EFFECT OF SELECT IC® CH OIL HICLUOIEG C&PACITX
OF fOEMSEEB 
(Chenopodium, a m b ro sio id es  L«)
%
A lb in  O* Kuhn
T h esis  su b m itte d  i© th e  F acu lty  o f  th e  G raduate  School 
oT th e  U n iv e rs i ty  o f  «& r?lend in  p a r t i a l  
f u l f i l l m e n t  o f  th e  re q u ire m e n ts  f o r  th e  
d eg ree  o f  b o o t o r  o f  P h ilo so p h y
1948
UMI Number: DP70445
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS 
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript 
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
U M I
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP70445
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
M icroform Edition ©  ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against 
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
uest
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway 
P.O. Box 1346 
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
The author w ish es to  exp ress h is  a p p recia tio n  to  a l l  
th o se  who have a s s is te d  in  th e  planning and carry in g  out o f  
th e  in v e s tig a tio n  and th e  in te rp re ta tio n  and p resen ta tio n  o f  
r e s u lts  • Be i s  p a r tic u la r ly  indebted to  Dr. 1 . B. Keap and 
Dr. R. G. Rothgeb fo r  th e ir  guidance and a s s is ta n c e .
Page
I
5
4
4
S
6
6
a
12
12
14
IS
IS
17
17
21
25
26
81
55
88
42
4 7
48
TABIM OF CGHTBKT5
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . ................   . . . »
OBJECT Of JM m tlQ & T im   ....................................................... ..
REVIEW OF LITERAflKE.............. ....................... ...........................................
B o tan ica l C lass  I f  i c a t i c n e  ..............« . . . .......... ...............
L ocation o f  O il on The ELsnt .................... .......... .............
V a r ia tio n  in  O il Producing C apacity
V a r ia tio n  in  Gland D ensity  on Other E s s e n t ia l  O il 
Bearing H a n t s  *.............. ................... ..
EXPERIMENTAL HIQCKDUSE... ......... ...........................................................
D eterm ina tion  o f Gland D ensity  on %id«r L eaf S u r f a c e . . .
D i s t i l l a t i o n  ©f O i l . . . . ................ ................................ ...................
S p e c if ic  G rav ity  D eterm in a tio n ......................................
Progeny S tu d ie s   ................ *.................................................... ..
H arvest and Study o f  S e e d . ................ .............................. ..
IXPERUffiRTAL RESULTS. .   ........................... .....................................
O il f i e l d  From H a n ts  D if fe r in g  in  Gland D e n s i ty . . . . . .  •
Gland D ensity  In  P rogen ies o f  S e lec te d  P la n ts .....................
S p e c if ic  G rav ity  o f O il fro® H a n ts  D if fe r in g  in  Gland 
D e n s ity .............. ........................................... .....................................
V a r ia t io n  o f  Leaf Gland D ensity  on th e  In d iv id u a l P la n t
Seed f i e l d  FTo® H a n ts  D if fe r in g  in  Gland D e n s i t y . . . . . .
Seed S e t With and w ithou t Bagging............................. ..
Wild Type P la n ts  Compared t o  C o a ae rc ia l Type H a n t s . . * .
DXSCUSSXC*.............. ................................................................... .......................
SURM&R1................................................. ............................................. .................
SELECTED BI8LIQGRAPMI  .................   . . . . . . .
TABLES
Pag®
1 . O il Y ield  Ftcsl Plant© D if fe r in g  in  numbers o f  Glands Per
H alt Area on Under S ide o f  L eaf . .1968. • * *..................... . . . . .  X?
I I .  O il Y ield  Wtqm HLants D if fe r in g  in  numbers o f  Glands P er
Unit Area on Under Side o f  L e a f . .1 9 4 ? ................  19
H I*  number o f  Glands Bar Utait o f  Area Cn The Under S ide o f  Leaf
o f  S e le c te d  P la n ts  and T heir P rogen ies.«1868« . . . . . . . . . .  21
I f .  Humber o f  Glands Ber U nit o f Area Qa The Under Side o f  Leaf
o f  S e le c te d  Plant® and T h e ir  P ro g en ies ..1 9 4 6   ...........  22
¥ • S p e c if ic  G ra v ity  o f O il From P la n ts  D if fe r in g  in  Number® o f
Gland® Per U nit Area on th e  Under S u rface  o f  L e a f . .1958 24
¥1* S p e c if ic  G rav ity  o f  OH From H a n ts  D if fe r in g  i n  Numbers o f
Glands Bsr f e i t  Area on th e  Onder S u rface  o f L e a f . .  1947 25
¥11 . Sis® o f  L eaf and Number o f Glands Per U nit o f  Area on Under
S u rface  a s  A sso c ia ted  w ith  P o s itio n  on th e  S tem ..1 9 4 7 .. 29
V I I I .  Numbers o f  Glands P er U nit o f  Area m  Under S u rface  o f  l e a f
a s  A sso c ia ted  w ith  V a r ia tio n s  in  S iz e  o f  Leaf and 
P o rtio n  o f  Leaf Exam ined..1 9 4 7 ................    SO
IX. Seed P roduc tion  by p la n ts  D if fe r in g  in  Numbers o f  Glands
P er U nit Area on Under S ide  o f  L eaf. .1958 . •  ..........    52
X. Seed P roduct io n  by P la n ts  D if fe r in g  in  Numbers o f  Glands
P er U nit Area on Under S ide  o f  L eaf. .1946..............................  55
XI* A n a ly sis  o f  Data P re sen ted  in  Table X .  ........... 54
X II . Seed p ro d u c tio n  by H a n ts  D if fe r in g  in  Numbers o f  Glands
P er U nit Area m  Under S ide  o f  L e a f . .1947 ..................   56
X III* A n a ly sis  o f  L ata  P resen ted  in  Table X II ....................................   57
XIV* Seed S e t on H a n ts  o f  Tormseed with and W ithout Bagging
t o  C o n tro l P o l l i n a t io n .  ..........................     5 3
XV. Wild Type P la n ts  Compared t o  Commercial Type H a n t s . .1 9 4 7 . .  41
w m rn m
Page
1* T ypical C onaereial Wormseed S t i l l . . * . *     . . .  5
2 . O il Glands on th e Gtoder Surface o f  th e  l e a f ...................................  10
S« O il Glands m  Upper P ortion o f Orary......................    11
4# O il f i e ld  Front H aute D iffer in g  in  Gland D e n s ity . .............. .  18
5* R egression o f  O il on Gland Count................................................... .. 20
8* Change in  (Hand heather l i t h  Change in  le a f  S la e .............................  28
EFFECT OF SELECTION <M OIL fEQLUCIMG CAPACITY OF WGKBSEEB 
(Chenopodium am brosio ides L*)
CHAFFEE I  
m m w i m i m
For many y e a rs  most o f  th e  A se& ridole verm ifuge o f  e m m r c e  ha® been 
produced in  a l im ite d  a re a  o f  C a r ro l l  County, Maryland* T his e s s e n t i a l  
o i l  i s  d i s t i l l e d  from th e  p la n t  # Chenopodium am brosio ides L .,  commonly 
c a l le d  wormseed. A ccording t o  Gray (14) w ild  plant®  o f th e  specie®  a re  
found in  w aste place® th ro u g h o u t th e  u n ite d  S ta te s ,  e s p e c ia l ly  in  th e  
sou thw este rn  p a rt*  In Maryland w ild  wormseed plant®  a re  found c h ie f ly  
on f e r t i l e  lan d  around farm  b u ild in g s*
W irth  (25) found ev idence t h a t  American Indian® were a cq u a in ted  w ith  
th e  a n th e lm in tic  p ro p e r t ie s  o f  th e  p la n t  making use  o f  it® Juice® a® a 
verm ifuge • Guenther (5) sta te®  t h a t  th e  o i l  o f  American loriaseed  has 
always been h e ld  in  h igh  esteem  on th e  N orth American C o n tin en t and was 
g iven  o f f i c i a l  re c o g n itio n  fo r  th e  f i r s t  tim e by i t s  in tro d u c tio n  in to  
th e  f i r s t  U nited S ta te s  Pharmacopoeia p u b lish ed  in  1820* B a ll and Wigdor 
(4 ) re p o r te d  t h a t  Chenopodium o i l  was in tro d u ced  in to  v e te r in a r y  m edicine 
by th e  F rench  in  1898.
