INHERITANCE OF EARLINESS IN FIVE EARLY MATURING
PEANUT, (Arachis hypogaea L.), LINES
A Thesis
b y
OUSMANE NDOYE
Submitted to the Graduate College of
Texas AEM University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
,.
.-
,,
, ,
.
.
.
I
August 1988
Major Subject: Plant Breedi

---

INHERITANCE OF EARLINESS IN FIVE EARLY MATURING
PEANUT, (Arachis hypogaea L.), LINES
A Thesis
bY
OUSMANE NDOYE
Approved as to style and content by:
(Chair of Committee)
J+ ,
/
“^
.,.:
.,
1)
.” ,J
I
James L. Starr
(Member)
,-
(Member)
lx J+t
&gy-(g czw
Albert M. Schubert
E. C. A. R&'ge u
(Member)
(Head of Department)
August 1988

---

iii
ABSTRACT
Inheritance of Earliness in Five Early Maturing
Peanut,
(Arachis hypogaea L.), Lines.
( August 1988 1
Ousmane Ndoye
Maitrise of Natural Sciences, University of Dakar, Senegal
DEA of Biology, University of Dakar, Senegal
Chairman of Advisory Committee: Dr. Clin D. Smith
F i v e e a r l y m a t u r i n g
spanish peanut lines were
crossed
in
complete d i a l l e l a n d p a r e n t , F,,
and F2 g enerations were
eva-
luated. Dates of emergence and occurrence of first, fifth, tenth,
,f ifteenth, twent ieth, and
twenty-fifth flowers were
recorded.
Number of full-size pods and number of mature pods based on
interna1 pericarp color were counted after digging.
Progenies differed among parental combinations in number of
days
to specified flower numbers,
number of
f u l l - s i z e p o d s ,
number of mature pods, and percent mature pods. Reciprocal diffe-
rentes were not apparent.
Segregates were
found in a11 crosses that flowered earlier
and produced
more full-size and mature pods than
t h e p a r e n t s .
Number of full-size pods,
number of mature pods,
percent mature
pod:s,
a n d d a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o t h e t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r w e r e
highly correlated. Correlation of days from planting to specified
number
of f lowers and number of full-size pods was
h i g h e r t h a n
lml-l.------“-
-U
-“._ - . . .._-_
--F-V-

---

iv
f o r d a y s f r o m emergence o r f i r s t f l o w e r t o s p e c i f i e d f l o w e r
numbers and number of full-size pods. Selection for earliness on
the basis of flower number would not have been effective in this
study.
Important d ifferences in the heritab i l i t i e s o f t r a i t s u s e d a s
indicators of relative maturity were not apparent.
Averaged over
crosses
t h e h e r i t a b i l i t y o f d a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o t w e n t y - f i v e
flowers was higher than for days from planting to first flower.
Heritabi 1 ity
estimates for number of full-size and matu-re
pods
tended to be highest in crosses involving Tx851856.
Parental
lines did not differ (P=O.û5) in general
combining
ability (GCA) for neither number of mature pads (NUMP) nor weight
of mature seeds (WTMS) based on F, data.
TxAG-1 crosses produced
the most mature pods and Tx851856 crosses had the heaviest mature
seeds (WTMS). These traits are characteristics
of the two parental
lines. Chico had good GCA for both NUMP and WTMS.
Differences
in specific combining ability (SCA) for NUMP or
WTMS were not statistically significant (P=O.O5).

---

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Olin D.
Smith for his untiring efforts, valuable suggestions, guidance,
and encouragement throughout the period of research and
prepara-
tion of this manuscript.
My gratitude is also extended to Drs. C. E. Simpson, J. L.
Starr,
and A. M. Schubert for their advice, help, and encourage-
ment.
I express special gratitude to Dr. G. B. Parker, Dr. C. E.
Gates, and Dr. D. W. King for their help and suggestions in the
s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s .
Special appreciation is extended to Mr. S. M. Aguirre and the
s t a f f o f t h e P e a n u t
B r e e d i n g p r o g r a m f o r t h e i r h e l p
and
friendship.
.“.,”
.,.f ,_,- -. .---
---B---m
.,
w,--..--.--
tEsi

---

vi
DEDICATION
TO my parents,
my relatives,
my friends,
and a1 1 Senegalese peanut fat-mers.
V.,”
““.-,-1^-

--.----
-.
---. .____-
-
.
..--.*w _I__I
h c I

---

Vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
. . .
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~.....
I I I
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .."..................
V
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*........... vii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*..................
ix
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . ..*............e..................
xiv
INTRODUCTION ...............................................
1
LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................
8
Vegetal Material ......................................
a
Chemicals .............................................
a
Traits Measured .......................................
10
Statistical and Genetic Analyses ......................
11
Statistical analyses .............................
11
Genetic analyses .................................
11
RESULTS ....................................................
13
Planting Date Effects .................................
13
Emergence ........................................
13
Outlayers ....................................
la
Homogeneity of variante ......................
19
Population Effects ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
19
Parents ..........................................
19
Fl and F2 generations ...........................
23
Correlation Among Traits ..a........,................*
..
34

---

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Heritability ..........................................
44
Segregation Patterns ..................................
46
Combining Ability Estimates ...........................
68
DISCUSSION .................................................
71
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................
75
REFERENCES .................................................
77
APPENDIX ...................................................
80
VITA ....................................................... 103

---

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1 D e s c r i p t i o n a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f f i v e p a r e n t a l l i n e s . . . . 9
2 Mean number of days from planting to emergence for five
p a r e n t a l lines over r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Mean number of days from planting to first, fifth, tenth,
f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , and twenty-fifth flowers for four
replications of the parental lines.............*.........
20
4 Means and standard deviations for number of days from
p l a n t i n g t o e m e r g e n c e t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h ,
twentieth,
and twenty-fifth flowers and means and standard
deviations of number of full-size pods and number of mature
pods for the parental lines within the 4 replications.... 21
5 Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods: number
of mature pods:
and percent mature pods for the cross
Chico/Sn55-437 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y replication..,.....24
6 Mean number of days from planting to emergence: days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-ftfth flowers; number of full-size pods; number
of mature pods; and percent mature pods for the cross
Chico/Tx851856 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y r e p l i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . 25
7 Mean number of days from planting to emergence: days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number
of mature pods: and percent mature pods for the cross
Chico/TxAG-1 and its reciprocals by replication.......... 26
8 Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number
of mature pods; and percent mature pods for the cross
C h i c o / T x A G - 2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y r e p l i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . 27
9 Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number
of mature pods; and percent mature pods for the cross
Sn55-437/Tx851856
a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y r e p l i c a t i o n . . . . . 28

---

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Page
10 Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number
of mature pods; and percent mature pods for the cross
Sn55-437/TxAG-1 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y r e p l i c a t i o n . . . . . . . 29
11 Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-sire pods: number
of mature pods; and percent mature pods for the cross
Sn55-437/TxAG-2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y r e p l i c a t i o n . . . . . . . 3 0
12 Mean number of days from planting to emergence: days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number
of mature pods; and percent mature pods for the cross
Tx851856/TxAG-1 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y r e p l i c a t i o n . . . . . . . 3 1
13 Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number
of mature pods: and percent mature pods for the cross
Tx851856/TxAG-2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y r e p l i c a t i o n . . . . . . . 3 2
14 Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days from
p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h ,
and twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number
of mature pods; and percent mature pods for the cross
TxAG-l/TxAG-2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l s b y r e p l i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . 3 3
15 Coefficients of correlation between days from planting to
emergence, to first, f ifth, tenth, f ifteenth, twent ieth,
and twenty-fifth flowers with number of full-size pods,
number of mature pods, and percent mature pods within
each repl icat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..<....e.......*....*....
35
16 Coefficients of correlation between days from emergence to
f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h . t w e n t i e t h , a n d t w e n t y -
fifth flowers with number of full-size pods, number of
mature pods, and percent mature pods within each
replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.............*.......
36
17 Coefficients of correlation for days from planting
t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , a n d t w e n t y -
fifth flowers and days from planting to emergence for each
repl icat ion . . . . . . . . . ..a............*...*“................
41

---

X i
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Page
18 Coefficients of correlation between days from first flower
t o d a y s t o f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , a n d twenty-
f i f t h f l o w e r s ,
and number of full-size pods, number of mature
pods 9 and percent mature pods within the 4 replications.. 42
19 Coefficients of correlation between number of full-size
pods and number of mature pods and percent mature pods
within replications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..<*..a.................. 43
20 Coeffient of correlation for number of mature pods and
p e r c e n t m a t u r e p o d s w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4
2 1 Mean h e r i t a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s f o r d a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t ,
tenth, twenty-fifth flowers, number of full-size pods,
and number of mature pods for each
cross and its
reciprocal over replications . . . . . . . < * . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
22 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Chico/
Sn55-437 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . 48
23 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Chico/
Tx851856 and its reciprocal within replications.......... 49
24 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Chico/
T x A G - 1 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
25 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Chico/
T x A G - 2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2 6 Mean, variance, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Sn55-437/
Tx851856 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . 52
27 Mean, vari ance, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Sn55-437/
T x A G - 1 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
28 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Sn55-437/
T x A G - 2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4
_,,_=__“~_J----._C_-.,------
.
---a
m

---

xii
LIS1 OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Page
29 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Tx851856/
T x A G - 1 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
30 Mean, variante,
standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-sire pods in the cross Tx851856/
T x A G - 2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
31 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross TxAG-l/
T x A G - 2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
32 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Chico/Sn55-437
a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
33 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Chico/Tx851856
a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
34 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Chico/TxAG-1
a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
35 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Chico/TxAG-2
a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
36 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Sn55-437/
Tx851856 and its reciprocal within replications.......... 62
37 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Sn55-43j’/
T x A G - 1 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
38 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Sn55-437/
T x A G - 2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
39 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Tx851856/
T x A G - 1 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
40 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Tx851856/
T x A G - 2 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

---

xiii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Page
41 Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross TxAG-l/TxAG-2
a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
42 Analysis of variante for general and specific combining
abilities for the variables number of mature pods (NUMP)
a n d w e i g h t o f m a t u r e s e e d s ( W T M S ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
43 General combining ability estimates of the five parental
lines used as female or as male parents for the variables
number of mature pods (NUMP) and weight of mature seeds
(wTMs) . . . . . . . . . ..*..............................*........ 69

---

xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
F igure
Page
1 Number of days from planting to emergence for
replication 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.
14
2 Number of days from planting to emergence for
replication 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a.......
15
3 Number of days from planting to emergence for
repl icat ion 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
4 Number of days from planting to emergence for
repl icat ion 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.......
17
5 Correlation between days from planting to first, fifth,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth flowers, and
number of full-size pods, number of mature pods, and percent
mature pods for replication 1 ..*.....*...................
3 7
6 Correlation between days from planting to first, fifth,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth flowers, and
number of full-size pods, number of mature pods, and percent
mature pods for replication 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8
7 Correlation between days from planting to first, fifth,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth flowers, and
number of full-size pods, number of mature pods, and percent
mature pods for replication 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.....
3 9
8 Correlation between days from planting to first, fifth,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth flowers, and
number of full-size pods, number of mature pods, and percent
mature pods for replication 4 . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

---

INTRODUCTION
The deve lopment of productive, acceptab e, early maturing
c u l t i v a r s i s a priority objective in many p ant breeding prog-
rams. Earliness reduces the duration of trop risk: allows greater
flexibility in planting time within growing seasons: facilitates
irrigation water conservation and reduces irrigation expense: and
is important in areas with short rainy seasons and subsistence
farming, such as occurs in the Sahel. The capability of a variety
to mature
a reasonable quantity of fruit during the short
seasons in some areas becomes even more important than good yield
performance when seasons are favorable.
The cultivars Sn 55-437, Sn 73-30, and TS 32-l are cultivated
widely in the peanut growing regions of West Africa where the
rainy
seasons
are
very
short.
T h e s e c u l t i v a r s , w h i c h a r e
classif ied
as 120 day varieties in Texas, normally require 90
days
for acceptable maturation
i n t h o s e
r e g i o n s o f
West
Africa (7).
The length of the rainy season in regions of Africa
has often been inadequate for these cultivars to mature. Poor
yields and poor quality have been the result. Earlier maturing
varieties adapted to these regions are needed.
Germplasm that matures earlier than Sn 55-437 and TS 32-l and
suitable for use as parents is limited. Chico has been used as a
source of earliness in several breeding programs with limited
success (e.g.4,16). Two breeding lines, TxAG-1 and TxAG-2, which
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thesis format follows Crop Science style.

---

2
mature
approximately 30 days earlier than Starr in
Texas, were
rel eased
b y t h e T e x a s A g r i c u l t u r a l
E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n a s
g e r m p l a s m lines f o r e a r l i n e s s ( 2 2 ) . A n o t h e r b r e e d i n g line,
designated Tx851856,
reportedly from North Vietnam,
has matured
simultaneously
with Chico in Texas tests (O.D. Smith, persona1
commun i cat ion ) .
The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether or not the
genetic factors providing earliness in Chico, Sn 55-437, TxAG-1,
TxAG-2, and Tx851856 are the same or different: the relative
merit of each as a parent for earliness: and if segregates
earlier than these breeding lines might be developed through
recombination among crosses of these lines.

---

LITERATURE REVIEW
T h e g r o w t h duration o f U . S . p e a n u t c u l t i v a r s r a n g e s f r o m
9 5 - 1 0 0 d a y s f o r Chico t o m o r e t h a n 1 5 0 d a y s f o r S o u t h e a s t e r n
Runner (2).
Typically, the growth duration of the fastigiata subspp. is
shorter than the hypogaea subspp.,
and the descriptive reference
o f
“early spanish”
is comnon within the industry.
T h e y i e l d o f
Chico in Texas is markedly inferior to commercial cultivars such
a s S t a r r a n d T a m n u t 74.
The yields of TxAG-1,
TxAG-2,
a n d
Tx851856 have also been inferior to Starr in Texas tests.
D e f i n i t i o n o f w h e n a v a r i e t y
i s
“mat ure”
i s
subjective
b e c a u s e o f t h e
indeterminate
n a t u r e o f
t h e trop.
Peanuts
h a r v e s t e d a t any t i m e
include
some
immature fruits.
Since
immature peanut kernels
lower both quality and yield,
peanut
plants
should be harvested when the frequency and quantity of
mature seeds are maximal.
Many
studies
on methods of estimating peanut maturity
h a v e
b e e n p u b l i s h e d (11,14,16,18,19,24,26). M i l l e r a n d B u r n s (16)
studied the interna1 pericarp color of peanut pods,
and
stated
t h a t a s
the peanuts mature,
the veins near the
i nternal
hull
surface change from white to brown. The darkening of the veins is
apparently caused by the ageing of the vein cells and consequently
color development.
Gilman and Smith (11) used peanut genotypes
differing in botanical type and geographical source to establish
parameters for making reliable maturity determinations on the
b a s i s o f
interna1 pericarp color (IPC). They compared the IPC

---

4
(161,
kernel
density (KD),
and arginine maturity
index (AMI )
methods of estimating peanut maturity.
The AMI method, developed by Young and Mason (26) is based on
a colorimetric reaction in which 50s samples of freshly harvested
or dry-cured peanuts were homogenized in a Waring Blendor at high
speed
i n 500 m l o f 3N HC104 f o r 9 m i n u t e s . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f
maturity
was based on the free arginine content of the samples
measured colorimetrically.
They concluded that the immature pea-
nuts
which
are usually quite small were extremely high in
free
argfnine.
They concluded that arginine content was a
sensitive,
rapid
means of determining the amount of immaturity in a
samp 1 e
of peanuts.
Holaday and coworkers (14) reported results of a 3-year study
which was based on the measurement of the pigments extracted from
peanut pods with methanol. The percent of
1 ight
transmitted
through
the methanolic extracts
was measured and compared
with
t h e d a y s
after planting,
yield,
d o l l a r r e t u r n p e r a c r e , a n d
meteorological
d a t a r e c o r d e d during t h e g r o w i n g p e r i o d o f
F lorunner
peanut .
Both the Holaday and AMI methods
are
d e s t r u c t i v e a n d n o t
adapted to use where seed supply
i s
very
1 imited.
Pattee and coworkers (18) based their method on the changing
seed-hu 11
ratio during maturation of the fruit.
T h e r a t i o w a s
obtained by dividing the weight of seeds by the weight of the
h u l l s .
T h e r a t i o
or matur i ty index was determined
f r o m f r e s h
(FMI) as well as air-dried pods (DMI), and these
ratios
corre-

---

5
1 ated
well
with a physiological maturity
index.
This method
might be acceptable for estimating states of maturation within a
line but is not suited for comparing among selections w h e r e pod
shape,
shell
thickness,
a n d f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n p r o p o r t i o n o f
mature pods affect the seed-hull ratio.
Williams and Drexler (24) proposed a method based on color and
morphological
differences o f
the mesocarp of fresh Florunner
peanut pods. Maturity determination by this method requires
removal of a portion of the exocarp or epidermis to expose the
mesocarp, which is non-destructive to the remaining pod structure
and enclosed seeds.
Oil c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of peanut fruits of different
matur ity
classes were determined by Sanders and coworkers
(19). Analyses
were made on peanut pods separated into maturity classes establi-
shed by William and Drexler (24). According to that method, color
decreased,
free fatty acid content decreased,
iodine value re-
mained approximately constant,
and oven stability of the extrac-
ted oil increased with increased maturity.
Bailey and Bear (2) used flower opening and potential for pod
d e v e l o p m e n t t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e r e l a t i v e e a r l i n e s s o f p e a n u t
1 ines.
They evaluated earliness of maturity in peanuts by a) the
number
of days from planting to opening of the first flower; b)
first flower to accumulated number of flowers ranging from 15 to
3 0 p e r p l a n t ;
c) opening of flower to maturation of seeds
t h a t
develop from that flower;
and d) maturation of seeds in a pod ta
d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f
the peg by which the pod is attached
t o t h e

---

6
plant.
They were able to account for differences in maturity of
up to 50 days among the maturity classes.
Hassan and Srivastava (13) studied floral biology and pod
deve 1 opment
in four peanut cultivars and reported that earlier
maturing cu tivars began flowering 2 to 3 days sooner than
late
maturing CU 1 t i v a r s .
They also reported variety differences
in
other
flowering characteristics but were unable to relate these
differences
to pod maturing characteristics.
Several reports on breeding for early maturing cultivars have
b e e n
reported
in
t h e l i t e r a t u r e . N i g a m a n d c o w o r k e r s (17)
stressed
early maturing cultivars adapted to the
short
grow i ng
season of the semi-arid tropics, and to fit peanuts into relay or
sequential
cropping systems. Gibori (9) studied the inheritance
of days to first flower in virginia,
spanish, and
valencia type
peanuts.
He stated that the length of the period,
in days, from
emergence
t o f i r s t flower i s c o n t r o l l e d b y s e v e r a l
genes
which
exhibited bidirectional
dominante. G i b o r i
and coworkers (10)
concluded that bidirectional dominante occurred for the
t r a i t s
t o t a l
pod yield per plant and number of days from planting to
f irst
f lower.
The genetic control of the length of the period
from planting to first flower was studied by Wynne and coworkers
(25):
the
F,
h y b r i d s w e r e e a r l i e r
t h a n t h e e a r l y p a r e n t ,
intermediate, or
later than the late parent,
depending on the
botanical
types of the parents in each combination.
Shakudo and
Kawarbata (21) found that the F, hybrids flowered later than the
mean
o f t h e i r p a r e n t s .
Banks and Kirby (4) bred for earlier

---

7
maturing spanish peanuts in Oklahoma to escape fa11 frost
damage
and for use in double cropping.
They developed and released the
cultivars Pronto and Spanco which they described as 10 to 24 days
earlier than other current U.S.
varieties of spanish peanuts
in
Oklahoma.
In Texas,
the seeds of Pronto and Spanco are
1 arger
t h a n o t h e r
spanish cultivars and the seeds
a t t a i n
s u f f i c i e n t
size t o b e classified
“Sound Mature Kernel” (SMK) at an early
date: but the cultivars are not earlier than Starr as measured by
the IPC method.
It is evident from this review that several researchers have
studied
earl iness
and that no totally effective
c r i t e r i o n f o r
s c r e e n i n g l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n s o f p e a n u t lines f o r e a r l i n e s s h a s
been defined. Both flowering and fruiting traits Will b e e x a m i n e d
i n t h i s s t u d y
to aid the assignment of plants
i nto
matur ity
groups.
In the breeding studies cited,
the parents used differed
considerably in growth duration.
We are using parents with short
growth duration only,
the long range goals being to determine if
genotypes
e a r l i e r t h a n t h e p a r e n t s cari b e d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h
recombination.

