant.

^{page 45 note 1} It is perhaps worth pointing out here that in spite of the complexity of the parentage of these two varieties they are indistinguishable from pure varieties even on further crossing—a fact Mendel's work would lead one to expect.

^{page 46 note 1} Where Bough Chaff is the felted parent.

^{page 47 note 1} Where Rivet wheat is the felted parent.