Bruening (2) in  1908 made th e  f i r s t  reco rded  pharm aco log ica l s tu d y  
o f th e  o i l  on As c a r  i s  lu m b rico id es • lie re p o rte d  th e  o i l  t o  be q u ite  
e f f e c t iv e  in  k i l l i n g  t h i s  worm* The p r in c ip a l  c o n s t i tu e n t  o f  th e  o i l  
was found to  g ive  s im ila r  re su lt®  and was c a l le d  a sc a r id o le *  The work 
o f  S m illie  and Bassos (17) seem® t o  have d e f i n i t e l y  proved t h a t  a s c a r id o le  
i s  th e  e s s e n t ia l  c o n s titu e n t*
zIn  a r e c e n t  paper on th e  p ro d u c tio n  o f m inor e s s e n t ia l  o i l s ,  S le v e rs  
(16) s t a t e s  t h a t  wormseed o i l  has f o r  a long  tim e been a most im portan t 
th e ra p e u t ic  ag en t f o r  th e  c o n tro l  o f  c e r ta in  i n t e s t i n a l  p a r a s i t e s  h u t in  
r e c e n t  y e a rs  i t  has to  some deg ree  been re p la c e d  by carbon te t r a c h lo r id e *  
In  1919 H oeH er (1Z) in v e s t ig a te d  th e  o r ig in  o f  th e  wormseed in d u stry ' 
in  Maryland* A ccording to  th e  in fo rm a tio n  he r e c e iv e d , th e  c u l t iv a t io n  
o f  th e  c ro p  began in  C a r ro l l  County n e a r  W estm inster about 1840 and by 
1870 th e  t o t a l  p ro d u c tio n  o f  o i l  f o r  one y ea r was abou t 2000 pounds 
o b ta in ed  from some 50 a c re s*  A ccording to  Be H and  a t  e l*  (24) in  a 
su rv e y  made in  1915 i t  was found th a t  a t o t a l  o f  abou t 200 a c re s  was 
grown w hile  in  1924 th e re  were n e a r ly  600 a c re s  produced by abou t 500 
g ro w ers•
A ccording t o  th e  A g r ic u l tu ra l  Census o f  1950, th e  p ro d u c tio n  in  1929 
was 15 ,107 pounds o f  o i l  by 159 growers m  568 acres*  In  1959 acco rd in g  
t o  th e  A g r ic u l tu ra l  Census o f  1940 (2 1 ), th e  p ro d u c tio n  was 58,281 pounds 
by 240 grow ers on 927 acres*  L a te r  f ig u re s  a re  n e t  a v a ila b le *
Wormseed i s  th u s  r e l a t i v e l y  sp e ak in g , an un im portan t crop  and as 
such has re c e iv e d  l i t t l e  a t t e n t io n  from th e  p la n t  b reeder*  Seem grow ers 
f e e l  t h a t  p la n ts  o f th e  c u l t iv a te d  type  o f wormseed a re  d e te r io r a t in g  
g ra d u a l ly , b o th  in  y ie ld  and q u a l i ty  o f o i l*  t h i s  study  was begun in  
resp o n se  to  re q u e s ts  t h a t  some e f f o r t  be made t o  improve th e s e  im portan t 
c a p a c i t ie s  o f  th e  p lan t*
CEAJTER I I
OBJECT OF UtVESfXG&TIOH
The o b ject o f th is  lo Y c sti^ stio ii w u  bo survey 5 onto o f  th s pose I** 
b i l l t l e a  fo r  improvement o f  th e y ie ld  and q u a lity  o f  wormseed o i l  sod  
to  determ ine th e procedure® th a t e ig h t be used to  Implement such  
improvement.
F ig . 1  T yp ical Commercial wormseed S t i l l .
CMAJPTEB I I I
B5VXSW OF UTEMTUgE
B o tan ica l C la s s i f i c a t i o n * There has been much d is c u s s io n  a s  t o  
w hether d i s t i n c t  v a r i e t i e s  o f  American wormseed shou ld  be re c o g n ise d , 
two v a r i e t i e s  a re  l i s t e d  by Gray (1 4 ). The f i r s t ,  C henipodiua ambro- 
s io id e s  L .,  which i s  commonly r e f e r r e d  to  a s  "Mexican Tea9,  an annual 
which grows in  w aste  p la c e s  th ro u g h o u t th e  U nited S t a te s ,  e s p e c ia l ly  
in  th e  S ou thw est, and i s  n a tiv e  o f T ro p ic a l Am erica; th e  second , C. 
am broslo ldes L. v a r .  Antfcelmintbicum ( L .) Gray which i s  commonly 
r e f e r r e d  t o  a s  "Wormseed", sometimes appearing  d i s t i n c t ,  b u t a l l  d i f f e r ­
e n t i a l  c h a ra c te r s  a re  in c o n s ta n t ,  i s  p e re n n ia l (a t  l e a s t  so u th w ard ), 
has th e  same range  as Mexican Tea, and i s  from T ro p ic a l A m erica.
The Maryland f e a th e r  S e rv ic e  (15) l i s t s  C. an thelm in ticum  L. a s  
cojBjaon th roughou t Maryland and in tro d u c ed  from  Europe. S tand ley  (20) 
p la c e s  a l l  v a r i e t i e s  under th e  sp e c ie s  0 .  am brosio ides 1*, l i s t i n g  
s e v e ra l  synonyms, in c lu d in g  C. an th e lm in ticu m . Jepson (3) l i s t s  bo th  
C • am brosio ides and G. an thelm in ticum  a s  p re s e n t  in  C a lifo rn ia  w ith  
h y b r id is a t io n  l i k e l y  occur ing  between them. In  re p ly  t o  a l e t t e r  in  
1969 , E . K. Eaynor o f  th e  tfc iv e rs ity  o f  C a lifo rn ia  Botany Departm ent 
w rote :
*m  have c o l le c te d  seed  from p la n ts  o f  bo th  Chenopodium
a m b ro s io id e s  and G. a n th e lm in tic u m , a s  d e s c r ib e d  in  J e p s o n 's
F lo ra  o f  C a l i f o r n ia .  As you know, th e re  i s  a c o n s id e ra b le
v a r ia t io n  w ith in  each o f th e s e  sp e c ie s  and some a u th o r i t i e s
p lace  them to g e th e r  in  th e  s in g le  sp e c ie s  C. am b ro sio id es.«
J .  H. S c h a ffn e r  o f th e  Ohio S ta te  U n iv e rs ity  Botany Departm ent w rote 
in  response  to  a  s im ila r  l e t t e r  in  1959?
*1 see  no d if f e r e n c e  between th e  am brosio ides L. and th e
supposed v a r ie ty  an the lm in ticum  L. and would in c lu d e  i t
m%
 
Jfo 
«©
&£
$ 
om.
% 
&q%
 
j©
if.
«e*
eu
**-
r
0.
ff
5
g
s
£
&
£
I
9
I
f*
r
I
f
m
I
8I
H
I•1
»I
:©
PHI
f
3
tt
»
?
I
us«*■
Ss•
r
?
8I*a
&I
6I
J
£
8
I
M
c*r
&
I
I
. !  *
I  1 1  I  I
f
I
S '
f
©
*
•6•*
8©
£n
rH*
3
*
H
I►*>
8
«+
7«*
P
I
f
7•8©r
f
3
8 I  
8
E
&
I  f !  * |  I
[ H
* f  I *
! r  ;  i
3-
H
8
s
2 I
?
\  *
§3&fi f
5.
? !
trt
l a r g e r  type  produced 2*34 g rans oX as o a r Id o le  from  th re e  plant®  'weighing 
a t o t a l  o f 514 grans* B0% o f  t h i s  was produced from the  f r u i t ,  ££ from 
th e  le a v e s ,  2% from  th e  s t a l k ,  and 2% from th e  seed  stems* The sm a lle r  
ty p e  was found t o  produce 0*38 grams o f  a sc a r id o le  £r<m fo u r  p la n ts  
t o ta l in g  10? grains in  weight* 94% from th e  f r u i t ,  1*5# from th e  l e a v e s ,  
1*S$ from  th e  s t a l k ,  and %% from the  seed  stems*
V a ria tio n  in  O il Producing C apac ity  * i te e l le r  (12) no ted  t h a t  v a r i a -  
t i o n  e x is te d  in  th e  type  o f  p la n ts  in  commercial p la n t in g s  of wormseed* 
P e ila n d  e t  a l*  (24) s tu d ie d  two d i s t i n c t  ty p e s  th a t  were found in  commer- 
c i a l  p la n t in g s  and re p o r te d  t h a t  th e  sm a lle r  type produced more a s c a r i— 
d o le  p e r u n i t  o f  w eight th an  th e  la rg e r  type*
A ccording to  le filan c  e t  a l .  (10) s e v e ra l  v a r i e t i e s  o f Chenopodiua 
were grown in  South Dakota in  connection  w ith  a s tu d y  o f  e ra d ic a t io n  o f 
round worms in  swine* tn e  o f  th o se  grown was from  seed  o b ta in ed  from. 