---

8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Vegetal Mater ial
Five early maturing peanut lines, described in Table 1, were
used in this
study. Random plants from these lines w e r e crossed,
in the greenhouse,
i n a complete d i a l l e l .
Some of the F, seeds
were planted to produce F2 seeds,
and the remainder
s t o r e d a t
approximately
28 degrees celsius and 45% relative humidity.
Sixteen parent, 30 F,, and 290 F2 seeds of each parental combina-
tion (except in the cross TxAG-l/TxAG-2 for which we did not have
enough seeds) were simultaneously planted under field conditions.
The experiment was
conducted west of Bryan,
Texas on a Pati lo
sandy loam
s o i l .
The experiment was arranged in a
randomized
split block design with four replications. Replicates one through
four were planted on May 19, May 22, May 26, and June 8, respec-
t i v e l y .
T h r e e t o f o u r d a y i n t e r v a l s b e t w e e n p l a n t i n g s w e r e
intended to facilitate data collection and provide some variation
in environmental conditions. Rain almost flooded the field follo-
wing the second planting and the third
r e p l i c a t e h a d t o b e
rep 1 anted
o n
J u n e 2 2 b e c a u s e o f p e r s i s t e n t l y w e t
s o i l .
Proportional components of each population were planted on each
date for a total of 720 seeds per planting.
Seeds,
at planting,
w e r e
spaced 40 cm apart in rows with 91 cm centers.
Chemicals
Ferti 1 irer and
calcium-sulfate were
appl ied
a c c o r d i n g t o
soi1 t e s t recommendations. Al1 s e e d s w e r e t r e a t e d w i t h fungicide
to reduce seedling disease. Weeds were controlled with herbicides

---

Table 1. Description and characteristics of five parental lines,
1.
Chico
is an erect spanish type peanut released by the
ARS,
USDA,
and the Georgia, Virginia, and Oklahoma Agricultural
Experiment Stations (3) as a garden variety and as a source
o f e a r l i n e s s .
Chico pods are small
and slender with thin
s h e l l s .
2 .
Sn 55-437 is a spanish type peanut selected in Senegal; its
life cycle is about 90-100 days in West Africa (7).
it was
selected from a probable South American population
rece i ved
from Hungary.
3.
TxAG-1 is a germplasm line derived by mutation of Spantex and
released by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
(22).
It has a reproductive cycle of 90-110 days.
4.
TxAG-2 was re leased as a germp lasm 1 ine developed by
m u t a t i o n o f
Spantex by the Texas Agricultural Experiment
S t a t i o n ( 2 2 ) .
It matures about 90-110 days after planting
varying with environment and location.
ish type peanut with sma
5.
Tx851856 is an erect span
11 leaves
and medium size pods.
Its reproductive cycle is s i m i l a r t o
Ch ico.

---

using
one p r e - p l a n t i n c o r p o r a t e d a p p l i c a t i o n o f T r i f l u r a l i n ( 1
l/ha), and over the top
appl icat ions of Bentazon
( 2 l/ha), a n d
Sethoxydim 0.4 kg a.i./ha plus trop oil 2.3 l/ha. Metachlor was
appl ied
pre-emer gence
and mid-season at a rate of 1 l/ha each
application.
Cult ivat ion
and
hand weeding were also used to
control
w e e d s a s
needed throughout
the
grow ing
season.
Recomnended
disease and insect control practices were followed.
Eighteen kg/ha of Ridomil PC (combination of metalaxal and penta-
ch lorobenzene)
were
a p p l i e d t w o t i m e s a n d 4 kg/ha o f
act i ve
ingredient
of Quintozene applied one time to control
p o d r o t .
Chlorothalon i 1
was used five times
at a rate of 2 l/ha to con-
t r o l
leaf spot.
Chlorpyrifos,
1 k g / 6 0 0 meter r o w , a n d Cyano-
benzeneacetate
0 . 2 kg/ha w e r e a l s o a p p l i e d t o c o n t r o l
fol iar
insect feeders. Water was supplied as needed during the season by
s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n .
Traits Measured
Dai ly
record was made on an individual plant basis for
Ws
f r o m p l a n t i n g
t o emergence a n d f l o w e r s ane t h r o u g h 2 5 . Al1
entries within a planting were pulled by hand simultaneously, 90
days after planting for replication one, and 90 days after 50% or
m o r e
of the plants had emerged for the
remaining
replications.
Plants within a cross were identified, bundled, brought to the
f ield
laboratory
and a11 pods were picked
by hand.
Relative
maturity was determined on a plant basis uslng freshly harvested
pods classified as follows: pods that were more than two times the
d i a m e t e r o f t h e p e g ,
fleshy pods (torpedo shape and larger),

---

reticular pods,
single pods,
and full-size pods. After the pods
w e r e
air dried and hand shelled,
t h e l a t t e r class w a s f u r t h e r
divided as fully mature, intermediate, and shrivelled. The mature
seeds were counted for each plant and weighed.
Statistical and Genetic Analyses
Statistical analyses
Data was analyzed using the general linear mode1 procedures.
Population and
generation means and variantes were estimated.
H o m o g e n e i t y o f variantes a m o n g r e p l i c a t i o n s w e r e t e s t e d b y
Bartlett’s f o r m u l a (5). C o e f f i c i e n t s o f c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n
traits were computed using SAS procedures (20).
Genetic analyses
B r o a d s e n s e h e r i t a b i l i t y ,
defined as the proportion of the
total variante expressed among individuals that cari be attributed
to genetic differences among them (8). was estimated using the
method described by Allard (1)
H’VG/vp
where
H= broad sense heritability
‘G= genetic variante
VP= total phenotypic variante
vG
was
estimated by substracting
the environmental
var i ance,
which was
considered to be the average of the variantes of F,,
59 a n d P2 from Vp; where P, and P2 are the female and male
parents of a given cross.
Vp is the variante of the F2 generation of the same cross.
Sprague
and Tatum (24) def ined “general
combining
abi 1 ity”

---

12
(GCA)as t h e a v e r a g e
performance of a parental 1 i ne
i n h y b r i d
combination and “specific combining ability” (SCA) as those cases
in which certain combinations do relatively better or worse
than
would be expected on the basis of the average performance of the
1 ines.
Combining abilities were compared according to Griffing’s
met hod
I mode1 1 (12) (parents,
one set of F,os and
rec i procal
Flos a r e
included).
The mathematical mode1 for the combining
ability analysis is summarized below
Y ijk” U + g i + g j + s i j + r i j + l/bcx(sum O f e i j k l )
where
Y i j = value of the i th line and the jth line
U = population mean
‘i = GCA effect for the i th parent
= GCA effect for the jth parent
‘.i
S i j = SCA effect for the cross between the ith parent
and the jth parent such that s. .=s..xr..
‘J
J’
‘J
r
. t h
= reciprocal cross between the I
and jth parents
i j
t h
ei jkl = the environmental effect associated with the ijkl
individual observation.

---

1 3
RESULTS
Rain and low temperatures occurred for about a month after
planting started. Rainfall totalled 14.2 mm the day following the
first planting date (Appendix figures 1 and 2). The second plan-
t i n g
eme rged
r e l a t i v e l y f a s t ,
although the soi1 w a s
wet
a n d
rather cool.
The third and fourth planting dates coincided with
h e a v y r a i n s
t h a t s a t u r a t e d t h e soi1 f o r t w o w e e k s .
B o t h t h e
germination rate
and f lowering pattern were
affected b y
the
varied growing conditions.
Planting Date Effects
Emergence
The rate of emergence varied considerably among replications
as indicated by Figures 1 through 4. Emergence occurred 6 to 22
days
a f t e r
planting with most plants emerging between 6 and 14
d a y s a f t e r p l a n t i n g f o r r e p l i c a t i o n one ( F i g u r e 1 ) . M o s t o f t h e
plants from the second planting emerged between 6 and 11 days
af ter
planting (Figure 2).
The third and fourth plantings suf-
fered the most from the weather.
Germination and/or hypocotyl
growth was slowed, some seeds rotted, and less than 25% of the
s e e d s o f
repl icat ion three emerged.
Consequently,
i t
was
r e p l a n t e d J u n e 2 2 w h e n c o n d i t i o n s w e r e m o r e f a v o r a b l e f o r
emergence.
With the near optimal moisture and warm temperatures,
emergence
was
a 1 most
complete w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s ( F i g u r e 3).
Emergence in replication four was very slow, mostly 14 to 20 days
after planting (dap), as shown in Figure 4; however, most of the
seeds did emerge.
In every replication there were a few plants

---

_---
.-
14

---

-J w
W z cl

D x
15

---

quqd

Jo

JX/lJJllN
16

---

2 0 0
LEGEND
180
- DAYS
160
cl-l 140
-E0
CL 120
“0b 100
E
z 80
60
4 0
20
0
1.4 1 6
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
DAYS FROM P L A N T I N G l-0 E M E R G E N C E
F i g u r e 4 . Number o f days f r o m p l a n t i n g t o emergence
f o r repl cation 4 .

---

lb
that emerged very late,
up to 71 dap in repl ication two.
Anal yses
o f e m e r g e n c e d a t a f o r t h e f i v e p a r e n t a l
1 ines
confirmed the differences among
repl icat ions.
Mean separat ion
using
the Wal ler-Duncan method,
i nd i cated a
c l e a r difference
among
replications as shown in Table 2.
The differences cari be
attributed logically to the environmental variations, particulary
mo isture,
temperature,
and soi1 compaction from the rains imne-
d i a t e l y a f t e r p l a n t i n g .
Table 2. Mean number of days from planting to emergence for five
p a r e n t a l lines over r e p l i c a t i o n s .
-
-
-
-_I_-
- - - - - - - -
Replication
Mean
1
10.4 b*
2
9.2 c
3
5.9 d
4
19.1 a
k Means f o l l o w e d b y t h e same l e t t e r a r e n o t s i g n l f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t
at the 0.05 probablity level and k=lOO (Waller-Duncan
test 1.
Outlayers.
The extremely s low emergence of occasional p 1 ants
in every population caused much variabil ity in the emergence
and
flowering data. Seed immaturity, dormancy, genetic disorders, and
possibly
other factors,
independently and in
combination,
are
assumed to be the cause of the stragglers. Analyses of the data

---

1 9
f rom
the
parents
s h o w e d t h e v a r i a t i o n
was
not
normal ly
d i s t r i b u t e d .
Since
t h e v a r i a t i o n o f interest focuses o n
those
genotypes which reproduce faster and
i n g r e a t e r q u a n t i t i e s ,
p l a n t s s l o w e r
than the 95 percentile were
a r b i t r a r i l y d e l e t e d
from a11 analyses. After this adjustment normality was approached.
Homogeneity of variante. Since the days from planting to
-
etnergence
a n d f l o w e r i n g , a n d
the time span requi red for the
designated
number of flowers were different among
repl icat ions,
examination was made as to the homogeneity of the variantes among
the four replications. Comparisons were made using the parents for
t h e v a r i a b l e s
days from planting to emergence (DEMR); days to
f i r s t (DONE), f i f t h ( D F I V E ) , a n d t e n t h (DTEN) flowers, and number
of mature pods (NUMP). The test descri b e d b y B a r t l e t t ( 5 ) indi-
cated that the variantes for emergence and f lowering were not
homogeneous among replications (P=O.O5) .
Consequently, analyses
were made and data are presented by repl ication. For NUMP,
the
var i ances
were homogeneous among rep 1 icat ions
two,
three,
a n d
f o u r .
The variante associated with the low NUMP of replication
one was
not homogeneous with the other replications.
Population Effects
Parents
Number of days from planting to a given number of flowers was
compared for the five parental varieties using the
Wa 11 et-Duncan
test. Table 3 sumnarizes that comparison.
Chico
b e g a n p r o d u c i n g f l o w e r s e a r l i e r t h a n t h e
other
variet ies
followed closely by Sn 55-437, which was in the same

---

20
T a b l e 3.
Mean number o f d a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h ,
tenth,
f i f t e e n t h ,
twentieth, and twenty-fifth flowers for four
replications of the parental lines.
F lower number
m----
Var iety
ONE
FIVE
TEN
FIFT
T W E N
J-w5
Ch ico
3 3 . 6 b*
3 8 . 3 b
4 2 . 5 c
47.0a
49.5a
51.9a
Sn55-437 35.1 ab
41.7ab
44.8 bc
47.la
49.la
50.6a
TxAG- 1
38.9a
43.8a
47.lab
49.la
50.7a
52.2a
TxAG-2
37.6ab
43.5a
46.4ab
49.6a
51.3a
52.9a
T x 8 5 1 8 5 6 36.4ab
44.ga
48.ga
51.la
52.8a
54.2a
* Means w i t h i n
columns followed by the
same l e t t e r a r e n o t
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t
a t t h e 0 . 0 5 l e v e l a n d k=lOO (Waller-
Duncan test).
statistical group as Chico in each comparison through 25 flowers.
TxAG-1,
t h e o n l y p a r e n t t o initiate f l o w e r i n g s l o w e r
(P=O.O5)
t h a n Chico
averaged 5.3 days later than Chico.
Differences
I n
flowering among parental lines was most apparent at the 10 flower
stage.
Chico p r o d u c e d 1 0 f l o w e r s e a r l i e r t h a n a11
t h r e e T X
selections,
and Sn 55-437 was earlier than Tx851856. Al1 parents
were in the same statistical group at the 15, 20,
and 25 flower
stages.
Parent means by repl ication, excluding the very slow emerging
plants,
f o r t h e v a r i a b l e s o f interest a r e s h o w n i n T a b l e 4 .
R e p l i c a t i o n ( p l a n t i n g d a t e ) differences a r e a p p a r e n t f o r a11
variables,
and consistency among parents in the relative rate of

---

21
Table 4.
Means and standard deviations for number of days from
p l a n t i n g t o emergence t o f i r s t ,
f ifth,
tenth,
f i f t e e n t h ,
twent ieth,
a n d t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s a n d means a n d s t a n d a r d
deviations
of number of full-size pods and number of mature pods
for the parental lines within the 4 replications.
--
----
Chico
TxAG-2
TxAG-1
Sn55-437
Tx851856
Replication 1
D E M R 1 0 . 4 - J
9.3~1.6
9.8~2.3
9.82397
10.9’2.5
DONE 35.5~6.6
40.8~4.9
45.921.1
37.3210.8
39.0~2.6
DFIVE 42.4~8.6
50.9$7
52.521.2
47.6210.3
52.3~4.8
D T E N 48.6+6.0
56.223.6
57.0y.7
50.7+9.9
57.323.9
DFIFT 56.6~5.0
59.72298
58.821.8
54.5210.4
59.6~3.5
DTWEN 59.8~4.9
61.222.5
60.221.7
56.2210.4
61.-M
DTW5
62.8+4.1
63.2~2.4
61.621.3
57.4210.4
63.223.4
F U L L 18.729.4
16.827.7
30.828.6
13.2+5.9
14.2~3.5
NUMP
1 .ozo.5
2.2+1.8
2.421.7
0.520.5
0.920.3
%MP
5.3
12.9
7.7
3.8
6.5
Repl icat ion 2
DEMR
8.8~2.0
9.40.7
9.1~0.6
8.620.7
9.421.8
DONE 38.223.8
44.429.7
44.224.3
44.415.0
40.429.1
DFIVE 46.7~2.7
49.128.3
50.513.0
53.9+2-9
52.0+5-Y
D T E N 51.3~6.0
53.126.4
55.5~2.1
57.222.6
55.424.8
DFIFT 55.827.8
56.8~8.8
57m5~2.1
58.6~3.0
58.5~5.1
DTWEN 59.226.0
59.5+s.8
58.622.0
60.5+3.3
59.72499
DTW5
61.3~5.8
61.4~9.9
60.222.2
62.0~3.3
61.6~4.9
F U L L 40.3+29.5
20.827.0
36.1~4.0
24.5+12.1
-
24.2~13.7
NUMP
6.7+5.3
6.0~4.7
9*7+-3.3
3.5-4.5
5.1+3.5
%MP
16.5
28.7
27.0
14.3
21.1

---

22
Table 4. (Continued)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chico
TxAG-2
TxAG-1
Sn55-437
Tx851856
--1--
-
-
Repl icat ion 3
DEMR
6.7~1.6
5.20.2
5.520.4
5.7~0.6
6.220.g
DONE 25.2y.5
26.420.2
26.220.9
25.8~0.9
30.0-.3
DFIVE 28.4+1.8
27.720.7
28.4~0.5
28.720.9
34.8~2.3
DTEN 31.8+3.2
29.1+1.8
30.420.5
31.131.0
37.7~2.5
DFIFT 32.4+2.0
30.5y.5
32.OtO.6
33.920.9
39.5+2.3
DTWEN 34.3~1.5
31.1y.5
33.8~1.0
36.3~1.0
41.0+2.5
DTWS 35.7+1.5
32.822.3
35.5~1.6
38.121.4
42.121.7
FULL 71.1y2.7
60.0t15.3
92.2516.7
53.4t5.2
36.9~5.2
NUMP 30.8~9.7
26.7~9.7
34.9~3.8
25.625.7
22.4+1.8
-
%MP
43.3
44.6
37.9
47.9
60.6
Replication 4
DEMR 17.721.2
20.0~6.2
18.2~2.6
17.8~2.5
19.513.0
DONE X3.7+5.6
44.025.4
42.2~5.1
38.924.3
41.514.4
DFIVE 43.4~8.5
47.1z5.4
47.427.4
42.1~6.5
45.3+3.8
DTEN 47.7~6.6
49.425.9
50.026.9
44.426.7
49.825.0
DFIFT 50.2+5.6
51.5$15.8
52.226.0
46.4~6.4
51.5+5.1
DTWEN 52.724.8
52.7~6.2
53.8~5.7
48.2~6.5
53.0+5.6
DTW'j 54.724.2
54.4~6.0
55.3-.3
49.726.8
55.224.2
FULL 46.3'21 .j'
37.72999
43.4215.6
37.5y4.5
25.8214.5
NUMP 24.2~13.6
24.0~7.8
21.2+4.2
16.825.3
18.2+10.5
%MP
52.4
63.6
49.0
44.8
70.3

---

23
attaining the varied developmental indicators is very
low. The
replication mean n u m b e r o f d a y s u n t i l f i r s t f l o w e r (DONE) ranged
from 25.2 to 39.7 days for Chico. TxAG-1, TxAG-2, and Sn 55-437
requ i red
u p
to five days longer.
Tx851856 seemed to show the
least environmental effect with a range of only 11.5 days among
repl icat ions.
Chico f l o w e r e d f i r s t i n r e p l i c a t i o n one t h r o u g h
three
a n d
second in replication four.
Chico also tended to be
among the first to flowers
5, 10, and 15.
TxAG-1,
f o l l o w e d b y Chico h a d t h e h i g h e s t mean n u m b e r o f
f u l l - s i z e
(FULL) and mature pods (NUMP). The overall values for
t h e t w o
variables are especially low in
repl icat ion
one.
T h e
standard deviations were large compared to the differences
among
entr ies
S O that distinct differences among the parents were
not
apparent.
Overal 1,
t h e d a t a i n d i c a t e s t h a t Chico s e t f i r s t f l o w e r t h e
earllest followed by Sn 55-437.
Although Chico produced flowers
f aster
than the other parental lines it did not produce
mature
pods faster than the other varieties.
FI and F2 generations
Means
of the different variables of F, generations and their
reciprocals
were compared to those of their parents and also to
t h o s e o f F2 g enerations and their reciprocals within and among
crosses
f o r each r e p l i c a t i o n .
The results are given in Tables 5
to 14.
The highest percentage of
mature pods (%MP) was produced in
replication four while replication one was the lowest. In most of

---

24
Table 5.
Mean number of days from planting to emergence;
days
f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , a n d
t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s :
number of full-size pods: number of mature
pods;
and percent mature pods for the cross Chico/Sn55-437 and its
reciprocals by replication.
--
---
--
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
%MP
-
--I
F1
1 16.3
43.7 47.0 51.3
54.7
56.3
57.7
23.3
2.0
8.6
2
9.0
36.0 42.0 46.0 49.0 51.5 54.5 20.0
2 . 0 1 0 . 0
3
5.7
26.7 30.0 31.7 32.3 33.7 34.7 94.0 31.3 33.3
4 15.3
34.0 35.7 36.3 37.0 38.3 39.3 97.0 35.0 36.1
Rec iprocal
1
8.0
30.3
39.7
48.0
51.7
55.7
61.0
24.0
0.3
1.4
2 12.0
41.5 48.5 50.5 52.5 54.5 56.0 32.0
5.5 17.2
3
6.0
26.0 28.0 30.3 32.0 33.3 34.7 80.3 23.7 29.5
4 18.0
40.0 47.5 49.5 53.0 56.5 56.5 40.5 18.0 44.4
F2 100 .
35.7
46.6
54.4
57.8
60.5
62.3
18.1
0.8
4.5
2
8.6
40.4
49.7
53.5
56.6
58.5
60.0
26.9
5.2
19.4
3
6.1
24.9
28.1
30.1
31.8
33.3
34.7
57.3
27.4
47.8
4
17.4
36.5
39.1
42.2
44.3
46.6
48.2
45.1
21.8
48.4
Rec i p roca 1
1
8.4
32.1
40.0
46.9
52.3
55.5
57.3
25.5
0 . 9
3.4
2 10.4
39.3 46.8 53.1 56.0 58.5 60.6 29.4
7-O 23.9
3
5.7
25.0 27.2 28.7 30.0 31.3 31.3 71.9 32.5 45.3
4 17.2 36.4
39.6 41.8 43.8 45.6 48.1 56.5 25.9 45.8

---

25
Table 6.
Mean nunker o f d a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o emergence; d a y s
f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h ,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and
twenty-f ifth f lowers;
number of full-size pods: number of mature
pods:
and percent mature pods for the cross Chico/Tx851856 and its
reciprocals by replication.
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
%MP
7 9.3 33.3 35.7 43.3 49.0 54.0 57.7 22.3 1.3 5.9
2
7.7 32.0
36.3
40.7 47.7 50.7 51.7 51.7 5.0
9.7
3
9.0 30.0
34.5
37.0 39.0 40.5 42.5 26.5 16.0
60.4
4 15.0 33-7
34.7
36.3 37.3 38.3 39.7 42.0 30.0
71.4
Rec iprocal
1
8.7
31.7
40.0
53.7 60.3 63.3 65.3 14.0 1.3
9.5
2
9 . 0
34.5
38.5
46.0 48.5 52.0 54.5 28.5 6.0
21 .o
3
5.3
25.7
29.3
32.3 35.0 36.7 38.3 59.0 38.3
64.9
4
18.5
37.0
41 .o
43.5 47.0 49.5 52.5 36.5 16.0
43.8
F2
1
10.1
32.9
39.5
46.4
50.8
54.6
57.8
19.3
0.4
2.2
2
8.5
34.2
41.3
48.2
51.4
54.1
55.6
37.9
5.4
14.4
3
6.4
27.8
31.0
33.0
34.7
36.0
37.1
61.9
25.0
40.5
4
16.4
34.7
36.8
38.8
40.3
41.7
43.3
46.2
28.4
61.5
Rec i p roca 1
1
9.2
32.2
39.4
46.5
52.2
56.3
59.4
12.1
0.3
2.8
2
7.9
35.7
44.9
51.5
53.2
54.9
56.3
42.2
6.7
15.8
3
5.4
23.9
26.7
28.6
30.5
32.2
33.7
53.7
29.5
54.9
4
17.5
36.2
38.2
40.1
42.0
43.7
45.0
49.1
24.4
49.6

---

26
Table 7.
Mean number o f d a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o emergence: d a y s
f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , a n d
t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s : number of full-size pods; number of mature
pods; and percent mature pods for the cross Chico/TxAG-1 and its
reciprocals by replication.
--
--
----
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
%MP
-
-
-
-
-
Fl
1
10.0
33.3
36.7 43.3
47.3
52.3
55.3
22.0
1.7 7.6
2
9.0 33.0 37.0 42.0 48.0 53.0 56.0 39.0
4.0 10.3
3
5.0 25.3 28.7 30.3 32.0 33.3 34.3 84.0 33.7 40.1
4 17.0 37.3 38.7 40.3 41.7 42.7 45.0 63.7 37.3 58.6
Rec iprocal
1
11.0
37.0
44.0
51.0
55.3
58.0
60.0
34.0
1.7
4.9
2
8.0 33.0 43.0 47.5 50.0 52.0 53.0 47.5 12.0 25.3
3
6.3 30.0 35.7 38.0 39.7 40.7 42.7 62.7 25.7 40.9
4 15.0 36.0 38.0 39.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 95.0 34.0 35.8
F2
1
12.0
40.3
47.2
52.9
56.5
59.2
61.6
16.9
0 . 9
5.7
2 10.8 39.6 46.3 51.6 55.2 57.3 60.0 32.2
6.4 19.8
3
5.4 24.7 27.3 29.7 31.8 33.6 35.4 87.3 32.9 37.7
4 17.2 37.1 40.7 43.1 46.0 48.3 50.2 54.7 34.8 63.6
Rec i p roca 1
1
11.7
38.9
47.6
54.4
57.0
59.2
60.7
21.0
0.9
4.4
2
9.3 40.3 47.8 53.0 55.8 57.6 59.4 39.7
8.9 22.5
3
5.7 24.7 27.7 29.6 31.4 33.0 34.5 81.3 34.4 42.2
4 17.8 37.6 40.8 43.0 44.9 46.7 48.6 58.6 27-5 46.9

---

2 7
Table 8.
Mean nu&er of days from planting to emergence; days
from planting to first, fifth,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and
twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number of mature
pods: and percent mature pods for the cross Chico/TxAG-2 and its
reciprocals by replication.
e-1
--1-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
%MP
P-e
-
-
-
-
7
9.0 31.3 33.3 37.3 46.3 49.0 55.7 13.7
1.0
7.3
2
9.0 31.0 33.0 37.0 47.0 50.0 52.0 34.0
8.0 23.5
3
5.3 24.0 25.7 28.0 31.3 34.0 36.0 86.7 34.7 40.0
4 28.0 48.5 53.5 54.5 56.5 58.5 59.5 38.5 17.5 45.4
Reciprocal
1
10.0
32.7
45.7
50.0
60.3
64.0
67.0
16.7
2.7
16.0
2
9.7 33.7 39.7 47.3 51.3 54.0 56.0 49.0
8.7 17-7
3
5.3 24.7 26.3 28.3 30.3 31.7 33.0 65.0 32.3 49.7
4 16.0 33.0 40.0 45.0 47.0 50.0 52.0 21.0 14.0 66.7
F2
i
12.4
34.3
40.9
46.1
50.2
55.3
58.6
14.8
1.1
7.3
2 11.1 38.4 44.6 49.5 52.5 54.3 56.3 36.2
5.0 13.8
3
5.6 26.2 29.8 33.0 35.9 38.2 40.5 54.4 23.3 42.8
4 16.6 36.3 39.4 42.6 44.9 47.1 48.8 63.9 25.3 39.6
Reciprocal
1
8.5
34.4
43.8
53.0
57.4
59.8
61.6
25.6
2.6
10.1
2
8.0 36.4 46.3 53.0 55.2 57.3 59.4 35.2
6.9 19.7
3
5.6 25.3 27.6 29.3 30.9 32.3 33.6 71.3 30.2 42.4
4 17.4 36.8 39.8 42.6 45.0 47.2 48.2 44.4 24.1 54.3

---

28
T a b l e 9.
Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days
f r o m p l a n t i n g t o first, f i f t h ,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and
twenty-f ifth f lowers; number of full-size pods; number of mature
pods; and
p e r c e n t m a t u r e p o d s f o r t h e c r o s s Sn55-437/Tx851856
and its reciprocals by replication.
-w-I_--
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
%MP
F1
1
11.0
40.7
50.3
53.3
55.7
57.3
59.3
16.3
0.7
4.1
2
9.3 40.3 50.7 57.3 60.0 63.0 65.7 22.3
6.0 26.9
3
5.3 27.7 31.7 35.3 38.3 39.7 40.7 53.0 22.0 41.5
4 19.5 42.0 47.0 49.0 50.5 51.5 52.5 33.5 20.5 61.2
Reciprocal
1
9.0
36.5
54.5
58.5
62.0
64.0
66.0
14.0
0.5
3.6
2
9.7 37.0 45.0 50.5 53.5 56.5 58.0 24.0
4.0 16.7
3
6.3 28.0 33.0 35.0 37.0 39.0 40.7 42.7 20.3 47.6
4 16.0 36.0 38.0 39.3 41.0 42.7 44.7 46.7 28.3 60.7
F2
1
11.9
4 2 . 9
51.2
57.6
60.1
61.9
63.4
12.6
0.9
7.7
2
9.9 46.2 54.6 59.9 61.8 63.6 64.9 22.6
4.8 21.1
3
5.6 30.0 36.0 39.8 42.4 43.9 45.3 49.1 18.9 38.5
4
17.9 38.1 42.3 45.7 47.4
48.9 50.6 36.5 20.5 56.0
Rec iprocal
1
9.3
35.2
45.4
54.0
57.2
60.2
62.4
15.7
0.8
5.0
2
8.5 37.2 45.5 50.2 53.0 55.5 56.8 27.5
9 . 9 3 5 . 9
3
7.9 27.6 30.2 32.8 34.2 35.8 36.6 45.9 25.0 54.8
4 17.0 36.0 38.8 41.3 44.0 45.3 47.2 30.4 18.9 62.2
- 1 - 1
- - - - - - - - - - - l - - - - l _ _ _ - - - - - - - -

---

29
Table 10.
Mean number of days from planting to emergence: days
from planting to first, fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and
twenty-fifth flowers; number of full-size pods; number of mature
pods and percent mature pods for the cross Sn55-437/TxAG-1 and its
reciprocals by replication.
-a-----
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
%MP
-
-
-
-
-m--
- - - - - - - -
F1
1 11.3 44.7
49.0
53.0
56.3
59.3
61.0 17.3 5.8
1.0
2
9.0 41.0 51.0 54.5 56.5 57.5 58.5 30.5
4.5 14.8
3
6.0 27.0 32.3 34.7 36.7 38.3 39.7 62.7 24.3 38.8
4 17.5 37.5 40.5 42.5 45.5 46.5 49.0 63.0 34.5 54.8
Reciprocal
1 ,ll.O
36.0
43.0
48.7
51.3
52.3
54.0
31.7
4.0
12.6
2
8.7 35.3 38.0 43.0 48.7 51.0 53.3 40.3
7.7 19.0
3
6.3 27.0 31.0 33.3 34.3 36.7 38.0 43.3 19.3 44.6
4 18.0 36.0 38.3 39.3 40.7 41.7 43.3 71.0 27.3 38.5
F2
1
10.2
37.4
44.9
52.6
57.0
59.9
61.9
12.1
1.0
8.2
2
8.5
38.3
49.1
53.4
56.1
57.9
59.8
26.6
3.3
12.3
3
6.3
28.6
32.0
34.4
35.9
37.6
39.5
61.5
27.0
44.0
4
17.1
37.4
40.5
42.9
44.7
46.6
48.5
46.6
22.8
48.9
Reciprocal
1
11.3
41.6
50.9
57.2
60.4
62.3
63.5
15.0
0.7
4.5
2
8.2
37.2
45.6
50.8
53.9
56.1
57.8
26.5
7.1
26.8
3
5.8
26.4
30.0
33.1
35.2
36.7
38.8
58.9
25.1
42.6
4
17.6
37.2
39.9
42.7
45.3
47.6
49.5
44.1
20.8
47.2
------
-------------__y_--_____________

---

30
T a b l e 1 1 .
Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days
f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t , f i f t h ,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and
t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s : number of full-size pods; number of mature
pods:
and percent mature pods for the cross Sn55-437/TxAG-2 and its
reciprocals by repl ication.
a----
--
--
-I
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTWC; FULL NUMP
%MP
:l 9.3 48.0 57.7 60.0 62.0 64.0 65.0 14.0 1.3 9.5
2
10.0
43.7
49.0
55.3
60.0
62.0
62.7
27.0
10.0
37.0
3
5.0
28.3
30.3
33.7
36.0
37.3
39.0
69.0
30.0
43.5
4
18.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
55.5
58.0
30.0
20.5
68.3
Reciprocal
1
7.3
32.3
38.0
48.7
54.7
56.0
57.7
28.3
3.3
11.7
2
9.3
34.0
36.7
42.0
49.7
53.0
54.3
22.7
9.7
42.7
3
5.3
25.3
26.3
28.3
29.7
30.7
31.7
67.0
28.0
41.8
4
19.0
38.5
40.0
41.5
42.5
43.5
45.0
81.0
49.0
60.5
F2
1
10.4
37.5
47.5
52.6
55.7
58.8
60.6
17.5
2.1
12.2
2
9.6
43.3
50.2
54.2
56.6
58.4
60.2
30.0
12.4
41.3
3
5.8
27.4
31.2
33.7
35.7
37.4
38.7
66.3
22.2
33.4
4
16.8
38.2
41.6
44.9
47.6
49.8
51.2
52.5
29.3
55.8
Reciprocal
1
10.9
43.2
52.2
56.4
58.6
61.3
62.8
19.5
3.4
17.4
2
10.2
42.1
49.1
53.7
56.2
58.2
59.7
26.1
9.4
36.2
3
5.9
25.3
27.8
29.7
31.2
32.8
34.2
68.3
32.1
46.9
4
18.4
39.8
42.7
45.3
47.1
48.6
50.0
47.0
28.0
59.7

---

31
Table 12.
Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days
from planting to first, fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and
twenty-fifth flowers;
number of full-size pods; number of mature
pods;
and percent mature pods for the cross
Tx851856/TxAG-1
and
its reciprocals by repl ication.
--
S-P
- - -
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
%MP
--PS
--- --A--
7
9.3
34.0
41.7
50.7
52.3
55.3
57.3
22.7 0.7 2.9
2
9.7 38.0 43.0 46.3 51.3 53.3 55.0 45.7 11.7 25.5
3
6.0 28.0 33.0 36.3 37.0 39.0 41.0 27.7 12.7 45.8
4 19.0 42.5 47.5 50.5 52.0 53.5 54.5 25.0 17.5 70.0
Reciprocal
1
7.7
33.0
47.0
52.3
56.7
58.3
59.7
36.3
2.7
7.5
2 10.0 38.3 45.7 51.0 53.0 56.3 58.0 30.3
5.6 18.7
3
5.3
25.0
26.7
28.0
29.7
30.7
33.7
63.3
28.7
45.3
4
20.0
40.0
44.0
49.0
51.0
52.0
54.0
47.0
28-O
59.6
F2
1 11.8 37.7 46.7 52.5 55.3 57.1 58.5 15.4 1.1 7-l
2
8'.1 37.2 45.8 50.4 53.7 55.3 56.8 25.1
4.8 18.9
3
5.4 26.1 28.7 30.5 31.9 33.2 34.3 63.5 26.8 42.2
4 16.5 35.5 38.8 41.5 44.8 47.3 48.9 33.6 18.7 55.7
Rec i p rocal
1
8.2
31.1
39.2
47.1
53.3
58.0
60.2
27.6
1.5
5.5
2 10.5 40.1 47.1 51.1 53.6 55.7 57.3 25.2
4.7 18.5
3
5.3 27.1 30.9 33.6 36.0 36.8 38.5 50.6 26.2 51.8
4 17.3 38.2 41.5 44.0 46.5 47.9 49.2 42.5 24.7 58.0