M aryland, cue from seed  o f  w ild  p la n ts  growing in  K ansas, one f r m  seed  
o f  w ild  p la n ts  growing in  I l l i n o i s ,  and one from a c ro ss  between th e  
M aryland and Kansas p lan ts*  th e  h ig h e s t q u a l i ty  o f o i l  was o b ta in ed  
f r m  th e  p la n ts  grown from Maryland seed  and f r m  th e  c re e se s  between 
th e  Maryland and Kansas p la n ts*
ho ev idence  was found in  th e  l i t e r a t u r e  th a t  anyone ha® a ttem p ted  
to  de te rm ine  i f  v a r ia t io n  ex ist®  in  th e  r a t e  of occurrence  o f o i l  g lands 
p e r  u n i t  o f  a re a  on th e  under su rfa c e  o f th e  le a v e s  f r m  v a r io u s  worm- 
seed  p la n ts  o r t o  s tu d y  th e  r e l a t i o n  between o i l  g land  occurrence  p e r 
u n i t  o f a re a  and p ro d u c tio n  o f  o i l  by th e  p lan t*
V a r ia tio n  in  Qland D ensity  m  O ther E s s e n t ia l  O il Bearing H a n t s *
Ho ev idence  was found in  th e  l i t e r a t u r e  t h a t  anyone has a ttem p ted  
t o  u se  d iffe rence®  in  o i l  g land  occurence a® a c r i t e r i o n  f o r  s e le c t io n
o f  o t  her e s s e n t ia l  o i l  bear in  g p la n ts  fo r  improvement o f  o i l  y ie ld in g  
capacity*  hoel&cher and bacon (6) re p o rte d  as a r e s u l t  o f  h is to lo g ic a l  
s tu d ie s  o f  th e  genus iien tha , th a t  in  pepperm int a d i r e c t  r e la t io n s h ip  
e x i s t s  between types and numbers o f g la n d u la r  h a i r s  on th e  leav es  and 
o i l  p roduction*  I t  was p o in ted  ou t th a t  th e se  l e a f  h e ir s  may oe e a s i ly  
brushed o f f  and t h i s  may accoun t fo r  low o i l  y ie ld s  a t  c e r ta in  s ta g e s  in  
th e  growth o f the  p la n t .  No d a ta  were g iven to  su p p o rt th e  re p o rte d  d i r e c t  
r e l a t io n s h ip ,  and acco rd in g  to  Booking and Edwards (5) no d a ta  to  su p p o rt 
t h i s  s ta te m e n t were found in  the  unpub lished  th e s i s  by Hoelseher*
Booking and Edwards (5) conducted e x te n s iv e  experim ents on th e  
u t i l i t y  o f  d e te rm in a tio n  o f  numuers and dim ensions o f  g la n d u la r  s c a le s  
in  sp e c ie s  o f ten th s*  th e  prim ary o b je c tiv e  in  t h i s  work was to  d e t e r ­
mine w hether the  o i l  p roduction  o f an a re a  o f growing p la n ts  could be 
determ ined  by s e le c t in g  a few p la n t  p a r ts  and de te rm in ing  th e  s c a le  count 
per u n i t  o f  area*  F or com parative s tu d ie s ,  coun ts were made o f g la n d u la r  
s c a le s  on th e  low er su r fa c e s  o f leav es  which approached an a r b i t r a r y  
s ta n d a rd  l e n g t h . fhe  a u th o rs  concluded from the  ex p erim en ta l f in d in g s  
t h a t  g la n d u la r  s c a le  counts cannot be considered  of p r a c t i c a l  u t i l i t y  
as compared to  d e te rm in a tio n  by d i r e c t  d i s t i l l a t i o n *  They suggested  
t h a t  th e  approxim ate o i l  y ie ld  of th e  s in g le  l e a f  i s  o f minor im portance 
b esid e  the  v a r ia t io n  in  o i l  y ie ld  o f th e  e n t i r e  p l a n t ,  shoo t r a m if ic a t io n ,  
e tc *
The f a c t  th a t  a sex u a l rep ro d u c tio n  i s  used f o r  th e  commercial p la n t ­
ings o f  ten th s sp e c ie s  p robab ly  e x p la in s  why i n t e r e s t  was n o t d i r e c te d  t o  
th e  use  o f g land  counts f o r  i s o la t io n  o f su p e r io r  p la n ts*
m
s
H
O
I*!
a
d
c
3
H
In
t!
I
1
I
I
IH
«
(9
i
HI
Uo
g
£
*3
!95
6  &
8
1 I
4»
I
S IVf fa
3
3
g a
ua ^I I 
3 I99 *0
0 5  
u  S
1  %
I
ll1
M4»
H
4»
5
|
I
3H«
I
1
3jd
4»
St2
*d
§
!
H
-P
8
3
S 1
n  ** T
i ! i s
A  
%
I
3  
8 
I
Vi
©
fa
©
3
I
4
£
4
ba
1
I
t*
*
Um u m
i  i !
do
2H
I
!
•h i4>
J8*>
I  53  •o •
a J53 §
! 1
04& *8
M<
o
4» tt
1 I
O ®
3
§
a
««
S 8
! !
d  'd
i  i
8 a
3
0In
m5
*
I
■*»
0I3
3
I  •
i  *
S  3
I  I
8
3
£0
19
I
1
Ma
9I4>
0+>
I
!
u
M
©
«**
#I
1 .
i  1
•H t
€  ►I *
& !  £ 2m£ I
|  |
3  II 1
*4
3
1
H
S40
038
I14
0
4*
1
4»&
0
4» ?
s
I I
I
I
'S
t3I
a
?
i
©
4*
i
iA
49I
I  S *
I I
£I
I8
I
i 1
I4»
H3
aa
8
3 |
i  i
i3d
0I
i  a
3
I
*0H
d0
1
1 1  
I  i
To 
ds
te
m
is
®
 
if 
va
ri
at
io
n 
in 
gia
M
 
co
un
t 
la 
in
he
ri
te
d,
 
it 
na
s 
m
o
m
-
1
&
M
■35
s
§
I t
wI
©
eg
f*
*»
Q
©
I
d
O
&
©
>
£
9
d ,
<*>
3
^4
&
*
4*
vi
Qa
i
jf
H
©si
■8
a
1*4
*#4
G
4>
o»
<0
#
I
Vj
o
s5*
4>to
#43
m■o
o
*3
*
c®
©
s ,
s Ia I
■0
I 1
c? 
m
*0
$
%
3
O
u
©
H
4»
0
0
*0
©
m
s
*$
0
5
!
I
©
©
5
4*
•w
5
*
©
*©
4
I
&
<0 
©  ©  
©
©
►
»
a
5
4> 
*0
5
©  
P1 S
a s.
A  $
44
©
P
m
I
©
0
H
4»
§
3
©
IS
14
©
£5
©
•a
?*%
H
©
«&
f*
§
*©
©
44
O
©
U
©
1§
I
I
4*
014
I
8*fHJ
t
©
H
©
m
r*
<®
§
4»tf
0
©
©
©
0
44
«*43
4*
f l
t*
H©
«4
>*
d
©
i
©
<*•4
U
«*
pe
©
8
*>
S
§8a
do
8
$
i
©&
G
£
©
I
IS€5
I
*i s0 t*
1  S
d
o
%40
*3
►M44
1
©
&x>a4
do
%4
o
(4J§
©43
hi0
43
O
X4*
«9
dj
*r(
§
©
#
*0
I
I
*©
©*o
IJ
4»
&
4*
r-tI*rtI&
«&
§
4»©5
©
43
m5
I©
£t*»♦“!£3
©
43
t
it 5
*  g
*HI®i
H
4*
©©
HI
©
m
i-1I
©
1
4>
01*©
O
a
©£
*©©©
©
*29
*0
r4
©
d0
5
4*
§
m$1*
43
43mH£
43
%4
0
4?18
t«
©*0
©§
©M
33©«rf
a
•g
©
*0
s
u0§
<rt
4»
39
©
•rS
1
tjn
14343
%
2Si
0I
43
a
M
*3
a
I
43
«$
$4a
G
£
10
*0
HI
©«p4
d
o
9
HI
10
F ig . 2 . O il Glands on th e  Under S urface  of th e  L eaf.