---

32
Table 13.
Mean number of days from planting to emergence: days
f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t ,
f ifth,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and
t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s ; number of full-size pods; number of mature
pods: and
percent mature pods for the cross Tx851856/TxAG-2 and
its reciprocals by replication.
-
-
--
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
%MP
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
9.0 3 2 . 0 3 8 . 3 4 4 . 0
5 4 . 7 5 7 . 7
59.3
30.7
0.3
1.1
2 11.5 41.5 48.5 51.5 53.0 57.0 58.5 27.0
4.5 16.7
3
JC
*
;'x
*
k
*
*
k
*
n
4
17.0
37.3
40.0
41.7
42.7
45.3
46.3
59.7
37.3
62.6
Reciprocal
1
8.7
40.7
48.7
51.7
58.7
59.7
61.3
24.0
1.0
4.2
2
8.0 41.5 49.5 53.0 55.0 57.0 59.0 29.0
5.0 17.2
3
6.3 30.3 32.0 33.0 36.3 37.7 38.7 55.0 30.3 55.1
4 19.5 35.5 41.5 47.5 49.5 50.5 52.5 30.5 16.0 52.5
F2
1
10.5
33.5
41.2
47.7
51.5
53.8
56.0
22.3
0.5
2.1
2
9.9
38.8
46.8
51.7
55.4
57.2
58.7
19.6
3.9
19.8
3
5.4
25.2
27.7
29.9
31.5
33.1
34.4
57.1
28.2
49.3
4
17.2
38.4
41.2
43.6
45.8
47.7
49.6
40.9
24.6
60.2
Reciprocal
1
9.0
36.5
44.3
52.5
57.2
59.0
61.1
20.9
1.4
6.8
2
9.4
37.5
46.4
5Oa7
53.3
55.0
57.0
27.3
4 .5
16.6
3
6.6
28.9
32.0
34.7
36.3
38.1
39.6
52.4
25.2
48.1
4
18.3
38.0
41.6
44.0
45.9
47.6
48.7
33.6
18.8
56.1
*,lndicates missing values.

---

33
T a b l e 14.
Mean number of days from planting to emergence; days
f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t ,
f ifth,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and
twenty-f ifth f lowers;
number of full-size pods: number of mature
pods;
and percent mature pods for the cross TxAG-l/TxAG-2 and its
reciprocals by replication.
---
s-e-----
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTWS FULL NUMP
%MP
7.3 32.0 35.0 43.3 50.0 52.7 53.7 27.3 1.7 6.1
2 10.0 38.0 44.0 48.0 49.5 50.5 52.0 39.5 16.5 41.8
3
5.3 25.0 26.7 28.0 29.7 31.0 32.0 69.3 34.7 50.0
4 17.0 36.7 38.3 40.0 41.3 41.7 44.0 54.0 39.7 73.5
Reciprocal
1
9 . 0
36.3
51.7
53.7
55.7
57.3
58.3
24.0
2.0
8.3
3
6.0 30.0 37.5 41.0 43.0 44.5 46.0 18.3 10.0 54.6
4 18.2 36.9 40.9 43.1 44.1 45.9 47.1 46.0 27.9 60.6
:2 7.9 36.1 46.4 53.1 57.1 59.5 61.0 21.3 0.9 4.2
2
7.9 38.5 45.7 50.8 53.9 55.8 57.6 27.0
8.3 30.7
3
5.6 26.2 28.7 30.5 32.6 34.6 36.4 67.9 32.7 48.1
4 19.3 40.7 43.8 46.4 49.0 50.8 52.5 46.9 27.9 59.6
Reciprocal
1
7.1
38.4
50.2
53.5
56.2
56.6
58.1
27.0
2.6
9.6
3
5.0 33.0 37.9 41.1 43.4 44.3 46.4 31.6 16.7 52.9
*,lndicates missing values.

---

the cases,
the F,, F29
and reciprocal means do not differ much
from their parents in terms of days from planting to twenty and
twenty-five flowers.
The FI plants emerged and flowered earl ier
than both parents and most of the F2.
S o m e F2 segregates did emerge and flower earlier than both
p a r e n t s a n d F,
(Table
4 and 6).
I n c r o s s e s w h e r e Chico o r
Tx851856 are used as the male parents,
t h e F, and F2 generations
are
earlier than the rest of the crosses.
I n fact, t h e c r o s s
TxAG-2/Ch ico emerged
and flowered the earliest followed by
the
cross TxAG-2/TxAG-1 which has the highest %MP. However,
t h e F2
g e n e r a t i o n o f
the cross Chico/Tx851856 and its
rec i procal
are
earl ier
than everything else even though the lead is not
quite
significant.
Correlations Among Traits
C o e f f i c i e n t s
of correlation between the different
variables
w e r e
estimated on a replication basis.
D a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t a
emergence
(DEMR) and to a specified flower number (DONE, DFIVE,
DTEN, DFIFT, DTWEN, DTW5) were correlated with the number of full
size p o d s (FULL),
number of mature pods (NUMP), and percent
mature pods (%MP).
The coefficients of correlation for nurrber of
f u l l - s i z e p o d s r a n g e d f r o m -0.199 t o - 0 . 4 6 9 , f o r D E M R t o DTWS,
respect ively,
in replication one (Table 15). Similar values were
o b t a i n e d f o r r e p l i c a t i o n s two, t h r e e , a n d f o u r . T h e n e g a t i v e
correlation means that fewer days to a given flower number resul-
t e d
in larger numbers of full-size and mature pods. The associa-
tion of days to flower and NUMP increased progressively from DONE

---

35
Table 15.
Coefficients of correlation between days froc planting
t o emergence,
t o f i r s t ,
f ifth,
t e n t h , f i f t e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , a n d
t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s w i t h number o f full-size pods, nu&er o f
mature pods,
and percent mature pods within each replicaion.
DEMR
DONE
DF IVE
DTEN
DFIFT
DTWEN
DTW5
-
Replication 1
FULL -o.lgg* -0.1982 -0.22g* -0.2882 -O.343* -0.405"~ -o.46gn
NUMP -0.102 -0.081
-0.077
- 0 . 0 6 2
-0.070
- 0 . 1 1 4
-0.152*
%MP
-0.098 -0.105
-0.045
0.063
0.111
0.120
0.124
Repl icat ion 2
FULL - 0 . 1 5 1
-0.338* -0.354* -0.403* -0.466* -0.4945x -0.512*
NUMP -0.081 -0.204*
-0.262* -O.321* -O.366* -0.378* -0.387"
%MP - 0 . 0 5 0 - 0 . 1 6 2
-0.241* -0.2g2”x -o.zgj* - 0 . 2 7 6
-0.2782
Repl icat ion 3
FULL -0.232* -0.402* -0.441* -0.4699: -0.4862 -0.4g2k -o.i+gc+
NUMP -0.247* -0.506*
-0.551* -O.575* -0.578* -0.572* -0.576*
%MP
0.028 - 0 . 0 3 9
-0.040
- 0 . 0 3 2
-0.021
-0 .oog
-0.007
Repl icat ion 4
F
U
L
L
-0.2g5k -0.292* -0.3441( -0.368* -0.3g3* -0.3g8* -0.409”
NUMP -0.347* -0.373* -0.416* -o.44g* -0.47o+c -0.481'~ .+48g$t
%MP -o.203* -0.216* -0.210* -0.22on -0.220* -0.215* -0.213*
* indicates a significance probability
level of 0.0001.
to DTW5.
I n general,
NUMP and FULL were better correlated with
days to a given number of flower than %MP. The positive correla-
tion of percent mature pods (%MP) and DTEN through DTW5 in repli-
cat ion
one
was
inconsistent
with the
r e s u l t s
in
t h e o t h e r

---

36
repl icat ions.
Figures
5, 6, 7, and 8 show the correlations for
replications one, two, three, and four, respectively.
Association of the number of days from emergence (DEMR) to a
predetermi ned
number of f lowers with FULL,
NUMP,
and %MP are
shown in Table 16.
Table 16. Coefficients of correlation between days from
e m e r g e n c e t o f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , a n d
twenty-f ifth
f lowers
with number of full-size pods,
number of
mature pods,
and percent mature pods within each replication.
--
-BM-
---
----
---
DONE
DF IVE
DTEN
DFIFT
DTWEN
DTW5
p-1_
--1_m_1___
Repl icat ion 1
FULL
-0.151* -0.187”” -0.235* -0.27~
-0.355;:
-o.30yr
NUMP
-0.054
-0.052
-0.031
-0.033
-0.068
-0 .ogg
%MP
-0.083
-0.020
0.096
0.146*
0.154*
0.156*
Repl ication 2
FULL
-0.321*
-0.334* -0.3749~ -0.4382 -0.467*
-0.485*
NUMP
-0.196* -0.254+ -O.jOg* -0.355" -0.367*
-0.3774
%MP
-0.159
-0.240* -0.287* -0.28gk -0.272%
-0.273%
Replication 3
FULL
-0.366* -0.420* -0.451* -0.468* -0.474*
-0.476*
NUMP
-0.476* -0.536* -0.561* -0.564* -0.556*
-0.558*
%MP
-0.053
-0.051
-0.041
-0.028
-0.016
-0.013
Replication 4
FULL
-0.163*
-0.27'+* -0.309" -0.334* -0.338*
-0.348%
NUMP
-0.236* -0.337" -0.384* -0.404* -0.413?r
-0.419%
%MP
-0.134* -X1.151* -o.l6g* -0.1682 -0.160*
-0.155"
-
-
-w-m
- m m --
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*,lndicates a significance probabi lity level of 0.0001.

---

.20 71
LEGENG
. 1 5
a
0
cl
X
F U L L
-4
N U M P
0
a % M P
e
0
0
X
X
X
-.25
--30
X
--35
x
-.40
X
I
-.45 --
x
-.50
DEMR DONE DFIVE D-l-EN DFIFTDTWENDTW5
D a y s a f t e r p l a n t i n g
F i g u r e 5 . C o r - r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n days f r o m p l a n t i n g ta f i r s t ,
fifth, t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s , a n d
n u m b e r o f full-size p o d s , n u m b e r o f m a t u r e p o d s , a n d
p e r c e n t m a t u r e pods f o r r e p i i c a t î o n 1,

---

LEGEND
---TO6
x
FULL
-.12
0
N U M P
0
- . l 8
0
% M P
0
--24
0
0
c l
0
-30
0
0
0
X
-.36
x
0
0
0
x
--42
-.48
x
x
-.54
-.650
DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFTDTWENDTW5
Day3 after pianting
F i g u r e 6 . C o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n days f r o r n planting to f i r s t ,
f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s , a n d
n u m b e r o f full-size p o d s , n u m b e r o f m a t u r e p o d s , ond
p e r c e n t m a t u r e pods f o r ret3Iication 2

---

LEGEND
x
FULL
0 N U M P
o %MP
-.21
X
0
-.27
-.33
-.39
x
-.45
X
X
x
x
X
-.51
0
t
0
-.57 -c
0
0
0
0
-.60 ’
DEMR DONE DFIVE D-l-EN DFIFTDTWENDTW5
D a y s after pianting
F i g u r e 7. C o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n d a y s f r o m planting t o f i r s t ,
f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , t w e n t y - f i f t h flowers, a n d
n u m b e r o f full-size p o d s , n u m b e r o f m a t u r e p o d s , and
p e r c e n t m a t u r e Dods f o r rer,lication 3

---

0
LEGEND
-.05
x
FULL
-.lO
0
N U M P
cI % M P
-.15
-.20
Cl
0
E3
0
0
-.25
-.30
x
-.35
0
x
0
x
-.40
x
x
0
X
-.45
0
0
0
-.50
0
DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFiFTDTWENDTW5
Days after planting
F i g u r e 8 . C o r r e l a t i o n between d a y s f t - o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t ,
fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r s , and
n u m b e r o f fuli-size pods, n u m b e r o f m a t u r e pods. and
p e r c e n t m a - t u t - e pods f o r replication 4

---

41
Overall , taking off days from planting to emergence from the
values of days to a given number of flowers was no better than
using days from planting.
The correlation between DONE,
DFIVE, DTEN, DFIFT, DTWEN, and
DTW5 with DEMR for the four replications are shown in Table 17#
In a11 replications the association becomes smaller as the number
of f lowers increased.
Table 17.
Coefficients of correlation for days from planting to
f i r s t , f i f t h , t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , a n d t w e n t y - f i f t h
flowers and days from planting to emergence for each replication.
DONE
DFIVE
DTEN
DFIFT
DTWE N
DTW5
-----e---v--
N--w---
Rep. 1
o.496*
0.382::
0.270*
0.174*
0.106
0.048
Rep.2
0.375"
0.2g8*
0.244*
0.260*
0.257"
0.261"n
Rw.3
0.469*
0.457""
0.430*
0.4139;
o.jgg*
0.373*
Rep.4
0.7472
0.724*
0.673"
0.631*
0.6051:
0.596*
P-Iy---
* indicates a 0.0001 significance probability level.
Rep .=replication.
The llr-ll values are highest for replication four, which was the
slowest replication to emerge, followed by three, the fastest to
emerge.
Associations of rate of flowering with FULL,
NUMP,
and %MP
were tested as the days from DONE to DFIVE, DTEN, DFIFT, DTWEN,

---

42
and DTW5 (Table 18). The coefficients of correlation were smaller
than for days from planting and days from emergence and the pod
development measures .
Table 18.
Coefficients of correlation between days from
first
flower to days to fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, and twenty-
fifth flowers,
and number of full-size pods,
number of mature
pods, and percent mature pods within the 4 replications.
DFIVE
DTEN
DFIFT
DTWEN
DTW5
Replication 1
FULL
-0.085
-0.106
-0.111
-0.118
-0.141
NUMP
-0.010
0.017
0.01g
-0.007
-0.028
%MP
0.063
0.177*
0.210*
0.202*
0.1932
Replication 2
FULL
-0.063
-0.049
-0.086
-0.102
-0.122
NUMP
-0.112
-0.125
-0.145
-0.145
-0.152
%MP
-0.141
-0.145
-0.118
-0 .og3
-0.091
Replication 3
FULL
-0.2942
-0.355x'
-0.378*
-0.38~
-0.384*
NUMP
-0.362*
-0.41g*
-0.420fc
-0.402*
-0.4072
%MP
-0.023
-0.010
0.007
0.029
0.033
Replication 4
FULL
-0.265*
-0.296*
-0.31g"x
-0.3162
-0.322*
NUMP
-0.28~
-0.338*
-0.3562
-0.359*
-0.35g*
%MP
-0.088
-0.122
-0.120
-0.107
-0.100
*,lndicates a 0.0001 significance probability level.

---

43
T h e c o e f f i c i e n t
of correlation between FULL and NUMP were
p o s i t i v e i n a11 f o u r r e p l i c a t i o n s ; and ranged from 0.388 to 0.753.
T h e i1r11
values for FULL and %MP were negative
a n d
significant
(P=O.OOOl )
i n t w o o f t h e f o u r r e p l i c a t i o n s ( T a b l e 19) r e s u l t i n g
in some tendency toward a lower percentage of mature pods as
the
number of full-size pods increased.
T a b l e 19.
C o e f f i c i e n t s o f c o r r e l a t i o n f o r n u m b e r o f f u l l - s i z e
pods and
number of mature pods and percent mature
pods
within
repl icat ions.
---- --
- - - - - -
Rep. 1
Rep.2
Rep.3
Rep.4
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- e-w--
NUMP
0.388fc
0.602f
0.648*
0.753"
%MP
-0.067
0.136
-0.484*
-0.177""
*,lndicates a s i g n i f i c a n c e p r o b a b i l i t y level o f 0 . 0 0 0 1 .
Rep .=replication.
The coefficients of correlation for NUMP and %MP were positive in
a11
r e p l i c a t i o n s ( T a b l e 2 0 ) . T h e c o r r e l a t i o n w a s s t r o n g f o r
r e p l i c a t i o n two,
intermediate for replications one and four, and
relatively low for replication three.

---

44
T a b l e 2 0 .
Coefficient of correlation for number of mature pods
and percent mature pods within replications.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rep.1
Rep.2
M-3
Rep.4
%MP
0.592*
0.759”
0.244*
0.420*
m-
--
a---
----
*,lndicates a significance probability level of 0.0001.
Rep.=replication.
H e r i t a b i l i t y
H e r i t a b i l i t y
i s
an estimate
of the proportion of the
t o t a l
v a r i a b i l i t y
that is due to genetic causes, or the ratio of the
g e n e t i c variante t o t h e t o t a l variante ( 1 ) .
Heritability estimates in the broad sense were calculated for
the variables DONE,
DTEN, DTW5, FULL, and NUMP using the formula
of Allard (1) which is as follows:
H=VG/vp
w h e r e
vG =genetic variante
Vp=total phenotypic variante
The var i ance of the F 2 generation represents the total
variante,
a n d
t h e variantes o f t h e F,
a n d
t h e t w o p a r e n t s
correspond to the environmental variante. Thus, to estimate broad
sense heritability (H) in these conditions we used the equation
H=(vF2-(VF,+p,+p2)/VF2)X100
w h e r e
‘F2’
mean
of the variantes of F2 of a cross and
i t s
reciprocal.
‘Fl+Pl+PZ= mean
of the var i ances of F, and the two
parents of a cross and its reciprocal.