The arrow  in d ic a te s  p o s i t io n  o f one g la n d , o th e rs  a re  v i s ib le  (About 225X).
XI
(About 2 SOX
12
D eterm ination o f Gland p en alty  m  laader Leaf S u rface. D eterm ination  
o f th e  number o f glands per m ult o f  area on th® under su rface o f lea v e s  
was accom plished throughout t h is  study by counting th e number o f glands 
in  a f u l l  m icroscopic f i e ld ,  an area o f  2*683 square m illim e te r s , a t  4SI 
m agnification* th e  number and e ls e  o f  le a v e s  se le c te d  from each p la n t 
fo r  which gland d e n s ity  was to  be determ ined was changed as th e study  
progressed  in  order to  improve the accuracy o f  th e  fin d in gs*  The d ista n ce  
from th e t ip  o f th e blade t o  th e  p o in t o f attachm ent o f th e blade to  th e  
p e t io le  was used throughout t h is  study as an index o f l e a f  e ls e  and i s  
referred  to  as len g th  o f le a f*
During 1953 and 1959 th ree le a v e s  were se le c te d  from each plant*
Fach o f th ese  lea v e s was o f a d iffe r e n t  s i s e  approxim ating 7 cm, 8*5 cm, 
and 10 cm in  blade length* On each le a f  s e le c te d  one count was made cm 
th e  under su rface  near th e b a se , one near th e cen ter and one near th e  
t ip  o f  the blade* The n ine counts thus obtained fo r  each p lan t were 
averaged and t h is  fig u re  used as th e  gland d en sity  o f th a t p lan t •
During 1946 th ree le a v e s  were again  s e le c te d  from each p la n t but 
ra th er  than th ree  d is t in c t  s i s e s  o f le a f  a s had been used in  e a r lie r  y e a r s , 
th e  th ree  se le c te d  were a l l  o f  approxim ately m e  s lo e , the b lad es being  
8*0 cm in  len gth* Three counts were again  made on the under le a f  su rface  
but a l l  were made near the cen ter  o f the blade rath er than near the b a se, 
cen ter  and t ip  a s was done in  e a r lie r  years* During 1947 th e same pro­
cedure was used a s in  1946 except th a t the number o f  le a v e s  taken from 
each  p la n t was in creased  to  ten*
D is t i l la t io n  o f  O il. A copper s t i l l  w ith  5 -g a llo n  r e to r t cap acity  
was used throughout th is  study to  separate th e o i l  from the plant* During
1968 two p lan ts were used fo r  each d is t i l la t io n  in  order to  f i l l  the re­
to r t  and to  supply s u f f ic ie n t  o i l  to  make s p e c if ic  g ra v ity  determ ination
IS
p o ss ib le  m  th e o i l  from each d i s t i l la t io n . This s t i l l  mss operated a t  
a commercial s t i l l  near Woodbine in  C arro ll County. Steam a t SO to  100 
pounds pressure per square inch a t  the in le t  va lve e s s  used* the condsnaor
mas m aintained a t 70 degrees eem tigrede, and the tim e o f d is t i l la t io n  
v a r ied  from  15 to  25 m inutes. O is t il la t le n  m s  continued u n til o i l  fa ile d  
to  sep arate  m  top o f a sample o f d i s t i l l a t e .
The d i s t i l l a t e  m s  eaught in  a ecparatcry f la s k  and tim e m s  a llosied  
fo r  the o i l  t o  separate on th e  su r fa c e , a fte r  which th e  liq u o r  was drained  
and d iscard ed . Both d ried  and fre sh  p la n ts  were u sed  f o r  d is t i l la t io n *  
H a n ts  d ried  before d is t i l la t io n  were allow ed to  hang in  an open shed fo r  
f o u r  days w h ile  p la n ts d i s t i l l e d  f r e s h  were taken  d i r e c t l y  from cu ttin g  
in  th e  f i e l d  t o  th e  s t i l l .
D uring 194? th e  same s t i l l  and a tta c h e d  condenser were u se d , being  
o p e ra te d  a t  C o llege Bark w ith  steam  from th e  c e n t r a l  power p la n t  o f  th e  
l*i Iv o rs  i t y  o f M aryland. Steam p re s su re  a t  th e  i n l e t  v a lv e  v a r ie d  from  
118 t o  120 pounds p e r  square In c h . The condenser was m aintained a t  70°C.
p la n t  m s  used  f o r  each  d i s t i l l a t i o n  and a uniform  tim e o f  25 m inutes 
was used  f o r  each  run. The l iq u o r  d ra in ed  frost th e  se p a ra to ry  fla e k  was 
r e d i s t i l l e d  t o  remove any o i l  t h a t  f a i l e d  t o  separate m  th e  s u r f s  os*
The p la n ts  usod were d r ie d  in  th e  greenhouse fear fo u r days p r io r  to  
d i s t i l l a t i o n .
In  1859 and 1947 when y ie ld  o f  o i l  fro© p la n ts  w ith  r e l a t i v e ly  high  
g land  d e n s i ty  m  th e  under s id e  o f  th e  l e a f  was compared t o  y ie ld  o f o i l  
from p la n ts  w ith  r e l a t i v e ly  low g land  d e n s i ty ,  plant©  fro® the  two groups
were d is t i l l e d  a lte r n a te ly  in  order to  keep a t  a  minimum the e f f e c t  o f  
erro rs th a t cans® in  during th e sours* o f  the d is t i l la t io n * . H an ts used  
fo r  d i s t i l la t io n  were harvested  when they showed a s l ig h t  t in g e  o f y e llo w  
and had about 50$ o f the seed s b la ck , th is  i s  the u su a l sta g e  f o r  h arvest 
by commercial grow ers.
14
£p a c if ic  G ravity Bsterm lm atloa* S p e c if ic  g r a v ity  was used in  t h is  
stu dy as an Index to  th e q u a lity  o f th e  o i l  obtained f r m .  the variou s 
d is t i l la t io n s *  H olland e t  a l*  (24) found good agreement b eteeen  v a lu es  
fo r  th e  a sea r id o le  content* o f  o i l s  th a t had n ot stood  more than four  
■tenths* as determ ined by the Ifeget Assay and as ca lcu la ted  from the  
s p e e if le  grav ity*  the fa g o t assay  i s  th e  te n ta tiv e  assay  o f th e A ssocia­
tio n  o f  O ff ic ia l A g ricu ltu ra l Chemists* C ertain o b jectio n s can be ra ised  
to  th e  use o f  s p e c if ic  g r a v ity  to  determ ine a sea r id o le  content* th e  
p r in c ip a l ernes according to  fe ila n d  e t  §1* (24) eras 1* th e  o i l  any be 
ad u ltera ted  w ith liq u id s  o f high d en sity*  causing th e s p e e if le  g r a v ity  
to  in d ic a te  a g rea ter  percentage o f a sca r id o le  than i s  present* 2* On 
stan d in g  fo r  long p eriod s th e s p e c if  ic  g ra v ity  o f the o i l  in crea ses w h ile  
th e a sca r id o le  con ten t does not in crea se  • 2> • b  osage o f  o i l  to  k i l l
worms i s  freq u en tly  near the to x ic  le v e l  fo r  th e  anim al and should be 
determ ined a c cu ra te ly .