---

45
Heritabi 1 ity
e s t i m a t e s w e r e computed f o r each r e p l i c a t i o n o f a
cross.
t h e r e a f t e r ,
t h e mean h e r i t a b i l i t y w a s e s t i m a t e d b y
averaging
the
four
repl icate
est imates of a
cross:
(Hl+H2+H3+H4)/4.
Estimates of heritability for DONE, DTEN, DTW5,
FULL, and NUMP are shown in Table 21.
T a b l e 2 1 .
Mean heritability estimates for days from planting to
first, tenth, and twenty-fifth flowers, number of full-site pods,
a n d
number of mature pods for each cross and its reciprocal over
replications.
Cross*
DONE
DTEN
DTW5
FULL
N U M P
-
-
-
-
-
-
TxAG-2/Ch ico
45.7
22.2
49.2
27.1
54.3
TxAG-2/Sn+437
49.4
64.6
48.8
39.5
40.4
TxAG-2/Tx851856
10.7
36.7
36.4
41 .o
43.4
TxAG-2,‘TxAG-1
39.3
53.1
60.6
39.5
4.9
TxAG-l/Chico
22.5
25.3
16.8
9.9
3.8
TxAG-l/Sn55-437
37.0
43.3
60.0
13.0
27.9
TxAG-l/Tx851856
13.9
27.4
51.6
52.5
20.9
Chico/Sn55-437
40.0
38.8
48.6
22.8
58.8
Chico/Tx851856
54.7
59.3
46.2
61.1
57.2
Sn55-437/Tx851856
4 2 . 8
43.8
33.6
58.3
44.7
-------
---me
---e--e-
*,Crosses
a n d
t h e i r
reciprocals
w e r e
used to
est imate
h e r i t a b i l i t y .

---

46
Est imates
o f t h e h e r i t a b i l i t y o f t h e v a r i o u s t r a i t s f o r
the
10
cross
combinations
w e r e
i ntermed i ate
t o
low.
T h e
heritabilities tended to be higher for some crosses than others ,
a l t h o u g h f o r n o c r o s s w e r e t h e h e r i t a b i l i t i e s o f t h e d i f f e r e n t
t r a i t s c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h .
I n general,
the heritabi 1 ity estimates
for Chico/Tx851856 tended to be high and those for TxAG-l/Chico
low.
The heritabilities averaged highest over crosses for DTW5.
The low estimate for NUMP in the cross TxAG-2/TxAG-1 may relate
to a very small population size. The number of F2 plants for this
cross was much lower than for the other crosses.
The variantes of the F, and parent plants were sometimes very
h i g h compared t o t h e variantes o f F2. The number of F, and parent
plants
were lower than those of the F2.
In some situations only
t w o p l a n t s w e r e
used to compute the variante of the Fl
in a
replication.
The estimates
o f
h e r i t a b i l i t y s u g g e s t t h a t some p r o g r e s s
could be expected i n se lection for the various traits among most
crosses.
The estimates would also suggest that progress might be
better in some crosses than in others.
Segregation Patterns
The number of full-size pods (FULL) and number of mature pods
( NUMP) were
assigned a priori as the most useful
i n d i c a t o r o f
-
e a r l i n e s s : hence, the segregation patterns were examined based on
t h e s e c r i t e r i a .
Data for crosses and reciprocal crosses were
combined within each replication for analyses of the segregation.

---

47
N o
group i ngs
f o r meaningful
segregation
r a t i o s
w e r e
discernible; thus, t h e means, variantes, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , a n d
ranges are shown by replication for the variables FULL and NUMP
in Tables 22 through 41.
I n general ,
the F, and F2 generation means were within or
m o r e
than their respective parental means.
Only for
t h e c r o s s
Sn55-437/TxAG-2 were the means of a11 replications of both the F,
a n d
the F2 generations greater than those of their parents.
Al1
Fl
means o f Chico/Tx851856 a n d a11 F2 means
o f Tx851856/TxAG-1
were between
the parental means.
The number of ful l-size pods
produced by t h e F, p l a n t s w e r e m o s t l y w i t h i n t h e r a n g e o f t h e
parents,
b u t t h e F2 ranges often extended beyond those of
the
parents.
Within
repl icat ions
t h e r a n g e s f o r t h e F2 g e n e r a t i o n s
surpassed the parents in the number of full-size or mature pods
in one or more replications in a11 crosses. This is an indication
of a transgressive segregation. Consequently, it should be possi-
ble to have segregates that have more full-size pods and more
mature pods than their parents when allowed to mature within
the
same p e r i o d o f t i m e .
Progress in selecting for earliness
i n
prowv
o f t h e s e c r o s s e s ,
using FULL and NUMP as selection
c r i t e r i a ,
s h o u l d b e p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e o f t h e
trangress i ve
segregation and relatively high heritability.
T h e
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f F,, FS,
and parental
plants
in
replication three was chosen for illustration because the
plants
in that replication were not affected by excessive moisture.

---

48
Table 22. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Chico/Sn55-437 and
its reciprocal within repl ications.
Mean
Variante
St.dev.
Range
Repl ication 1
Chico
20.14
144.98
12.04
2-40
Sn55-437
15.14
47.69
6.90
4-28
F1
28.40
58.24
7.63
20-4 1
F2
22.61
196.64
14.02
l-69
Replication 2
Chico
46.60
589.84
24.28
9-72
Sn55-437
24.71
171.34
13.09
7-50
134.00
F1
26.00
11.57
6-34
F2
29.24
214.78
14.65
5-78
Repl ication 3
Chico
69.64
434.37
20.84
25-98
Sn55-437
53.46
726.64
26 0%
4-98
1404.81
F1
87.16
37.48
41-133
F2
64.98
951.22
30.84
6-147
Repl ication 4
Chico
45 097
739.54
27.19
z-98
Sn55-437
34.13
630.57
25.11
4-98
1001.84
F1
74.40
31.65
40-117
F2
51.36
325.64
18.04
11-107

---

45
T a b l e 2 3 . Mean, variante, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , a n d r a n g e f o r t h e
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Chico/Tx851856 and
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Var iance
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Chico
20.14
144.98
12.06
2-40
Tx851856
13.93
46.06
6.78
6 - 2 7
F1
18.16
152.47
12.34
4-42
F2
17.45
92.99
9.64
l - 4 5
Repl icat ion 2
Chico
46.60
589.84
24.28
9-72
Tx851856
20.33
160.22
12.65
1-38
Fl
42.40
190.64
13.80
24-64
F2
40.05
296.98
17.23
3-96
Replication 3
Chico
69.64
434.37
20.84
z-98
Tx851856
37.06
113.12
10.63
22-59
Fl
46.00
285.20
16.88
20-63
F2
57.64
589.69
24.28
8-126
Replication 4
Chico
45 -97
739.54
27.19
z-98
Tx851856
24.72
200.89
14.17
l-59
Fl
39 080
32.56
5.70
33-48
F2
47.50
359.60
18.96
1 l-99

---

Table 24. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of full-size pods in the cross Chico/TxAG-1
a n d
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Variante
St.dev.
Range
Replication 1
Chico
20.14
144.98
12.04
2-40
TxAG-1
25.00
152.13
12.33
9-47
F1
28.00
290.33
17.03
10-61
F2
19.33
180.36
13.42
1-71
Replication 2
Chico
46.60
589.84
24.28
9-72
TxAG-1
36.85
46.12
6.79
24-46
F1
44.66
104.22
10.20
36-59
F2
37.56
293.24
17.12
6-72
Replication 3
Chico
69.64
434.37
20.84
v-98
TxAG-1
96.61
622.85
24.95
64-l 39
F1
73.33
903 -55
30.05
39-l 19
84.30
F2
781.39
27.95
11-168
Replication 4
Chico
45.97
739.54
27.19
z-98
TxAG-1
52.79
1250.50
35.36
g-139
F1
71.50
1071.25
32.73
18-101
480.85
21.92
15-121
F2
56.86

---

5 1
Table 25. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of full-size pods in the cross Chico/TxAG-2 and
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Var i ance
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Chico
20.14
144.98
12.04
2-40
TxAG-2
17.28
96.77
9.83
l-35
F1
18.20
155.36
12.46
4-36
242.45
F2
21.26
15.57
l-62
Repl icat ion 2
Chico
46.60
589.84
24.28
Y-72
TxAG-2
19.33
154.22
12.41
l-34
F1
45.25
111.68
10.56
34-62
F2
36.43
353.86
18.81
3-84
Replication 3
Chico
69.64
434.37
20.84
25-98
TxAG-2
60.41
430.91
20.75
16-82
F1
75.83
302.47
17.39
44-97
F2
62.20
608.82
24.67
4-112
Repl ication 4
Chico
45.97
739.54
27.19
2-98
TxAG-2
34.23
558.58
23.63
t-82
F1
32.66
572.22
23.92
11-66
F2
55.30
616.93
24.83
5-110

---

52
Table 26. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of full-sire pods in the cross Sn55-437/Tx851856
and its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Var iance
St.dev.
Range
Repl ication 1
Sn55-437
15.14
47.69
6.90
4-58
Tx851856
13.93
46.06
6.78
5-27
F1
15.40
10.24
3.20
1 l-20
F2
15.22
80.20
8.95
l-39
Repl icat ion 2
Sn55-437
24.71
171.34
13.09
7-50
Tx851856
20.33
160.22
12.65
l-38
F1
45.25
111.68
10.56
34-62
F2
25.56
136.37
11.67
4-56
Repl ication 3
Sn55-437
53.46
726.64
26.95
4-98
Tx851856
37.06
113.12
10.63
22-59
F1
47.83
447.13
21.14
25-76
520.49
22.81
F2
47.30
2-99
Repl icat ion 4
Sn55-437
34.13
630.57
25.11
4-98
Tx851856
24.72
zoo .8g
14.17
l-59
F1
41.40
73.84
8.59
31-56
F2
32.70
266.66
16.32
6-71

---

5 3
T a b l e 27. Mean, variante, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , a n d r a n g e f o r t h e
variable
number of full-size pods in the cross Sn55-437/TxAG-1
and its reciprocal within repl ications.
Mean
Var iance
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Sn55-437
15.14
47.69
6.90
4-58
TxAG- 1
25 .oo
152.13
12.33
9 - 4 7
Fl
24.50
106.91
10.34
6-36
F2
14.15
45.20
6.72
2-34
Replication 2
Sn55-437
24.71
171.34
13.09
7-50
TxAG-1
36.85
46.12
6.79
24-46
F1
36.40
157.84
12.56
26-61
F2
28.03
130.03
11.40
4-59
Repl icat ion 3
Sn55-437
53.46
726.64
26.95
4-98
TxAG-1
96.61
622.85
24.95
64-l 39
F1
53 .oo
767.00
27.69
5-87
24.31
10-138
F2
60.21
591.02
Repl icat ion 4
Sn55-437
34.13
630.57
25.11
4-98
TxAG-1
52.79
1250.50
35.36
9-l 39
584.56
F1
67.80
24.17
38-109
F2
45.46
227.86
15.09
8-81

---

54
T a b l e 28. Hean,
var iance, standard deviation, and range for the
v a r i a b l e n u m b e r o f f u l l - s i z e p o d s i n t h e c r o s s $n55-437/TxAG-2
a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s .
Mean
Var iance
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Sn55-437
15.14
47.69
6.90
4-58
TxAG-2
17.28
96.77
9.83
1-35
F1
21.16
121.47
11.02
9-43
80.07
8.94
1-38
F2
18.56
Replication 2
Sn55-437
24.71
171.34
13.09
7-50
TxAG-2
19.33
154.22
12.41
l-34
F1
24.83
28.80
5.36
17-35
205.02
14.31
F2
29.89
5-72
Repl icat ion 3
Sn55-437
53.46
726.64
26.95
4-98
TxAG-2
60.41
430.91
20.75
16-82
F1
68.00
322.66
17.96
35-94
F2
67.31
722.41
26.88
5-124
Replication 4
Sn55-437
34.13
630.57
25.11
4-98
TxAG-2
34.23
558-58
23.63
1-82
F1
55.50
1036.25
32.19
16-105
50.08
F2
350.07
18.71
1-98

---

55
Table 29. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of full-size pods in the cross Tx851856/TxAG-1
and its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Variante
St.dev.
Range
Replication 1
Tx851856
13.93
46.06
6.78
5-27
TxAG-1
25.00
152.13
12.33
9-47
Fl
29.50
79.58
8.92
18-42
F2
21.91
233 -09
15.26
l-62
Replication 2
Tx851856
20.33
160.22
12.65
1-38
TxAG-1
36.85
46.12
6.79
24-46
Fl
38.00
97.00
9.84
23-54
F2
25.17
139.16
11.79
5-64
Replication 3
Tx851856
37.06
113.12
10.63
22-59
TxAG-1
96.61
622.85
24.95
64-139
Fl
45.50
505.58
22.48
14-77
F2
57.17
496.11
22.27
11-119
Replication 4
Tx851856
24.72
zoo.89
14.17
l-59
TxAG-1
52.79
1250.50
35.36
9-139
5
32.33
131.55
11.46
19-47
F2
37.75
353.08
18.79
l-99

---

56
Table 30. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of full-size pods in the cross Tx851856/TxAG-2
and Fts reciprocal within repl ications.
Mean
Var i ance
St.dev.
Range
Replication 1
TX85 1856
13.93
46.06
6.78
5-27
TxAG-2
17.28
96.77
9.83
l-35
.
F1
32.80
156.56
12.51
17-48
144.85
12.03
2-50
F2
1L
21.96
Replication 2
Tx851856
20.33
160.22
12.65
1-38
TxAG-2
19.33
154.22
12.41
l-34
F1
28.00
33.50
5.78
22-36
148.74
F2
22 093
12.19
3-59
Repl icat ion 3
Tx851856
37.06
113.12
10.63
22-59
TxAG-2
60.41
430.91
20.75
16-82
F1
55.00
144.66
12.02
39-68
431.16
20.76
13-105
F2
54.94
Repl ication 4
Tx851856
24.72
zoo .8g
14.17
l-59
TxAG-2
34.23
558.58
23.63
1-89
48.00
F1
398 .oo
19.94
22-83
325.64
18.04
l-68
F2
37.75

---

57
Table 31. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of full-size pods in the cross TxAG-l/TxAG-2 and
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Var iance
St.dev.
Range
Replication 1
TxAG-1
25.00
152.13
12.33
Y-47
TxAG-2
17.28
96-77
9.83
l-35
F1
25.66
58.55
7.65
13-37
F2
23.36
175.07
13.23
3-53
Repl icat ion 2
TxAG-1
36.85
46.12
6.79
24-46
TxAG-2
19.33
154.22
12.41
l-34
6.25
F1
39.50
2.50
37-42
27.00
145.09
F2
12.04
4-54
Repl icat ion 3
TxAG- 1
96.61
622.85
24.95
64-139
TxAG-2
60.41
430.91
20.75
16-82
F1
52.6
697.84
26.41
11-93
F2
60.68
750.73
27.39
4-108
Repl icat ion 4
TxAG- 1
52.79
1250.50
35.36
Y-139
TxAG-2
34.23
558.58
23.63
1-82
F1
48.00
209.16
14.46
19-78
F2
46.89
259.35
16.10
18-75

---

58
T a b l e 32. Mean, variante, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , a n d r a n g e f o r t h e
variable
number of mature pods in the cross Chico/Sn55-437 and
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Variante
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Chico
1 .oo
1.85
1.36
o-4
Sn55-437
0.57
1 .lO
1.04
o-4
F1
1 ?? 40
1.84
1.35
O-3
F2
0.87
1.55
1.24
O-7
Repl ication 2
Chico
7.60
22.64
4.75
2-13
Sn55-437
4.00
30.85
5.55
o-17
F1
3.75
3.68
1 .q2
1-6
o-34
F2
6.34
43.86
6.62
Repl ication 3
Chico
35.23
51 ??71
7.20
12-42
Sn55-437
25.40
115.44
10.74
l-38
8.50
18-41
F1
27.50
72.25
88.42
9.40
4 - 4 2
F2
30 009
Replication 4
Ch ico
18.40
266.24
16.31
o-45
Sn55-437
12.31
173.76
13.18
o-38
F1
28.20
88.96
9.43
12-39
80.40
8.96
8 - 4 2
F2
2 4 . 0 4

---

Table 33. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of mature pods in the cross Chico/Tx851856 and
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Variante
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Chico
1 .oo
1.85
1.36
o - 4
Tx85 1856
0.93
1.12
1.06
O-3
F1
1.33
0.88
0 . 9 4
O-3
0.44
F2
0.43
0 . 6 6
o-2
Repl icat ion 2
Chico
7.60
22.64
4.75
2-13
Tx85 1856
4 . 1 6
11.80
3.43
O-9
5.40
F1
3.04
1.74
4-8
6.05
F2
39 -87
6.31
O-30
Repl icat ion 3
Chico
35.28
51.91
7.20
12-42
Tx851856
2 2 . 8 6
57.18
7.56
13-37
Fl
2 9 . 4 0
134.64
11.60
12-41
F2
27-35
85.37
9.23
2-42
Replication 4
Chico
18.40
266.24
16.31
o-45
Tx851856
il.27
132.04
11.49
O-37
F1
24.40
72.64
8.52
10-34
F2
26.56
181.30
13.46
5-60

---

60
Table 34. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of mature pods in the cross Chico/TxAG-1 and its
reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Variante
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Ch ico
1 .oo
1.85
1.36
o-4
TxAG-1
2.13
4.38
2.09
o-6
F1
1.66
3.55
1.88
o-5
F2
0.96
1.61
1.26
o-5
Replication 2
Chico
7.60
22.64
4.75
2-13
TxAG- 1
10.28
30.20
5.49
2-19
Fl
9.33
56.88
7.54
4-20
F2
8.11
46.55
6.82
o-34
Repl icat ion 3
Chico
45.28
51.91
7.20
12-42
TxAG-1
34.00
30 092
5.56
18-40
62.22
7.88
F1
29.66
19-39
F2
33.62
48.66
6.97
6-44
Replication 4
Ch ico
18.40
266.24
16.31
o-45
TxAG-1
16.74
1% 063
13.98
O-40
262.25
16.19
11-51
F1
36.50
F2
30.84
145.91
12.07
7-66

---

‘61
T a b l e 35. Mean, variante, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , a n d r a n g e f o r t h e
variable number of mature pods in the cross Chico/TxAG-2 and its
reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Var i ance
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Chico
1 .oo
i .85
1.36
o-4
TxAG-2
2 . 5 0
4.96
2.22
0-6
F1
2.20
2.96
1.72
O-5
F2
1.94
6.05
2.46
o-12
Repl icat ion 2
Chico
7.60
22.64
4.75
2-13
TxAG-2
5.33
22.55
4.74
o-13
F1
8.50
3.25
1.80
6-11
F2
6.59
37*43
6.11
O-30
Repl icat ion 3
Chico
35.28
51.91
7.20
12-42
TxAG-2
26.08
170.57
13.06
1-38
F1
33.50
30.91
5.56
24-4 1
F2
26.50
95.02
9.74
o-4 1
Repl ication 4
Ch ico
18.40
266.24
16.31
o-45
TxAG-2
13.92
191.45
13.83
o-39
Fl
16.33
162.88
12.76
2-33
F2
24.76
115.50
10.74
l-42