In gen eral p r a c tic e  commercial wormseed i s  accepted  by w h olesa le  
drug houses i f  th e s p e c if ic  g r a v ity  corresponds to  th a t required by the 
Pharmacopoeia* lo c a l d ea lers determ ine th e  s p e c if ic  g ra v ity  o f o i l  a s  
they buy i t  from farm ers and blend lo t s  in  order to  o ffe r  a product to  
the w h olesa le  houses th a t m eets a t le a s t  th e Minimum requirem ents fo r  
s p e c if ic  grav ity*
In l ig h t  o f  the foregoin g  inform ation and because o f th e convenience 
a s compared to  other methods* i t  was decided to  use s p e c if ic  g ra v ity  to  
in d ic a te  q u a lity  in  the o i l  obtained  during the course o f th is  study* 
D eterm inations were made in  a l l  ea ses w ith in  one month a fte r  d is t i l la t io n  
o f the o il*  An Kimer and Amend sm all q u an tity  hydrometer req u irin g  
approxim ately 4  oc sam ples was used and a l l  read ings were made under 
comparable roe® and tem perature con d ition s*
IS
Progexar S tu d ie s* During IS® 9 and 1947 progen ies o f s e le c te d  p la n ts  
w ith  r e la t iv e ly  high and r e la t iv e ly  low  gland d en sity  on the under su rfa ce  
o f  the lo a f  w in  grown in  order to  determ ine what r e la t io n , i f  asgr, e x is te d  
between gland d e n sity  o f  parent and progeny*
Seed from se led ted  p lan t# grown In 19S8 was plaoed In a new-ground 
seed  bed a t Woodbine during February, IS® 9* H an ts were p a lled  fr m  each  
progeny and p lan ted  the f i r s t  week o f lane in  a Manor g r a v e lly  loam s o i l  
w ith  a broadcast a p p lic a tio n  o f  400 pomade per sere  o f a 4 -1 2 -4  f e r t i l is e r *  
About 750 p la n ts o f eaeh progeny were p laoed in  two rows o f equal len g th  
w ith  42 inches between rows and an average o f 24 in ch es between p lan ts*  
During th e f i r s t  week o f  Septem ber, ten  p la n ts  were se le c te d  a t random 
fr m  each progeny, le a v e s  were obtained from each p la n t, and o i l  gland  
counts were made on th e under su rfa ce  o f the lea v e s a s p rev io u sly  
described*
Seed saved fr m  se le c te d  p la n ts  in  194b m s  p laced  in  a new ground 
seed  bed in  ffebna&ry, 1947, on th e U n iversity  o f  Maryland r ia n t Research 
farm near F airlan d . H a n ts were p ille d  fr m  each o f  th ese  progenies and 
s e t  out m  June 5rd and June 4 th  w ith  th ree  fe e t  between rows and two fe e t  
between p lan t# in  th e row. two rows o f SO p la n ts each were p lanted  o f  
each progeny* The s o i l  on which th ese  were p lanted  i s  c la s s if ie d  as a 
G olts s i l t  loam and receiv ed  a broadcast a p p lic a tio n  o f  SOD pounds per 
acre o f a 7 -7 -7  f e r t i l i s e r .
Harvest and Study o f  Seed* S e lec ted  p la n ts w ith  varying gland  
d e n sity  on th e  under su rfa ce  o f the le a f  were saved fo r  seed in  19S8,
194b, and 1947 in  order to  determ ine i f  any r e la tio n  e x is te d  between 
o i l  gland d e n sity  and seed  production*
Ifhea th ese  p la n ts  were nearing m aturity and y e t were green enough 
to  prevent seed  sh a tte r in g , th ey  were cut and hung in  a shed u n t il
16
th o ro u g h ly  a i r  d ry  a t  which tim e th e y  were weighed sod th e  seed  th re sh e d  
from  each . C u ttin g  o f th e  p la n ts  occu rred  each y e a r  d u rin g  th e  second 
week o f  Septem ber and th ra s h in g  d u rin g  th e  l a t t e r  p a r t  o f  November• 
th e  t o t a l  w eight o f f r u i t  w ith  co n ta in ed  seed was determ ined f o r  
each  p la n t  in  o rd e r  t o  c a lc u la te  th e  p ro d u c tio n  o f f r u i t  p e r  u n i t  o f  
p la n t  w eight* in  a d d i t io n ,  two r e p re s e n ta t iv e  sample® o f  1000 f r u i t s  
were o b ta in ed  from  each p lan t*  The t o t a l  w eight o f  f r u i t ,  th e  w eigh t 
o f  se e d  w ith  ca lyx  removed and th e  t o t a l  number o f seed  was determ ined  
f o r  each sample* Eemoval o f  th e  ca lyx  from th e  seed  was accom plished 
by ru b b in g  th e  a i r  d ry  f r u i t  cm a f in e  mesh m etal sc re e n  and blow ing 
th e  ca ly x  p a r t s  f r e e  from th e  seed  mass*
CBAPTEB ¥
m .m a m m A i r e s u l t s
O il H e ld  f r m .  H a n ts  d i f f e r in g  In  Gland D e n sity * The y ie ld  o f  
o i l  o b ta in ed  In  1938 from p la n ts  d i f f e r in g  In  numbers o f g len d s  pe r 
u n i t  o f  a re a  on th e  under a id e  o f th e  l e a f  I s  p re sen te d  In  f a b le  ! •  
th e s e  d a ta  show a c o n s is te n t  r e la t io n s h ip  between g land  count on the  
under s id e  o f  th e  l e a f  end o i l  p ro d u c tio n  p e r  u n i t  o f  w eight by th e  
p l a n t s ,  bo th  w ith  and w ith o u t d ry ing* th e  d a ta  f o r  th e  p la n ts  d i s t i l l e d  
w ith o u t d ry in g  a re  a ls o  p re sen te d  in  F igure  4 .
TABLE 1
O il r ie ld  From P la n ts  D if fe r in g  In  lum bers o f  Glands Per U nit
Area on Under S ide  o f  Leaf
1958
C. G. o f  o i l
Gland
d e n s ity
P la n t w eight 
G ram *
Per 100 gms 
T o ta l________ o f p la n t
Fresh  P la n ts
22
81
80
15
12
11
4880
4765
419b
5515
5787
437S
11.5
11 .4
9 .4
5 .4
5 .2
6 .9
.2475 
•2595 
•2240 
.153o 
•1188 
.1415
A ir  D ried  P la n ts
2 5 .5
19
14
2905
2155
2449
20.0
1 5 .7
1 5 .8
.6389 
.6587 
• 8655
*Two p la n ts  were used f o r  each  d i s t i l l a t i o n ,  each f ig u re
g iven  in  t h i s  ta b le  re p re s e n ts  th e  t o t a l  o f  th e  two 
p la n ts  u se d .
IS
Fig* 4*
r
/// '1AA/7T ■l R!NG
1 9 5 8
/ / V  J  r Y
occwr 
UNDER SU*'rACE 
OF LEAF P'
a s . 5
a o.o
17.5
15.0
/2.5
10.0
7.5 —
0.0 — m
loo 
a i 'm
,-i^O
m
LQ2
m
( j  l a NL> U t  N 5 I / 1 
On. YIELD
0.71
15
MEL
1.000
0.875
-0.750
0.5+
7F; — 0.625
II 1
2 S  — 0.500
i M  — 0.575
^  — 0.000
k .  ?
I k
^  EACH F IG UR E  THE M E A N  OF T W O  P L A N T S  D/ST /LLED W I T H O U T  DRYING 
S. PFR 2.688 Sq.m Art. AREA
A
th e  y ie ld  o f  o i l  obtained in  1947 fro© d is t i l la t io n  o f  p lan ts d if f e r ­
in g  in  numbers o f  glands per u n it o f area m  th e under s id e  o f  th e le a f  i s  
g iven  in  fa b le  IX and th e  reg ressio n  o f  o i l  production on gland d e n sity  i s  
shown In Figure 5* th e reg ressio n  c o e f f ic ie n t  o f  o i l  y ie ld  per 100 grams o f  
p la n t fo r  each a d d itio n a l gland per u n it area on th e under s id e  o f  th e  le a f  
i s  *0717 ♦ *0496* f© t e s t  fo r  s ig n ific a n c e  o f  t h is  v a lu e , one might assume 
th a t th e  population  va lu e fo r  reg ressio n  o f  o i l  y ie ld  m  gland d e n sity  i s
se r e  and ob tain  a *1*  va lu e a s f e l lo e s  t t  •  ,^...r.g§  •  * 2*859*so  *u24«
The *t*  ta b le  (19 ) a sc r ib es h igh  s ig n ifio a n o s  to  any fig u re  o f 2*750 (1%) 
or higher*
19
TABLE I I
O il Y ield From H a n ts  B if fe  ring: in  lum bers o f Glands 
Per U nit Area cm th e  Under S ide o f  Leaf
1947
C. C- o f O il
(Hand
d e n s ity
P la n t w eight 
Grams T o ta l
Per 100 gm>
o f p la n t
18 .97 115 1 .6 2 1 .454
17.85 456 5.05 1 .158
1 6 .5 6 186 2 .20 1.185
16.50 412 5 .50 1 .555
16.05 469 5.85 1.247
15 .80 196 5 .0 0 2.551
1 5 .60 568 5 .50 1 .440
15 .10 525 4 .6 5 1.481
15 .10 566 6.75 1.192
14.87 578 2 .1 0 0.556
14.55 521 7.85 1 .411
14 .10 595 4 .1 0 1.045
15 .80 290 2 .90 1 .000
15 .57 508 4 .45 0 .876
1 5 .2 0 622 4 .7 5 0.765
15 .07 240 2 .6 0 1.068
12.@5 555 4 .1 0 1 .155
12.95 615 2 .40 0.590
12.53 451 2 .65 0 .615
12 .50 479 2 .7 0 0.564
11.95 192 2.04 1 .061
11 .90 448 5 .6 0 0.804
11 .70 568 2 .70 0 .754
1 1 .S5 589 2 .0 5 0.527
11 .10 581 1 .15 0 .802
10 .90 558 S .4 0 0 .850
1 0 .5 0 872 5 .4 0 0.914
10 .50 451 1 .9 0 0.421
@•80 455 5 .8 5 0.839
9 .8 0 408 5 .6 5 0.395
9 .77 518 8 .9 0 1 .226
8 .8 7 5 95 4 .8 0 1.221
8 .6 7 279 2 .85 1.022
8 .5 6 456 1 .95 0.423
20
. S.