---

62
Table 36. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Sn55-437/Tx851856
and its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Var iance
St.dev.
Range
Replication 1
Sn55-437
0.57
1.10
1.04
o-4
Tx851856
0.93
1.12
1.06
O-3
F1
0.60
0.64
0.80
o-2
F2
0.94
1.60
1.26
o-4
Replication 2
Sn55-437
4.00
30.85
5.55
o-17
Tx851856
4.16
11.80
3.43
O-9
5.20
8.96
2.99
2-10
Ft
40.41
6.35
o-28
F2
7.86
Repl icat ion 3
Sn55-437
25.40
115.44
10.74
1-38
TX851856
22.86
57.18
7.56
13-37
Fl
21.16
90.47
9.51
10-33
F2
22.32
80.61
8.97
l-40
Repl ication 4
Sn55-437
12.31
173.76
13.18
o-38
Tx85.1856
11.27
132.04
11.49
O-37
25.20
F1
34.96
5.91
14-30
F2
19.50
102.20
10.10
l - 4 3

---

63
~
Table 37. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Sn55-437/TxAG-1 and
i t s r e c i p r o c a l w i t h i n r e p l i c a t i o n s .
Mean
Var i ance
St.dev.
Range
Repl ication 1
Sn55-437
0.57
1.10
1.04
o-4
TxAG-1
2.13
4.38
2 .og
0-6
F1
2.50
7.25
2.69
o-8
0.86
1.61
1.27
F2
O-5
Repl icat ion 2
Sn55-437
4.00
30.85
5.55
o-17
TxAG-1
10.28
30.20
5.49
2-19
6.40
9.04
3.00
4-12
F1
17.84
4.22
o-2 1
F2
5.51
Repl ication 3
Sn55-437
25.40
115.44
10.74
1-38
TxAG-1
34.00
30 092
5.56
18-40
F1
21.83
113.80
10.66
l-36
F2
26.08
66.97
8.18
3-41
Repl ication 4
Sn55-437
12.31
173.76
13.18
o-38
TxAG-1
16.74
195.63
13.98
O-40
5
30.20
66.56
8.15
22-45
F2
21.87
74.06
8.60
5-44

---

64
Table 38. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of mature pods in the cross Sn55-437/TxAG-2 and
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Var iance
St.dev.
Range
Repl ication 1
Sn55-437
0.57
1 .lO
1.04
o-4
TxAG-2
2.50
4.96
2.22
0-6
F1
2.33
4.55
2.13
l-7
2.78
6.76
2.60
O-10
F2
Repl icat ion 2
Sn55-437
4.00
30.85
5.55
o-17
TxAG-2
5.33
22.55
4.74
o-13
5.80
2.40
6-13
F1
9.83
58.12
7.62
2-31
F2
11.14
Repl icat ion 3
Sn55-437
25.40
115.44
10.74
1-38
TxAG-2
26.08
170.57
13.06
1-38
F1
29.16
46.13
6.79
19-39
27.12
F2
100.92
10.04
4-42
Repl icat ion 4
Sn55-437
12.31
173.76
13.18
o-38
TxAG-2
13.92
191.45
13.83
o-39
301.18
Fl
34.75
17.35
9-57
28.76
143.94
F2
11.99
l-56

---

65
Table 39. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Tx851856/TxAG-1 and
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Var i ance
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Tx851856
0.93
1.12
1.06
O-3
TxAG-1
2.13
4.38
2.09
0-6
F1
1.66
1.55
1.24
O-3
2.81
F2
1.33
1.67
O-7
Replication 2
Tx851856
4.16
11.80
3.43
O-9
TxAG-1
10.28
30.20
5.49
2-19
F1
8.66
16.22
4.02
3-19
F2
4.72
17.09
4.13
O-19
Replication 3
Tx851856
22.86
57.18
7.56
13-37
TxAG- 1
34.00
30.92
5.56
18-40
Fl
20.66
75.55
8.69
8-30
F2
26.50
85.82
9.26
4-42
Repl ication 4
Tx851856
11.27
132.04
11.49
O-37
TxAG-1
16.74
195.63
13.98
O-40
F1
21.00
52.66
7.25
ii-28
139.11
F2
21.48
11979
1-52

---

66
Table 40. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable number of mature pods in the cross Tx851856/TxAG-2 and
its reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Variante
St.dev.
Range
Repl icat ion 1
Tx85 1856
0.93
1.12
1.06
o-3
TxAG-2
2.50
4 . 9 6
2.22
o-6
F1
0.80
1.36
1.16
O-3
0.96
F2
3.03
1.74
o-8
Repl icat ion 2
Tx851856
4.16
11.80
3.43
o-9
TxAG-2
5.33
22.55
4.74
o-13
F1
4.75
3.18
1.78
2-7
F2
4.15
14.81
3.84
o-16
Replication 3
Tx851856
22.86
57.18
7.56
13-37
TxAG-2
26.08
170.57
13.06
1-38
F1
30.33
40.22
6.34
24-39
I?2
26.79
74.94
8.65
8-44
I?epl icat ion 4
- rx851856
ii .27
132.04
11.49
o-37
TxAG-2
13.92
191.45
13 083
o-39
F1 1
28.80
233 036
15.27
16-56
I-2
21.86
173.09
13.15
0 - 6 0

---

57
Table 41. Mean, variante, standard deviation, and range for the
variable
number of mature pods in the cross TxAG-l/TxAG-2 and its
reciprocal within replications.
Mean
Variante
St.dev.
Range
Replication 1
TxAG-1
2.13
4.38
2.09
o-6
TxAG-2
2.50
4.96
2.22
0-6
F1
i .83
1.13
1.06
O-3
2.02
1.42
F2
1.36
O-5
Replication 2
TxAG-1
10.28
30.20
5.49
2-19
TxAG-2
5.33
22.55
4.74
O-13
F1
16.50
56.25
7.50
g-24
8.29
F2
35.62
5.96
o-2 1
Replication 3
TxAG-1
34 .oo
30.92
5.56
18-40
TxAG-2
26.08
170.57
13.06
1-38
F1
26.80
161.76
12.71
5-41
F2
29.48
112.13
10.58
l-43
Replication 4
TxAG-1
16.74
195*63
13.98
O-40
TxAG-2
13.92
191.45
13.83
o-39
F1
30.83
98.63
9.93
12-57
F2
27.94
139.94
I 1.82
6-54

---

6 8
Combining Ability Estimates
The number
of mature pods and weight of mature
s e e d s b e s t
represented the yield in this experiment. In order to estimate the
combining
a b i l i t y t h e s e
t w o v a r i a b l e s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d .
T h e
a n a l y s i s o f
var iance
for the variables number of mature pods
(NUMP) and weight of mature seeds (WTMS) is given in Table 42.
Table 42. Analysis of variante for general and specific combining
abilities estimates for the variables number of mature pods (NUMP)
and weight of mature seeds (WTMS).
Source of
D.F.
Sum of
Mean s q u a r e s
F values
variation
squares
NUMP
G C A F
4
200.15
50.04
2.31
G C A M
4
161.31
40.33
1.86
SCA
6
308.93
51.49
2.37
Reciprocals
10
858.42
85.84
3.96*
WTMS
G C A F
4
32.78
8.19
0.44
G C A M
4
39 -07
Y=77
0.53
SCA
6
187.99
31.33
1.70
Reciprocals
10
350.31
35.03
1.90
* significant a t t h e 0 . 0 1 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

---

69
The general combining ability (GCA) for the parental
lines
was estimated for each parent used when as a male (GCAM) or as a
female (GCAF).
The GCAM as well as the GCAF were not significan-
tly different (P=O.Ol) for either NUMP or WTMS. Similarly, the
specific
combining
abilities
(SCA) were not different
statistically (Table 42).
Reciprocal differences were apparent
for NUMP but not for WTMS
TxAG-1 had the best GCA when used either as a male or as a
female parent for the variable NUMP (Table 43); it was followed
by Chico which had a GCAF of 0.15 and a GCAM of 1.1. The GCAM for
TxAG-2 was quite low.
Table 43. General combining ability estimates of the five
parental
lines used as female or as male parents for the
variables number of mature pods (NUMP) and weight of mature seeds
(WTMS).
Chico
Sn55-437
Tx851856
TxAG-1
TxAG-2
NUMP
GCAF
0.15
-0.04
-2.18
1.01
1.06
GCAM
1.10
1.02
-1.10
2.20
-3 ?? 22
WTMS
GCAF
0.33
-0.23
0.40
-0.06
-0.44
GCAM
0.94
0.28
1.62
0.70
-3.58

---

70
~
For WTMS, Tx851856 was the best parent when used either as a male
~
or as a female. It was followed by Chico and Sn55-437. TxAG-1 and
TxAG-2 did not perform well for this variable.
Specif ic
combining ability as measured by the parent and FI
generations was not different (P=O.Ol) for either of the variab-
l e s u n d e r consideration.
Numer ical ly,
the best combination of
parents for NUMP was the cross Chico/TxAG-1. For WTMS,
the
crosses
Tx851856/TxAG-1 and Chico/TxAG-1 gave the best positive
SCA values. The SCA for Sn55-437/Tx851856
was low for both varia-
bles considered.
R e c i p r o c a l differences w e r e f o u n d f o r b o t h
variables with the greatest difference in the cross TxAG-I/S~IS~-
437 for NUMP.

---

7?
DISCUSSION
Emergence rate was
variable between replications because
of the weather during the planting period.
As a consequence, the
rate of emergence varied greatly among the different replications
(F i gures
1 t h r o u g h 4 ) .
T h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e h o m o g e n e i t y o f
va r i ances
using Bartlett’s formula showed differences b e t w e e n
replications which prevented their combination for the analyses.
Mean
number o f
d a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o a g i v e n n u m b e r o f
flowers for the five parental lines showed that the first flowers
were produced by Chico followed by Sn 55-437. However, after 10
flowers there was’no significant difference (P-0.05) among the
parents according to the Waller-Duncan test (Table 3).
in using
f lower ing
pattern
to estimate earliness there was no
apparent
n e e d t o Count
to 25 f l o w e r s f o r
t h e s h o r t m a t u r i n g p e a n u t
cultivars used in this study. This might differ somewhat from the
conc 1 us ions
o f
Bear and Bailey
(6) who stated that a high
p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e 25 f i r s t f l o w e r s t o open o n p l a n t s o f
diverse
genotypes developed into mature pods.
Differences in flower development and flowering pattern exis-
ted among the parental lines (Table 4). Although Chico was first
i n
s e t t i n g f l o w e r s ,
it did not have the highest percentage of
mature
pods.
This suggests that the fruit development of Chico
was not as fast as that of some other varieties.
Thus,
we could
n o t class fy Chico as earlier than the other varieties.
I n fact,
f lower ing pattern,
especially first flower, was ineffective as a

---

72
c r i t e r i o n
for earliness among the short growth duration parents
used
in this experiment.
R e s e a r c h e r s s h o u l d b e cautious about
u s i n g f i r s t f l o w e r b y
i t s e l f a s a
c r i t e r i o n
f o r e s t i m a t i n g
earliness.
Crosses between these early maturing cultivars yielded some
progen ies
that set f lowers earl ier,
produced higher numbers of
mature
p0ds (NUI~~),
and had higher percentages of
mature
pods
(%MP) than their parents (e.g.Chico/Tx851856).
This suggests that
earlier maturing cultivars might be developed by crossing early
matur ing
lines.ln future breeding programs for earliness the use
of Chico, Tx851856,
and TxAG-2 should be considered.
The correlation study showed that a given number of f lowers
was better correlated with number of full-size
p o d s ( F U L L ) a n d
number of mature pods (NUMP) than percentage of mature pods.
T h e
association of number of days from planting to
a predetermined
number
of flowers with NUMP and FULL showed a better correlation
than number
of days from
emergence, o r
r a t e o f
flowering.
According to our data, estimates of earliness should not be made
on flowering pattern alone, FULL and/or NUMP should be considered.
On the basis of this study we suggest that flowering pattern not
be used as the criterion for earliness if a11 the parental
1 ines
are
early maturing.
A l i n e cari initiate f l o w e r i n g e a r l i e r t h a n
another but have a slower rate of flowering and pod development
and produce
comparatively low numbers of full-size
and
mature
p o d s a t
an early harvest.
Based on the results and experience

---

73
gained from this study,
the number of full-sire pods might be a
useful criterion for earliness in combination with early digging.
The number of full-size pods cari be determined more easily than
number of mature pods.
However,
awareness should be given to pod
s i r e t o a v o i d t h e s h i f t i n g o f p o p u l a t i o n s t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f
large numbers of pods of unacceptable size.
T h e h e r i t a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s f o r d a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o f i r s t
(DONE),
tenth ( DTEN),
and twenty-fifth flower (DTWS); number of
f u l l - s i z e p o d s (FULL),
and number of mature pods (NUMP) were
simi lar.
T h e h e r i t a b i l i t y p e r c e n t a g e s f o r DTW5 a n d D T E N w e r e
slightly higher than for the other variables.
The crosses invol-
ving Tx851856 had higher heritability values than those involving
the other parents,
especially the cross Chico/Tx851856.
The ten-
dency
o f h i g h e r h e r i t a b i l i t y f o r t h i s c r o s s
i n d i c a t e s g r e a t e r
genet i c
variability and suggests that the two parents differ
in
genes for the variables under consideration.
I n contrast,
l o w
her tability estimates resulted from the cross Chico/TxAG-1 indi-
c a t 4
a possible similarity of genes.
The values for the other
crosses
w e r e
intermediate between the
two crosses mentioned.
No consistency in the relative heritability percentages for the
var ied
nunker of flowers tested was apparent among crosses.
T h e
mean
value over a11 crosses was lower for DONE than for DTEN or
DTW5 which had the highest mean value over crosses. The moderate
t o l o w h e r i t a b i l i t y o f f l o w e r i n g ,
plus moderate to low correla-
t i o n
of days to flower and number of mature
pods 9
lessens t h e
p r o b a b l e s u c c e s s o f
selection for earliness on
t h e b a s i s o f

---

74
f l o w e r i n g p a t t e r n .
Segregation patterns
used in this study did not
reveal any
meaningful
segregation ratios.
Hence,
i t w a s n o t p o s s i b l e t o
ascertain the number of genes involved in flowering pattern or in
pod development among these parents.
I n f u t u r e s t u d i e s t h i s
question should be fully addressed.
The good combining
a b i l i t y o f T x A G - 1 f o r N U M P p r o b a b l y
re 1 ates
t o t h e fact t h a t i t h a s s m a l l s e e d s t h a t m a t u r e
f a s t .
Tx851856, w h i c h
had the least favorable GCA fer NUMP, had the
highest GCA for WTMS. Among the five parental lines TX851856 has
the biggest seeds,
which is assumed to explain the good GCA for
WTMS. Chico was above average in GCA for both NUMP and WTMS.
The SCA of Chico/TxAG-1 was among the best SCA for both NUMP
a n d WMS.
However,
significant differences (P=O.O5) among
S C A
va 1 ues
were not detected by the analysis of variante for
e i t h e r
of the variables.

---

75
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
F i v e e a r l y m a t u r i n g c u l t i v a r s , Chico, S n 55-437, TxAG-1,
TxAG-2, and Tx851856 were crossed in a complete diallel. Parents,
F, OS,
a n d F2 Os of the different combinations were evaluated
in
the field for flowering pattern and pod development.
T h e r e w e r e differences
in rate of emergence and flowering
pattern between the parental lines and between the progenies of
the crosses.
Some progenies were found to set f lower earl ier and
to have higher numbers of full-size and mature pods than both of
their parents,
indicating transgressive segregation.
Tests for correlations between FULL, NUMP, and %MP and a
given
number of flowers indicated that flowering pattern
alone,
e s p e c i a l l y f i r s t f l o w e r ,
could not be used effectively to deter-
m i n e
earl iness
a m o n g t h e s e e a r l y m a t u r i n g c u l t i v a r s .
This
technique might be applicable in estimating
r e l a t i v e
ear 1 iness
between genotypes of different maturity groups,
such a s runner-
type and spanish-type peanuts,
or in a cross between them.
FULL
and NUMP are more reliable criteria in selecting for earliness.
Caution
in selection on the basis of full-size and mature pods
should be given to avoid plants with unacceptable small pods.
In some situations heritability estimates for a predetermined
number of flowers were lower than heritability values of FULL and
NUMP.
D a y s f r o m p l a n t i n g t o t w e n t y - f i f t h f l o w e r (DTW5) h a d a
higher overall mean value of heritability estimates.
Combining
a b i l i t y
est imates
involving parents
a n d
F1

---

76
generations
showed that there were no
significant d i f f e r e n c e s
among
the parents in GCA when used as females or as males, or in
SCA for the variables NUMP and WTMS. However, for NUMP there were
reciprocal differences.
No meaningful segregation ratios could be detected in studies
on the segregation patterns. Hence, the number of genes
involved
was not determ ined. Future research should address that question.