r R E G R E S S IO N  OF OIL ON GLAND COUNT
1 9 4 - 7
2.50
2.00
i . 7 5
'K. /.00
0.75
0 . 5 0
0. oo
0 8 /0 12 0 - / 6  /a
GLAND C O U N T  UNDER SURFACE O F  LEAF - 
2 . 6 8 8  SQUARE 7*7r\. AREA A
21
Gland D ensity  In P rogenies o f  S e le c te d  H a n t s . Leave® from 145 
plant®  mere examined du ring  1958* D if fe re n t  plant®  showed counts v a ry ­
ing  from 10 g lands t o  50 gland® p e r u n i t  o f  a re a  on th e  under s id e  o f
th e  l e a f  w ith  an average o f  17*0 and a  s ta n d a rd  d e v ia tio n  o f 5*St* 
Among th e  plant®  w ith  extrem e c o u n ts , e i t h e r  h igh  o r low , some were
saved fo r  seed* Data concerning th e  g land  d e n s i ty  o f  th e  p rogen ies o f
e le v en  o f th e se  p la n ts  a re  p re se n te d  in  Table I I I*
TABLE I I I
Humber o f  Glands Per t te i t  of Area On The Under S ide o f l e a f  
o f  S e le c te d  H a n ts  and T heir P rogen ies
Sead p a re n t  Progeny -  1889
1958 Average* feiffh Low
h D ensity
50 25 52 18
86 22 26 19
84 IS 21 17
85 21 27 17
85 24 29 21
82 20 25 16
24.7 21 .5 26.5 1 8 .0
D ensity
12 14 18 10
12 15 20 12
12 18 24 15
U 19 25 15
10 19 25 IS
1 1 .4 1 7 .0 22 .0 1 2 .2
*I&eh average c a lc u la te d  from  exam ination  o f  te n  p la n ts  
chosen a t  random from each  progeny*
For convenience in  comparing th e  d a ta  they  were d iv id e d  in to  two l o t s ,  
th o se  w ith  r e l a t i v e ly  high g lan d  number in  th e  parent®  making up one l o t  
and th o se  w ith  r e l a t i v e l y  low gland  number in  th e  p a re n ts  making up th e  
o th e r  lo t*  The mean g lan d  count o f  th e  high d e n s i ty  p a re n ts  was 84*7 and 
f o r  th e  low d e n s i ty  l o t  p a re n ts  was 11*4, th e  d if fe re n c e  being  15*5 gland® .
22
The m m  o f  the  p ro g en ie s  from Use high gland d e n s i ty  p a re n ts  -was 21*5 
* 0*76 and o f  th e  progen ies o f th e  low  gland d e n sity  parents was 17.0' ♦ 
1*01, th e  d iffe re n c e  being' 4*5 ♦ 1*5 • The d iffe r e n c e  in  progeny gland  
coun t was s ig n i f i c a n t  a t  odds o f abou t 4 9 si*
During 1946 lea v e s from 69 p la n ts were examined t© determ ine gland  
count per u n it o f  area on the under s id e  o f  the l e a f .  D iffe r e n t p lan ts  
showed counts varying from 3 to  95 g la n d s, the average being 15*3 and 
the standard d ev ia tio n  4.50*
As in  1953 seed  was saved from some o f the p la n ts w ith  extreme 
cou n ts, e ith e r  high or low , and was p lan ted  in  1947. Data obtained  
from exam ination in  1947 o f ten  p la n ts o f the progeny o f each o f four 
r e la t iv e ly  high count p la n ts and four r e la t iv e ly  low count p la n ts are 
given  in  Table £7.
TABLE 17
Number o f (Hands ie r  l&iit Area On The lender S id e o f le a f  
o f S e lec ted  H a n ts and T heir P rogenies
Seed parent _________  Progeny * 1947*  m m m m m i— »III ■! HIM—n il i »■! ii»<ii in. wi.... iit i....  .wrwwiw.wr.ii.i i. i r
1946 Average* high Low
High D ensity
9 1 .6  17 .87
21 .5  1 4 .9 9
1 9 .6  14 .93
1 8 .8  14 .2 2
Average 20 .4  1 5 .5 2
Low D ensity
12 .1  1 0 .5 6
1 1 .8  1 0 .5 0
1 1 .6  9 .7 5
1 1 .1  9 .9 0
Average 1 1 .4  10.15
2 1 .8  1 4 .1
25 .4  1 0 .1
1 9 .1  1 2 .9
1 9 .9  9 .1
21.1 11.6
1 1 .9  8 .7
1 1 .9  9 .2
1 5 .6  8 .0
12 .5  8 .4
1 2 .4  8 .6
**Baeh average ca lcu la ted  from exam ination o f lea v es  
o f ten  p la n ts chosen a t random from each progeny.
mThe m m i o f the  high d en sity  l o t  parents was 20 .4  glands and fo r  the  
1cm d en sity  l o t  parents m s 11*4 g la n d s, th e d iffe re n c e  doing 9 .0  g la n d s. 
th e  m w k  o f  th e progeny o f h igh  gland d en sity  parents was I S .52 ♦ 0 .54  
w h ile  th e  mean o f  th e progeny o f  the 1 m  gland d en sity  parents was 10.13  
+ 0 .2 0 , th e d ifferen o e  being 5 .3 9  ±  0 .3 9 . Comparison o f  the r e s u lts  
obtain ed  by exam ination o f  the fo r ty  p la n ts w ith  high gland count parents 
to  th e  data fo r  th e fo r ty  p la n ts w ith  low gland count parents r e su lte d  in  
a *t* value o f  9*49. th e *t* ta b le  (1 9 ) a scr ib es h igh  s ig n if ic a n c e  to  
any fig u r e  o f 2 .648  (1$) or h ig h er .
S p e c if ic  G ravity o f on from H a n ts d if fe r in g  in  Qland D en sity .  The 
s p e c if ic  g ra v ity  o f each o f  th e lo t s  o f o i l  obtained in  195 § from p la n ts  
d iffe r in g  in  numbers o f  glands per u n it o f area m  the under s id e  o f th e  
l e a f  i s  presented  in  Table V* The mean s p e c if ic  g ra v ity  fo r  o i l  from the  
r e la t iv e ly  h igh gland d e n sity  p la n ts was s l ig h t ly  h igher than the mean 
s p e c if ic  g r a v ity  fo r  the o i l  from the r e la t iv e ly  low  gland d e n sity  p lan ts*  
both w ith  and w ithout drying o f  th e p la n ts before d i s t i l la t io n . These 
d iffe r e n c e s  were not s ig n if ic a n t  a t  th e S$ le v e l*
H a n ts which were d ried  p r io r  to  d i s t i l la t io n  y ie ld e d  o i l  o f higher  
s p e c if ic  g ra v ity  than p la n ts  which were d i s t i l l e d  fr e sh . This d iffe re n c e  
i s  in  th e  d ir e c tio n  th a t would be exp ected .
The s p e c if ic  g r a v ity  o f o i l  obtained  in  1947 from p la n ts  d iffe r in g  
in  numbers o f  gla^Ss per u n it o f  area on the under s id e  o f  th e le a f  i s  
g iven  in  Table V I. The reg ressio n  o f  s p e c if ic  g ra v ity  on gland d en sity  
as computed from th ese  data i s  sm all* being p lus .000248 + .000014 fo r  
each in crea se  o f erne gland per u n it o f  area on th e  under su rfa ce  o f  the  
l e a f .  This va lu e  i s  n ot s ig n if ic a n t  a t th e  B% le v e l  g iv in g  a *t* value  
o f 0 .5 9 $  w h ile  a minimum o f 2.101 i s  needed (19) tost s ig n ific a n c e  w ith  
13 degrees o f freedom .
24
TABLE 7
S p e c if ic  G ra v ity  o f ©41 Fro® H a n ts  D if fe r in g  in  
Knabers o f  Glands Bar Unit Area on th e  
Under S u rface  o f L eaf
1988
(Hand d e n sity  S p e c ifio
o f  p la n ts d i s t i l l e d __________________ g ra v ity #
Fresh  P la n ts
High Gland D en sity
22 0*8190
21 0*9225
20 0.9075
Average 21 0.9165
Low (Hand D en sity
15 0.9225
11 0 .3950
Average 12 0.9088
Dried H a n ts
High Gland D ensity
2 5 .5  0 .9510
25 0.9415
19 0 .9575
Average 2 1 .8  0.9567
Lew Gland D ensity
14 0 .9240
15 0 .9550
Average 15*5 0.9295
*Tw© p la n ts were need fo r  each d is t i l l a t io n .  
Each s p e c if ic  g r a v ity  determ ination  was made 
w ith  th e o i l  frost th ese  two p la n ts •
Sp
ec
if
ic
 
G
ra
vi
ty
 
of 
OH 
Fr
o®
. 
H
an
ts
 
D
iff
er
in
g 
in
 
In
®b
ea
rs 
of 
G
la
nd
s 
Pe
r 
G
ait
 
Ar
ea
 
m 
tfc
©
Un
de
r 
Su
rf
ac
e 
of 
le
a
f
50s*
C*
&
r t
Fs
ISa  m 
UO i*0|
iliSg ISl l i  I§Ss§ SjssS40o  0»
•  •  •  •  •o o o o o
•  •  •  •  •o o o o o
m
o  o  d  d o
Oft
•  •  •  •  •o o o o o
il
r l H H S S  «tf H <M H C* CM CM CM CM ri
to o  Q9CO H O F H H• • • • •  • • • • •  • • • • •  • • • • •
« < 9 ^ i A 4  t O U > « « A  m  M H  H  H  O O O A 0
HHHHH H H r l n n  rnHnHH HHH
Eb
Va r i a t i o n  o f  l e a f  Q lm d B enalty  on th e  In d iv id u a l P la n t* During 
th e  course o f t h i s  s tu d y  i t  because a p p aren t th a t  th e  number o f g lands 
p e r  u n i t  o f  a re a  m  the  under su rfa c e  o f  le a v es  from the  same p la n t 
v a r ie d  w ith  th e  sis©  o f th e  l e a f  s e le c te d ,  th e  p o r tio n  o f th e  l e a f  
exam ined, and th e  p o s i t io n  o f th e  l e a f  on th e  p l a n t .  In  g e n e ra l  i t  
was found th a t  among lea v es  s e le c te d  from th e  same p la n t ,  th e  ones 
coming from n e a r  th e  t i p  o f  th e  branches were s m a lle r  in  s iz e  and 
h ig h e r  in  g land d e n s ity  than  th e  le a v e s  coming from the  c e n tr a l  p o r tio n  
o f  th e  b ran ch es,  w hile  the  le a v es  coming from n e a r  th e  base o f the  
branches a lth o u g h  sm a lle r  in  s iz e  had low er g land  d e n s ity  th an  the  
lea v es  coming from th e  c e n t r a l  p o r tio n  o f  th e  b ran ch es•
In o rd e r  to  have s p e c i f i c  in fo rm a tio n  concern ing  th e se  d i f f e r e n c e s , 
t h a t  had become c le a r ly  rec o g n ize d , two s e t s  o f d a ta  were secured  d u rin g  
1947. The d a ta  p resen ted  in  Table V II show th e  r e l a t i o n  o f l e a f  s iz e  
and g land  count t o  p o s it io n  o f th e  l e a f  on th e  b ranch . To secu re  th e se  
d a ta  a branch was s e le c te d  a t  random from one o f  the  p la n ts  growing in  
th e  n u rse ry  and g land  d e n s ity  d e te rm in a tio n s  were made on each l e a f ,  
s t a r t i n g  a t  th e  base and working toward th e  t i p .  For convenience in  
p r e s e n ta t io n ,  th e s e  d a ta  were summarized by g rouping  each  th re e  leav es  
s t a r t i n g  a t  th e  base o f  th e  b ran ch . leav es  l e s s  than  5 cm in  le n g th  
were n o t examined because o f th e  d i f f i c u l t y  in  coun ting  th e  c lo s e ly  
packed g la n d s • The t i p  I S .0  cm o f  t h i s  branch had 18 le a v e s  each l e s s  
than  S cm in  le n g th  and fo r  which no d a ta  a re  p re s e n te d .
The d a ta  in  Table V II a re  a s  expec ted  in  th a t  sm a lle r  le a v e s  were 
found n e a r  th e  base o f th e  stem , l a r g e r  leav es  n e a r  th e  c e n t r a l  p o r tio n  
o f  th e  stem  and sm a lle r  le a v es  n e a r  th e  t i p  o f  th e  stem . A lso , the  
le a v e s  n ear th e  base had l e s s  g land  d e n s ity  th an  th e  lea v es  found in
a?
tfc® c e n t r a l  p o r t io n  o f  th e  stem , w h ile  th e  le a v e s  found n ear th e  t i p  
o f  th e  stem  had g r e a te r  g land  d e n s i ty  th an  th e  le a v e s  found n e a r th e  
c e n te r  o f  th e  stem*
In  o rd e r to  g e t  more d e ta i le d  in fo rm a tio n  a s  t o  th e  v a r i a t io n  in  
g lan d  d e n s i ty  as a s s o c ia te d  -Kith d if f e r e n c e s  in  s i s e  o f le a v e s  s e le c te d  
from th e  c e n t r a l  and t i p  p o r t io n  o f  th e  stem s and t o  s tu d y  e f f e c t  o f  
p o r t io n  o f l e a f  examined on th e  count obtained* th r e e  s e t s  o f  te n  le a v e s  
e ac h  were c o l le c te d  from one p la n t  d u rin g  1947# Ulna g land  co u n ts  s e re  
made cm th e  under su rfa c e  o f  th e  blade o f  each o f th e s e  leav es*  th re e  
n e a r  th e  base* th r e e  n e a r  th e  cen te r*  and th re e  n e a r  th e  t ip *  The d a ta  
th u s  o b ta in ed  i s  p re sen te d  in  Table V III  and in  F igure  6 *
R e su lts  o b ta in ed  were in  acco rd  w ith  p rev io u s o b se rv a tio n s  1st t h a t  
g lan d  d e n s i ty  on th e  under su rfa c e  o f th e  le a v e s  tak en  from  th e  upper 
p o r t io n  o f  th e  stem s of s  p la n t d e c re a se  w ith  in c re a s e  i n  s i s e  o f  th e  
le a v e s  and t h a t  counts made n e a r  th e  t i p  o f  th e  l e a f  g ive  h ig h e r  g land  
d e n s i ty  th an  coun ts made n e a r  th e  c e n te r  o r  base o f  th e  leav es*  The 
c o e f f i c i e n t s  o f v a r ia t io n  g iven  i n  T able T i l l  show t h a t  th e  v a r i a b i l i t y  
in  l e a f  s i s e  a s  m easured by le n g th  and g r e a te s t  w id th  was sm all w ith in  
each  o f th e  th re e  lo ts *  The means o f  th e  c o e f f ic ie n t s  o f  v a r ia t io n  
f o r  l e a f  g lan d  d e n s i ty  on th e  th re e  l o t s  were 19*2# f o r  th e  group w ith  
th e  sm a lle s t  leav es*  2$*9% f o r  th e  group w ith  medium s i s e  leav es*  and 
32*7^ f o r  th e  group w ith  th e  l a r g e s t  leaves*  From t h i s  in fo rm atio n  i t  
would appear th a t  th e  sm a lle r  le a v e s  m ight b e s t  be used f o r  de te rm ina­
t io n  o f  g land  count*
In  p r a c t ic e  i t  was found th a t  le a v e s  av erag in g  th e  s i s e  o f th e  
medium group in  Table VIXI cou ld  be examined more r a p id ly  th an  le a v e s  
av erag in g  th e  s i s e  o f  th e  group c o n ta in in g  th e  sm a lle s t  le a v e s  because
FT------------------ 51
r HANGE IN  GLAND NUMBER WITH CHANGE 
IN  LEAF S IZ E ^
1 9 4 - 7
L i h f  SLADE LENGTH
G L A N D  N UMBER
% so i
17.1
)i 5.2
j
-j
u_O
Uj
EACH S I Z E  G R O U P  WITH ALL F R O M  
S A M E  P L A N T
A
th ey  m k  l e s s  c r in k le d ,  p erm ittin g  the  whole m icroscopic f i e l d  to  be 
in  focus a t  one tin®  and because l e s s  d e n s ity  o f gland® gave g r e a te r  
ease  in  c o u n tin g . Accuracy o f  oeim te was o b ta in ed  by in c re a s in g  the  
number o f  le a v e s  counted*
TABI& tXX
S ise  o f  l e a f  and Humber o f  (Hands Bar U nit o f a re a  m  Under 
S u rfa ce  a s  A sso c ia ted  w ith  P o s itio n  m  1 he Stem3-
194?