---

77
REFERENCES
1
. Allard, R. W.
1960. Principles of plant breeding. John Wiley
and Sons,
Inc. New York. 485~~.
2 .
Bailey, W. K., and J. E. Bear. 1973. Components of earliness of
m a t u r i t y i n peanuts,
Arachis hypogaea L. J. Amer. Peanut
R e s . a n d Educ. A s s . 5 m - 3 9 .
3 .
Bailey, W. K., and R. 0. Hamnons. 1975. Registration of Chico
peanut germplasm. Crop Sci. 15tlO5.
4 .
Banks, D.
J.,
and J. S.
Kirby.
1977*
Breeding of early
m a t u r i n g v a r i e t i e s . p p .
5-6. In Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Sta.
-
Res. Rept. p.754. llpp.
5 .
B a r t l e t t ,
M.S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics,
3:39-52
6.
Bear, J. E. and W. K. Bailey. 1973. Earliness of flower opening
a n d
p o t e n t i a l f o r p o d d e v e l o p m e n t i n peanuts,Arachis
hypogaea L.
J. Amer. Peanut Res. Educ. Assoc. 5 (llr26-31.
79
Bockelee-Morvan, A.
1983.
T h e d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s o f
groundnut.
Geographical
a n d
cl imatic
d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
availability. Oleagineux 38 (2) :73-116.
8 . B r i g g s ,
F. N. and P. F. Knowles. 1977. Introduction to plant
breeding. Reinhold Publishing Corporation. New York. 426~~.
9 .
Gibori,
A. 1976. Diallel analysis of the inheritance of days
t o f i r s t f l o w e r , top weight, pod yield, and mean pod weight in
peanuts,
Arachis hypogaea L. M.S.Thesis. Hebrew University
J e r u s a l e m , F a c . A g r i c . , R e h o v o t , Israel. 49pp.
10. Gibori. A.. J. Hillel, A. Cahaner, and A. Ashri. 1978. A 9X9
diallei
-
analysis in peanuts (Arachis
hypogaea L.):
flowering time, tops’ weight, pod yield per plant, and pod
weight. Theor. Appl. Genet. 53:169-179.
11. Gilman, D. F.,
and 0. D. Smith. 1977. Interna1 pericarp color
as a subjective maturity index for peanut
breeding. Peanut
S c i . 9:35-40.
12. Griffing, 8. 1956. Concept of general and specific combining
a b i l i t y
in
relation to diallel crossing
systems.
Aust. J.
B i o l . Sci.9:463-493.
13. Hassan, M. A., and D. P. Srivastava. 1966. Floral biology of
groundnut Arachis hypogaea L. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 45:92-102

---

78
14. Holaday, C. E., E. J. Williams, and V. Chew. 1979. A method for
estimating peanut maturity. J. Food Sci. 44:254-256.
15. Khalfaoui, J-L. B. and D. Annerose. 1986. Creation varietale
d’arachide adaptee aux contraintes pluviometriques des zones
semi-arides.
In Agrometeorology of Groundnut. Proceedings of
the International Symposium 21-26 August 1985. ICRISAT Sahelian
Center, Niamey, Niger.
16. Miller, 0. H. and E. E. Burns. 1971. Interna1 pericarp color of
spanish peanut hulls as an index of kernel maturity. J. Food SC i .
36:669-670.
17. Nigam, S. N., S. L. Dwivedi, and R. W. Gibbons. 1980. Groundnut
breeding at ICRISAT: 62-68.ln ICRISAT (International Crop
-
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid,Tropics). 1980. Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Groundnut, 13-17 October 1980,
Pantacheru, A. P. India.
18. Pattee, H. E., J. C. Wynne, J. H. Young, and F. R. Cox. 1977. The
seed hull weight ratio as an
i n d e x o f
peanut maturity.
Peanut Sci. 4:47-50.
19. Sanders, T. H., J. A. Lansden, R. L. Greene, J. S. Drexler, and
E. Jay Williams.
1982. Oil c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p e a n u t f r u i t
separated by a nondestructive maturity classification method.
Peanut Sci. 9:20-23.
20. S A S I n s t i t u t e .
,982.
S A S UserOs g u i d e : 2 3 7 - 2 6 4 . S A S
I n s t i t u t e , C a r y , N . C .
21. Shaduko, K. and S. Kawarbata.
1963.
Studies on the peanut
breeding with
reference to the combinations of some main
characters:
on pod setting percentage in the crossing
among
varieties and characteristics of F, peanuts. Jap. J. Breed.
13:137-142.
22. Simpson, C. E. and 0. D. Smith. 1986. Registration of TxAG-1
and TxAG-2 peanut gerplasm lines. Crop Sci. 26:391.
23. Sprague, G. F. and L. A. Tatum. 1942. General vs specific
combining ability in single crosses of corn. J.
Amer. Soc.
Agron.
34:g23-932.
24. W i l l i a m s, E. J. and J. S. Drexler.
1981. A non-destructive
m e t h o d
f o r d e t e r m i n i n g p e a n u t p o d m a t u r i t y . P e a n u t S c i .
8: 134- 1 41.

---

79
25. Wynne, J. C., 0. A. Emery, and P. W. Rice. 1970. Combining
ability estimates in Arachis hypogaea L. II.
F ield
performance of F, hybrids. Crop Sci. 10:713-715.
26. Young, C. T. and M. E. Mason. 1972. Free arginine content of
peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as a rneasure of seed maturity.
J. Food Sci. 37:722-725.

---

86
APPEND IX

---

A p p e n d i x f i g u r e ‘1. M a x i m u m a n d m i n i m u m t e m p e r a t u r e s
during planting p e r i o d
40
LEGEND
- M a x M
3 5
_ _ _ M i n M
n
2
-y; 3 0
. . ..m.--1.. M a x J
-z
._-_- M i n J

---

,a
(w w )
uo!yq!d!wd
C
.e-
A--
---1
CJ, n
‘82
!L

---

'"83
~ Appendix table 1. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
~
to first,fifthT tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fith flowers
~
and
number of full-size pods and number of mature pods
for the
cross Chico/Sn+437 and its reciprocal.
-
--
---
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chico
1
8.75 31.75 34.00 44.75 50.75 53.75 58.00 32.25 1.50
2 7.00 34.00 48.00 57.00 64.00 66.00 68.00 9.00 2.00
3 6.00 24.00 26.50 28.00 30.00 32.50 34.00 81.50 38.00
4 18.50 37.75 41.00 43.75 47.75 50.00 52.50 48.50 28.00
~
Mean
10.06 31.87 37.37 43.37 48.12 50.56 53.12 42.81 17.37
Sn55-437 1 7.50 37.25 51.00 52.25 58.50 59.75 61.00 19.00
1.25
2 8.00 44.50 51.50 56.50 58.00 60.00 62.00 17.00
2.50
3 7.00 27.00 29.91 32.25 33.66 36.00 37.75 58.00 29.00
4 21.00 41.00 43.75 45.25 47.25 48.00 49.50 30.25 11.75
Mean
10.87 37.43 44.04 46.56 49.35 50.93 52.43 31.06 11.12
-
-
-
-
- - - - - -
- - - - -

---

84
A p p e n d i x t a b l e 1 . (Continued).
-
-
R E P D E M R DONE D F I V E D T E N D F I F T D T W E N DTWc, F U L L N U M P
F1
1 16.33 43.67 47.00 51.33 54.67 56.33 57.67 23.33 2.00
2 9.00 36.00 42.00 46.00 49.00 51.50 54.50 20.00 2.00
3 5.67 26.67 30.00 31.67 32.33 33.67 34.67 94.00 31.33
4 15.33 34.00 35.67 36.33 37.00 38.33 39.33 97.00 35.00
R e c i p .
1 8.00 30.33 39.67 48.00 51.67 55.67 61.00 24.00 0.33
2 12.00 41.50 48.50 50.50 52.50 54.50 56.00 32.00 5.50
3 6.00 26.00 28.00 30.33 32.00 33.33 34.67 80.33 23.67
4 18.00 40.00 47.50 49.50 53.00 56.50 56.50 40.50 18.00
Mean
11.29 34.77 39.79 42.95 45.27 47.47 49.29 51.39 14.72
1 10.00 35.75 46.64 54.43 57.82 60.50 62.32 18.07 0.82
F2
2 8.56 40.44 49.74 53.52 56.56 58.48 60.00 26.96 5.22
3 6.08 24.96 28.12 30.12 31.84 33.32 34.72 57.28 27.36
4 17.40 36.50 39.15 42.20 44.30 46.65 48.20 45.15 21.85
R e c i p .
1 8.39 32.14 40.00 46.89 52.29 55.50 57.29 25.54 0.86
2 10.36 39.28 46.80 53.08 56.00 58.48 60.64 29.36 7.04
3 5.68 25.00 27.21 28.75 30.00 31.29 31.30 71.86 32.54
4 17.25 36.38 39.63 41.83 43.79 45.58 48.08 56.54 25.88
Mean
10.46 33.80 39.66 43.85 46.57 48.72 50.31 41.34 15.19
------
R e c i p . = r e c i p r o c a l .

---

85
~
Appendix table 2. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
t o f i r s t , fifth, t e n t h ,
f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , a n d t w e n t y - f i f t h
f l o w e r s
and number of full-size pods and number of
mature
pods
f o r t h e c r o s s Chico/Tx851856 a n d i t s r e c i p r o c a l .
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
~ Chico
1 11.75 45.00 51.75 55.50 60.75 63.75 66.50 10.50
0.25
2
8.50 39.00 48.50 52.00 55.00 57.00 59.00 67.50 12.50
3
9.00 27.50 30.75 33.00 34.75 36.25 37.75 69.00 17.25
4 16.00 36.00 38.50 44.50 46.50 50.00 52.00 71.00 41.00
~ Mean
11.31 36.87 42.37 46.25 49.25 51.75 66.75 54.50 17.75
Tx851856 1
8.75 36.75 51.00 60.25 62.75 65.25 66.75 11.50
1.00
2 9.00 31.00 48.00 53.00 57.00 59.00 61.00 34.00
7.00
3
6.25 29.75 31.50 34.25 36.75 38.25 40.00 34.25 21.25
4*
*
*
A
*
*
*
Jx
.k
Mean
8.00 32.25 43.50 49.16 52.16 54.16 55.91 26.58 9.75
W I _
--
--
--
*,lndicates missing values.

---

86
Appendix table 2. (Continued).
-
-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
-
-
-
-
-
F1
1 9.33 33.33 35.67 43.33 49.00 54.00 57.67 22.33 1.33
2 7.67 32.00 36.33 40.67 47.67 50.67 51.67 51.67 5.00
3 9.00 30.00 34.50 37.00 39.00 40.50 42.50 26.50 16.00
4 15.00 33.67 34.67 36.33 37.33 38.33 39.67 42.00 30.00
Recip.
1 8.67 31.67 40.00 53.67 60.33 63.33 65.33 14.00 1.33
2 9.00 34.50 38.50 46.00 48.50 52.00 54.50 28.50 6.00
3 5.33 25.67 29.33 32.33 35.00 36.67 38.33 59.00 38.33
4 18.50 37.00 41.00 43.50 47.00 49.50 52.50 36.50 16.00
Mean
10.31 32.23 36.25 41.60 45.47 48.12 50.27.35.06 14.24
F2
1 10.07 32.93 39.55 46.45 50.76 54.62 57.76 19.29 0.43
2 8.48 34.21 41.31 48.21 51.45 54.07 55.62 37.86 5.45
3 6.44 27.85 31.00 33.04 34.74 36.00 37.15 61.89 25.04
4 16.41 34.66 36.76 38.79 40.34 41.72 43.28 46.17 28.38
Recip.
1 9.17 32.17 39.38 46.52 52.24 56.28 59.45 12.07 0.34
2 7.97 35.72 44.90 51.48 53.17 54.90 56.31 42.24 6.66
3 5.38 23.90 26.72 28.59 30.48 32.17 33.69 53.69 29.52
4 17.46 36.25 38.25 40.08 42.00 43.74 45.04 49.13 24.38
Mean
10.17 32.21 37.23 41.64 44.39 46.68 48.53 40.29 15.02
----------PI
WI_-
---
Recip.=reciprocal.

---

87
Appendix table 3. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
to first,'-
fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth
flowers
and number of full-size pods and number of
mature pods
for the cross Chico/TxAG-1 and its reciprocal.
-e-e
-
-
-
-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
---a
-a------
Chico
1 14.50 34.75 47.75 51.75 60.75 64.00 66.00 15.75 1.25
2 11.00 41.50 43.50 45.00 48.50 54.50 57.00 44.50 5.50
3 6.75 24.50 28.75 35.50 33.00 34.00 35.25 80.00 37.75
4 18.50 48.00 56.00 57.50 58.50 60.00 61.50 47.75 19.00
Mean
12.68 37.18 44.00 47.43 50.18 53.12 54.93 47.00 15.87
TxAG-1
1
9.75 45.00 50.75 56.50 58.25 60.00 61.25 22.75
3.00
2
9.00 40.00 48.50 58.00 60.00 61.00 63.00 35.00
9.50
3
6.00 27.00 28.00 30.25 32.75 35.25 37.50 84.75 33.75
4 20.50 48.00 56.00 57.50 58.50 60.0~1 61.50 29.00 18.50
Mean
11.31 40.00 45.81 50.56 52.37 54.06 55.81 42.87 16.06
m--I_
---
---
---
e-m

---

Appendix table 3. (Continued).
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW'j FULL NUMP
F1
1 10.00 33.33 36.67 43.33 47.33 52.33 55.33 22.00 1.67
2 9.00 33.00 37.00 42.00 48.00 53.00 56.00 39.00 4.00
3 5.00 25.33 28.67 30.33 32.00 33.33 34.33 84.00 33.67
4 17.00 37.33 38.67 40.33 41.67 42.67 45.00 63.67 37.33
Recip.
1 11.00 37.00 44.00 51.00 55.33 58.00 60.00 34.00 1.67
2 8.00 33.00 43.00 47.50 50.00 52.00 53.00 47.50 12.00
3 6.33 30.00 35.67 38.00 39.67 40.67 42.67 62.67 25.67
4 15.00 36.~10 38.00 39.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 95.00 34.00
Mean
10.16 33.08 37.71 41.37 44.50 47.00 48.95 55.98 18.75
F2
1 12.00 40.28 47.24 52.97 56.55 Sq.21 61.24 16.97 0.97
2 10.83 39.56 46.28 51.61 55.22 57.28 60.00 32.22 6.39
3 5.43 24.71 27.32 29.75 31.86 33.57 35.36 87.29 32.89
4 17.24 37.14 40.71 43.14 46.05 48.33 50.24 54.76 34.81
Recip.
1 11.76 38.90 47.59 54.38 57.00 59.17 60.76 21.03 0.93
2 9.26 40.30 47.78 53.04 55.81 57.59 59.41 39.74 8.96
3 5.68 24.68 27.68 29.61 31.39 33.04 34.46 81.32 34.36
4 17.80 37.64 40.80 43.04 44.88 46.68 48.60 58.64 27.52
Mean
11.25 35.40 40.67 44.69 47.34 49.35 51.25 48.99 18.35
-------------
me---1--e--------
Recip .=reciprocal

---

89
Appendix table 4. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
t o f i rst,‘-
fifth, t e n t h ,
f i f t e e n t h ,
twentieth,
twenty-f ifth
f lowers
and number of full-size pods and number of
mature
pods
for the cross Chico/TxAG-2 and its reciprocal.
-------
e-e--
-I_-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
Chico
1
8.00 30.50 36.25 42.50 54.00 57.75 60.75 16.25
1.00
2
Jx
5(
Jx
*
Jt
k
k
*
;‘x
3
5.25 25.00 27.50 31.00 31.75 34.63 35.75 54.00 30.25
4 18.00 37.00 38.00 45.00 48.00 51.00 53.00 18.00
9.00
Mean
10.41 30.83 33.91 39.50 44.58 47.79 49.83 29.41 13.41
TxAG-2
1 9.00 41.00 57.25 61.25 63.50 64.50 66.00 7.75 0.75
2 10.00 51.50 55.50 58.00 68.00 70.50 72.00 17.50 4.00
3 5.00 26.50 28.50 31.50 32.50 34.25 35.50 44.00 18.25
4 16.50 45.00 48.50 50.00 53.00 54.50 56.50 27.00 15.50
Yean
10.12 41.00 47.43 50.18 54.25 55.93 57.50 24.06 9.62
1mm-------
e---e
------I--m
-1
--e-1
---
k,lndicates missing values.

---

90
Appendix table 4 . (Continued).
-
-
- -
-
-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
F1
1 9.00 31.33 33.33 37.33 46.33 49.00 55.67 13.67 1.00
2 9.00 31.00 33.00 37.00 47.00 50.00 52.00 34.00 8.00
3 5.33 24.00 25.67 28.00 31.33 34.00 36.00 86.67 34.67
4 28.00 48.50 53.50 54.50 56.50 58.50 59.50 38.50 17.50
Recip.
1 10.00 32.67 45.67 50.00 60.33 64.00 67.00 16.67 2.67
2 9.67 33.67 39.67 47.33 51.33 54.00 56.00 49.00 8.67
3 5.33 24.67 26.33 28.33 30.33 31.67 33.00 65.00 32.33
4 16.00 33.00 40.00 45.00 47.00 50.00 52.00 21.00 14.00
Mean
11.53 32.35 37.14 40.93 46.26 48.89 51.39 40.56 14.85
F2
1 12.24 34.27 40.96 46.12 50.19 55.31 58.62 14.77 1.08
2 11.10 38.40 44.60 49.50 52.50 54.30 56.30 36.20 5.00
3 5.61 26.18 29.79 33.04 35.93 38.25 40.50 54.38 23.28
4 16.59 36.31 39.41 42.62 44.90 47.10 48.76 63.89 25.29
Recip.
1 8.55 34.38 43.79 53.03 57.38 59.83 61.62 25.62 2.59
2 8.00 36.43 46.32 53.00 55.25 57.29 59.39 35.21 6.93
3 5.58 25.35 27.62 29.31 30.88 32.27 33.58 71.28 30.24
4 17.44 36.76 39.80 42.60 45.04 47.16 48.21 44.36 24.09
Mean
10.63 33.51 39.03 43.65 46.50 48.93 50.87 43.21 14.81
----_u--
--------------1_-
---
---
Recip.= reciprocal.

---

Appendix table 5. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
to first,fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth
flowers and numberof full-size pods and number of mature pods for
the cross Sn55-437/Tx851856 and its reciprocal.
e-1_
----
R E P D E M R DONE D F I V E D T E N D F I F T D T W E N DTW5 F U L L N U M P
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
I Sn55-437
1
8.75 49.50 58.25 60.00 62.75 63.25 64.25 16.50 0.50
2 8.00 4g.00 58.00 61.00 63.00 65.00 66.00 23.00 0.00
3 6.00 26.00 28.25 30.00 32.75 35.00 36.75 46.25 17.50
4 17.00 37.00 38.00 41.00 45.00 49.00 51.00 21.00 14.00
Mean
9.93 40.37 45.62 48.00 50.87 53.06 54.50 26.68 7.87
Tx851856 1 14.00 38.00 47.50 52.25 55.50 57.75 59.50 12.00
0.75
2
7.00 35.00 48.00 51.00 52.00 53.00 55.00 38.00
9.00
3
7-50 29.75 35.75 37925 38.50 39.50 41.25 38.75 23.25
4 21.00 40.00 47.00 55.00 57.00 59.00 60.00 12.00 10.00
Mean
12.37 35.68 44.56 48.87 50.75 52.31 53.93 25.18 10.75
---
-w-I_ -B--F---
I_----

---

92
Appendix table 5. (Continued).
-
-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
1 11.00 40.67 50.33 53.33 55.67 57.33 59.33 16.33 0.67
2 9.33 40.33 50.67 57.33 60.00 63.00 65.67 22.33 6.00
3 5.33 27.67 31.67 35.33 38.33 39.67 40.67 53.00 22.00
4 19.50 42.00 47.00 49.00 50.50 51.50 52.50 33.50 20.50
Recip.
1 9.00 36.50 54.50 58.50 62.00 64.00 66.00 14.00 0.50
2 9.67 37.00 45.00 50.50 53.50 56.50 58.00 24.00 4.00
3 6.33 28.00 33.00 35.00 37.00 39.00 40.67 42.67 20.33
4 16.00 36.00 38.00 39.33 41.00 42.67 44.67 46.67 28.33
Mean
10.77 36.02 43.77 47.29 49.75 51.70 53.43 31.56 12.79
F2
1 11.69 42.97 51.24 57.62 60.10 61.90 63.38 12.59 0.97
2 9.89 46.17 54.61 59.89 61.83 63.61 64.94 22.61 4.78
3 5.64 30.05 36.00 39.77 42.36 43.95 45.32 49.09 18.91
4 17.93 38.07 42.33 45.73 47.40 48.93 50.60 36.53 20.47
Recip.
1 9.34 35.21 45.38 54.00 57.24 60.24 62.45 15.76 0.79
2 8.50 37.18 45.46 50.21 53.04 55.46 56.89 27.46 9.86
3 7.89 27.56 30.22 32.78 34.19 35.78 36.63 45.89 25.00
4 17.00 36.04 38.80 41.28 44.00 45.28 47.16 30.40 18.92
~
Mean
Jo.98 36.65 43.00 47.66 50.02 51.89 53.42 30.04 12.46
-m------1-----------
---e----
~
Recip .=reciptocal.

---

93
Appendix table 6. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
to first,'-
fifth,
tenth,
fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth
flowers and
number of full-size pods and number of mature
pods
for the cross Sn55-437/TxAG-1 and its reciprocal.
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
Sn55-437 1 12.50 39.00 47.50 54.00 57.50 61.25 62.50 12.00 0.00
2
9.00 37.50 52.50 56.50 57.50 60.00 62.00 16.00 1.50
3
5.00 24.75 29.00 31.50 34.75 37.00 38.00 56.25 26.00
4 18.25 43.75 50.50 53.50 54.50 56.00 57.50 45.75 17.50
Mean
11.18 36.25 44.87 48.87 51.06 53.56 55.00 32.50 11.25
TxAG-1
1 12.83 47.08 53.16 55.50 57.25 58.41 60.50 36.08 0.50
2
8.50 45.00 49.00 53.00 55.00 56.00 57.50 40.00 14.00
3
5.75 25.25 28.75 30.75 32.00 33.00 34.00 101.25 36.75
4 17.25 37.75 40.50 42.50 45.50 47.25 48.75 59.50 23.50
Mean
11.08 38.78 42.85 45.43 47.43 48.66 50.18 59.20 18.68
----
--
-----

---

Appendix table 6. (Continued).
_I_-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
--
--
--
F1
1 11.33 44.67 49.00 53.00 56.33 59.33 61.00
17.33 1.00
2 9.00 41.00 51.00 54.50 56.50 57.50 58.50
30.50 4.50
3 6.00 27.00 32.33 34.67 36.67 38.33 39.67
62.67 24.33
4 17.50 37.50 40.50 42.50 45.50 46.50 49.00
63.00 34.50
Recip.
1 11.00 36.00 43.00 48.67 51.33 52.33 54.00
31.67 4.00
2 8.67 35.33 38.00 43.00 48.67 51.00 53.33
40.33 7.67
3 6.33 27.00 31.00 33.33 34.33 36.67 38.00
43.33 19.33
4 18.00 36.00 38.33 39.33 40.67 41.67 43.33
71.00 27.33
Mean
10.97 35.56 40.39 43.62 46.25 47.91 49.60
44.97 15.33
F2
1 10.19 37.42 44.92 52.62 57.04 59.92 61.96 12.12 1.00
2
8.46 38.32 49.14 53.43 56.11 57.86 59.82 26.64
3.29
3 6.32 28.57 32.04 34.36 35.93 37.61 39.50 61.46 27.04
4 17.12 37.04 40.46 42.96 44.69 46.58 48.46 46.64 22.80
Recip.
1 11.29 41.64 50.86 57.25 60.43 62.29 63.50 15.04 0.68
2 8.21 37.21 45.59 50.83 53.86 56.14 57.83 26.48 7.10
3 5.79 26.43 30.04 33.14 35.25 36.71 38.82 58.96 25.14
4 17.64 37.18 39.95 42.68 45.27 47.59 49.50 44.14 20.82
Mean 10.62 35.47 41.62 45.90 48.57 50.59 52.42 36.43 13.48
- - - - - -
-
-
-
w--w-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recip .=reciprocal.

---

Appendix table 7. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
to first,'-
fifth,
tenth,
fifteenth,
twentieth,
twenty-fifth
flowers
and number of full-sire pods and number of
mature
pods
for the cross Sn55-437/TxAG-2 and its reciprocal.
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
~ Sn55-437
1 13.50 23.25 33.75 36.75 39.25 40.75 42.00
5.50
0.25
2
9.50 47.00 53.50 55.00 56.00 57.00 58.00 42.00 10.00
3
5.00 25.50 27.75 30.75 34.50 37.25 40.00 53.25 30.00
4 15.00 34.00 36.00 38.00
~
39.00 40.00 41.00 53.00 24.00
~ Mean
10.75 32.43 37.75 40.12 42.18 43.75 45.25 38.43 16.06
TxAG-2
1 10.00 45.25 51.50 53.25 58.00 59.50 61.75 19.25
4.75
2
9.00 36.00 43.00 51.00 52.00 54.00 55.00 20.00
3.00
l
3
5.25 26.50 27.25 28.50 29.75 31.00 32.00 49.75 19.00
~
4 29.00 50.50 53.50 56.50 58.50 61.00 61.50 33.00 19.50
Mean
13.31 39.56 43.81 47.31 49.56 51.37 52.56 43.64 11.56

---

96
A p p e n d i x t a b l e 7. ( C o n t i n u e d ) .
-
-
---
R E P D E M R DONE D F I V E D T E N D F I F T D T W E N DTW5 F U L L N U M P
F1
1 9.33 48.00 57.67 60.00 62.00 64.00 65.00 14.00 1.33
2 10.00 43.67 49.00 55.33 60.00 62.00 62.67 27.00 10.00
3 5.00 28.33 30.33 33.67 36.00 37.33 39.00 69.00 30.00
4 18.50 45.00 47.50 50.00 52.50 55.50 58.00 30.00 20.50
R e c i p .
1 7.33 32.33 38.00 48.67 54.67 56.00 57.67 28.33 3.33
2 9.33 34.00 36.67 42.00 49.67 53.00 54.33 22.67 9.67
3 5.33 25.33 26.33 28.33 29.67 30.67 31.67 67.00 28.00
4 lg.00 38.50 40.00 41.50 42.50 43.50 45.00 81.00 49.00
Mean
10.47 36.89 40.68 44.93 48.37 50.25 51.66 42.37 18.97
1 10.36 37.54 47.50 52.64 55.68 58.82 60.61 17.54 2.14
F2
2 9.58 43.33 50.25 54.25 56.58 58.42 60.25 30.00 12.38
3 5.82 27.39 31.18 33.86 35.75 37.36 38.71 66.33 22.19
4 16.82 38.25 41.57 44.86 47.61 49.82 51.18 52.50 29.32
R e c i p .
1 10.93 43.17 52.24 56.45 58.62 61.34 62.79 19.55 3.41
2 10.25 42.06 49.13 53.75 56.19 58.25 59.75 26.06 9.44
3 5.93 25.33 27.78 29.74 31.22 32.81 34.22 68.30 32.07
4 18.36 39.77 42.73 45.27 47.14 48.64 50.00 47.00 28.05
Mean
11.00 37.10 42.79 46.35 48.59 50.68 52.18 40.91 17.37
----
----1--e---
----
----
------
R e c i p . = r e c i p r o c a l .

---

97
Appendix table 8. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
t o first,'-
fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth
flowers and
number of full-size pods and number of mature
pods
for the cross Tx851856/TxAG-1 and its reciprocal.
e--w
- - - - - - - m
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
- - m - I _ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tx851856 1 10.00 38.50 51.75 56.25 58.00 60.50 61.25 14.25 0.75
2 11.50 51.00 60.50 62.00 63.50 64.00 65.00 14.00
1.50
3
5.75 30.50 37.00 39.75 42.00 43.50 43.75 31.50 20.50
4 16.00 38.00 41.00 45.00 47.0~1 48.00 52.00 41.00 30.00
Mean
10.81 39.50 47.56 50.75 52.62 54.00 55.50 25.18 13.18
TxAG-1
1 9.50 46.50 53.25 59.25 61.50 62.50 63.50 24.25 1.50
2 9.00 42.00 49.50 55.00 57.00 58.50 60.50 38.50 9.50
3 5.25 25.75 28.00 29.75 31.25 33.25 34.50 109.75 30.25
4 20.00 45.00 51.00 54.00 56.00 57.00 57.00 31.00 17.00
Mean
10.93 39.81 45.43 49.50 51.43 52.81 53.87 64.34 14.56
w-w-
--
---------

---

98
A p p e n d i x t a b l e 8 . (Continued).
-
-
-I
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
F1
1 9.33 34.00 41.67 50.67 52.33 55.33 57.33 22.67 0.67
2 9.67 38.00 43.00 46.33 51.33 53.33 55.00 45.67 11.67
3 6.00 28.00 33.00 36.33 37.00 39.00 41.00 27.67 12.67
4 19.00 42.50 47.50 50.50 52.00 53.50 54.50 25.00 17.50
R e c i p .
1 7.67 33.00 47.00 52.33 56.67 58.33 59.67 36.33 2.67
2 10.00 38.33 45.67 51.00 53.00 56.33 58.00 30.33 5.67
3 5.33 25.00 26.67 28.00 29.67 30.67 33.67 63.33 28.67
4 20.00 40.00 44.00 49.00 51.00 52.00 54.00 47.00 28.00
Mean
10.87 34.85 41.06 45.52 47.87 49.81 51.64 37.25 13.44
1 11.76 37.66 46.69 52.48 55.34 57.10 58.48 15.45 1.10
F2
2 8.10 37.21 45.79 50.45 53.66 55.34 56.79 25.14 4.76
3 5.41 26.10 28.72 30.48 31.97 33.24 34.34 63.52 26.79
4 16.52 35.48 38.84 41.52 44.84 47.26 48.94 33.61 18.71
R e c i p .
1 8.24 31.10 39.24 47.07 53.31 58.00 60.17 27.62 1.52
2 10.50 40.11 47.06 51.06 53.56 55.67 57.28 25.22 4.67
3 5.29 27.11 30.96 33.61 36.04 36.81 38.48 50.61 26.21
4 17.29 38.22 41.52 44.04 46.48 47.89 49.22 42.52 24.67
Mean
10.38 34.12 39.85 43.83 46.90 48.91 50.46 35.46 13.55
- - - -
---------
----II_
----WI
R e c i p .=reciprocal.

---

99
Appendix table 9. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
to first,fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth
flowers
and number of full-size pods and number of mature pods
for the cross Tx851856/TxAG-2 and its reciprocal.
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTWS FULL NUMP
-
-
-
TX851856 1 10.75 42.75 59.00 60.50 62.25 63.75 65.25 19.25
1.25
2 10.50 44.50 51.50 55.50 61.50 63.00 65.50 11.00 3.00
3 5.50 30.00 35.00 39.50 40.75 42.75 43.25 43.25 24.50
4 21.50 46.50 48.00 49.50 50.50 52.00 53.50 24.50 14.50
Mean
12.06 40.93 48.37 51.25 53.75 55.37 56.87 24.50 10.81
TxAG-2
1 11.00 43.25 53.25 56.00 57.25 59.00 60.75 14.25 2.25
2 8.50 54.00 57.00 58.50 59.50 66.00 67.50 15.00 4.00
3 5.50 26.50 28.25 29.25 30.75 32.00 33.75 73.25 31.75
4 15.50 37.50 40.50 42.00 44.50 46.00 47.50 41.00 32.00
Mean
10.12 40.31 44.75 46.43 48.00 50.75 52.37 35.87 17.50
-
----
1-----------w

---

A p p e n d i x t a b l e 9. ( C o n t i n u e d ) .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
-
1 9.00 32.00 38.33 44.00 54.67 57.67 59.33 30.67 0.33
F1
2 11.50 41.50 48.50 51.50 53.00 57.00 58.50 27.00 4.50
3*"**""***
4 17.00 37.33 40.00 41.67 42.67 45.33 46.33 59.67 37.33
R e c i p .
1 8.67 40.67 48.67 51.67 58.67 59.67 61.33 24.00 1.00
2 8.00 41.50 49.50 53.00 55.00 57.00 fig.00 29.00 5.00
3 6.33 30.33 32.00 33.00 36.33 37.67 38.67 55.00 30.33
4 19.50 35.50 41.50 47.50 49.50 50.50 52.50 30.50 16.00
Mean
11.35 36.97 42.64 46.04 49.97 52.12 53.66 36.54 13.49
F2
1 10.50 33.54 41.25 47.68 51.54 53.82 56.00 22.32 0.46
2 9.88 38.84 46.76 51.68 55.40 57.20 58.72 19.64 3.88
3 5.38 25.19 27.72 29.94 31.53 33.09 34.44 57.09 28.16
4 17.16 38.36 41.20 43.56 45.84 47.72 49.60 40.92 24.64
R e c i p .
1 9.00 36.52 44.31 52.55 57.17 59.00 61.14 20.86 1.41
2 9.42 37.47 46.37 50.74 53.32 55.05 57.00 27.26 4.53
3 6.63 28.89 32.04 34.67 36.30 38.15 39.56 52.41 25.19
4 18.32 38.00 41.58 44.00 45.95 47.63 48.74 33.58 18.84
Mean
10.78 34.60 40.15 44.35 47.13 48.95 50.65 34.26 13.38
**Indic&es m i s s i n g v a l u e s .
R e c i p . = r e c i p r o c a l .
---

---

101
~
Appendix table 10. Mean number of days from planting to emergence,
~
t o f i r s t ,fifth, t e n t h , f i f t e e n t h , t w e n t i e t h , t w e n t y - f i f t h
(
flowers
a n d
number of full-size pods and number of mature
pods
~
for the cross TxAG-l/TxAG-2 and its reciprocal.
I
P-w
-
---
REP DEMR DONE DFIVE DTEN DFIFT DTWEN DTW5 FULL NUMP
i -
-
-
-
( TxAG-1
1
7.25 45.00 53.00 56.50 58.25 60.00 61.00 40.00
4.50
~
2 10.00 50.00 55.00 56.00 58.00 59.00 60.00 31.00 6.00
~
3
5.00 27.00 29.00 31.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 73.00 39.00
~
4 15.00 38.00 42.00 46.00 49.00 51.00 54.00 54.00 26.00
;
Mean
9.31 40.00 44.75 47.37 49.31 51.00 52.75 49.50 18.87
~ TxAG-2 1
7.25 34.00 41.50 54.25 60.00 61.75 64.50 26.00
1.00
2 10.00 36.00 41.00 45.00 48.00 50.00 51.00 31.00 13.00
3 5.00 26.00 27.00 27.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 73.00 38.00
4 19.00 43.00 46.00 49.00 50.00 51.00 52.00 50.00 29.00
Mean 10.31 34.75 38.87 43.81 46.75 47.93 49.37 45.00 20.25
-
-
-
-
--w-w
-------v-

---

1 0 2
A p p e n d i x t a b l e 1 0 . ( C o n t i n u e d ) .
-
-
R E P D E M R DONE D F I V E D T E N D F I F T D T W E N DTW5 F U L L N U M P
F1
1
7.33 32.00 35.00 43.33 50.00 52.67 53.67 27.33
1.67
2 1 0 . 0 0 38.00 44.00 48.00 49.50 50.50 52.00 39.50 16.50
3 5.33 25.00 26.67 28.00 29.67 31.00 32.00 69.33 34.67
4 17.00 36.67 38.33 40.00 41.33 41.67 44.00 54.00 3ve67
~
R e c i p .
1 9.00 36.33 51.67 53.67 55.67 57.33 58.33 24.00 2.00
3 6.00 30.00 37.50 41.00 43.00 44.50 46.00 18.33 10.00
4 18.22 36.89 40.89 43.11 44.11 45.89 47.11 46.00 27.89
Mean
10.41 33.55 39.15 42.44 44.75 46.22 47.58 39.78 18.91
~ F2
1
7.93
57.10
59.52
36.14 46.41 53.10 61.00 21.31
0.90
2 7.94 38.55 45.71 50.77 53.94 55.84 57.58 27.00 8.29
3 5.57 26.21 28.75 30.54 32.61 34.46 36.04 67.96 32.68
4 19.32 40.68 43.79 46.42 49.00 50.84 52.47 46.89 27.95
~ R e c i p .
1
7 . 1 0 38.40 50.20 53.50 56.20 56.60 58.10 27.00
2.60
l
l
2
*
A
-k
*
Jx
*
k
Jx
9:
3
5.00 33.00 37.86 41.14 43.43 4 4 . 2 9 46.43 31.57 16.71
4*****~***
l
l
I Mean
8 . 8 1 35.49 42.12 4 5 . 9 1 4 8 . 7 1 5 0 . 2 5 5 1 . 9 3 3 6 . 9 5 1 4 . 8 5
~
*,lndicates m i s s i n g v a l u e s .
(
R e c i p . = r e c i p r o c a l .

---

103
VITA
Ousmane Ndoye was born December 4.1957. in Pire, Senegal, to
Sophie and Abdou Khadir Ndoye. He graduated from the Lycee El
Hadji
Malick Sy of Thies in 1977 and entered the University of
Dakar where he obtained a Maitrise of Natural Sciences in 1983.
In 1984 he obtained a DEA (Diplome dOEtudes Approfondies)
in
Biology and worked as an assistant in the department of Vegetal
Biology at the sarne University.
The author”s permanent address is: Ousmane Ndoye S/C Abdou
Khadir Ndoye Notable au quartier Commercial a Pire-Senegal (West
A f r i c a ) .

---