D istance  from  base o f
stem  t o  p o in t o f  l e a f  l e a f  b lade e ls e  cm Gland
attachm en t on le n g th  W idest p o in t d e n s ity ^
9 .0 7 .1 5 .0 6 .7
1 5 .9 @ .6 6 .9 8 . 8
25 .S 1 0 . 2 4 .9 1 0 . 0
5 1 .4 10.5 4 .6 16*4
5 7 .8 9 .4 4 .0 2 0 . 6
4 5 .S 8 .4 5 .S 2 1 . 1
4 9 .6 8 .5 5 .5 25 .4
56 .5 7 .9 5 .0 2 1 * 1
62 . 0 6 .9 2.5 22 .4
65.9 6 . 2 1 .9 2 2 . 1
69.5 5 .4 1 .5 26 .6
%acfe f ig u re  i s  th e  average  o f  d a ta  o b ta in ed  by th e  exam ination  
o f  th r e e  le a v e s .
%Land d e n s ity  on each  l e a f  was determ ined  by exam ination  o f  
c e n t r a l  p o r t io n  o f  under s u r f a c e .
50
t&MlM V III
Iruissbers o f  Glands Ber U nit o f  Area on TJteder S u rface  
o f  Loaf a s  A sso c ia ted  w ith  V a ria tio n s  in  S is e  o f  L eaf and 
P o rtio n  o f Leaf Examined
1947
Leaf Blade S is e  cm l e a f  Gland D ensity
Widest
le n g th  p o in t
Basal C e n tra l  
p o r tio n  p o rtio n
T ip
p o r tio n
le a n  * j c  Bean s  $C je a n  s  $C Bean s  #C Bean s  |Cc
5*2 0 .22  4 .2  1*7 0 .1 7  1 0 .0  5 1 .2  6 .0  19 .2  3 2 .4  6 .0  1 8 .5  3 4 .7  6 .7  19.5
9 .1  0 .5 S 3 .8  3 .3  0 .4 0  9 .5  1 5 .7  4 .6  29.3 1 7 .5  4 .3  2 4 .8  1 3 .1  4*3 2 3 .8
10.5  0 .3 3  5 .7  4 .5  0 .21  4 .7  1 0 .6  5 .6  $ 4 .0  1 0 .4  3 .1  2 9 .8  1 0 .8  3 .7  34 .5
s  » s ta n d a rd  d e v ia tio n  C •  C o e f f ic ie n t  o f  v a r ia t io n
Each mean re p re s e n ts  t h i r t y  c o u n ts , th r e e  being  made m  each  o f  
ta n  le a v e s .  AH le a v e s  were ta k e n  from th e  same p la n t .
SI
Send Y ield  from H U nts D if fe r in g  in  Gland D en sity . Data concern­
in g  th e  y ie ld  o f  seed  in  1888 by p la n ts  d i f f e r in g  in  numbers o f g lands 
p e r  u n i t  o f  a re a  on th e  under s id e  o f  th e  l e a f  a re  g iven  in  Table XI. 
These d a ta  shoe  t h a t  th e  r e l a t i v e ly  h ig h  g land  d e n s i ty  p l a n t s ,  w ith  a 
mean d e n s i ty  o f  27*4 g lands produced an average o f  5 .4  gram* more f r u i t  
p e r  1 0 0  grams o f  p la n t  th an  th e  r e l a t i v e ly  low g lan d  d e n s ity  p la n ts  
whioh had a  mean d e n s i ty  o f  11*4 g la n d s . Comparison o f  th e  d if fe re n c e  
in  fT u l t  y ie ld  between th e s e  two groups gave a  *t*  v a lue  o f  1 .7 b  w hile  
th e  v a lu e  n e c e ssa ry  f o r  s ig n if ic a n c e  a t  th e  6$ l e v e l  w ith  1 2  d f  i s  
2 .179  o r  h ig h e r  (1 9 ).
The high  g land  d e n s i ty  group averaged  $&•§ grams l e s s  a i r  d ry  
w eight p e r  p la n t  th an  th e  low g lan d  d e n s ity  g roup , a n a ly s is  o f  t h i s  
d if f e r e n c e  gave a  «t« v a lu e  o f  0 .81  w hile  2 .179  o r  h ig h e r  (19) was 
needed a t  th e  5£ l e v e l  f o r  s ig n i f ic a n c e .
Data c o l le c te d  in  194b concern ing  seed  p ro d u c tio n  by p la n ts  d i f f e r ­
in g  in  numbers o f  g lan d s p e r  u n i t  o f  a re a  cm th e  under s id e  o f  th e  l e a f  
i s  p re sen te d  in  Table 1 .  k  summary o f  th e  r e s u l t s  o b ta in ed  by s t a t i s ­
t i c a l  a n a ly se s  o f  th e  1940 seed  p ro d u c tio n  d a ta  a re  g iven  in  Table X I.
I t  i s  a p p a ren t from exam ination  o f  Table XX t h a t  a s  g land  d e n s i ty  
in c re a s e d  th e re  was a  d e c rea se  in  th e  fo llo w in g  fa c to r© : 1 .  The a i r  
d ry  w eigh t o f  th e  p l a n t s ,  2 . th e  f r u i t  produced p er 1 0 0  grams o f  a i r
d ry  p l a n t ,  S . th e  w eight o f  1000 f r u i t ,  4 .  th e  number o f  seed
co n ta in e d  in  1000 f r u i t ,  S . th e  w eigh t o f  seed  produced by 1000 
f r u i t ,  b . th e  c a lc u la te d  number o f f r u i t  p e r  1 0 0  grams o f  a i r  d ry
p la n t ,  7 . th e  c a lc u la te d  number o f  seed  p e r  100 grams o f  a i r  d ry
p la n t ,  and 8 . th e  c a lc u la te d  w eigh t o f  seed  p e r  1 0 0  grams o f  a i r  d ry  
p l a n t .  I t  i s  a ls o  a p p a re n t t h a t  none o f  th e se  va lu es mere la rg e  enough 
t o  be s ig n i f i c a n t  a t  th e  5% l e v e l .
tJkBlE IX
Seed P roduction  by P la n ts  D if fe r in g  in  lum bers o f  (Handa 
&»r H alt Area on tfeder S ide  o f  L eaf
1968
(Hand A ir  d ry  p la n t  F r u i t  p e r 100 grama
d e n s i ty ______________Oraaa____________ o f  p l a n t ______
High
SO 955 1 6 .8
26 726 1 5 .8
25 655 23*5
25 518 28.5
24 544 29*4
24 499 23*1
25 680 52*5
25 544 29*4
22 408 24*5
Are* 27*4 589*7 25*66
Low
12 317 54*5
12 499 52*1
12 499 27 .1
11 955 54*2
10 565 27*6
A re. 11*4 626*2 5 1 .0 6
T4SHX
Seed Product!® % Hants l&XXtring la Hiato of Glands fat 
unit m& m under Side ol Leal
1946
Calculate* Calculated Calculated
Fruit per 1000 Fruit1 mater of iruit ra**** «* ««d grams »f mtA
Air dry 100 grams «t  Total Sattar taigbt por 100 gnu per M° «»“  P« 1« «nu»
aland pUnt sir dry pleut might of of seed of air dry plant of oil it}  (Out of air dry plant
density arm  Orara Orem. eeed orm  (000 aaltted) (000 eaittadj .....
22.2 198 a .2216 804 .1658 185 143 80.7
21.5 414 46 .2533 855 .2017 185 159 17.6
19.6 48? 42 .2151 735 •1647 195 155 52.2
13.3 456 41 .2246 842 .1759 185 154 81.7
18.1 528 55 .2122 709 .1547 156 n o 24.1
16.7 545 84 .2196 325 .1546 155 127 25.9
16.1 447 58 .2049 328 .14S6 135 154 27.7
IS .4 491 45 .2599 816 .2022 175 141 58.0
14.3 622 83 .2091 785 .1565 182 142 28.4
14.S 550 35 •2061 81? .1526 169 158 25.9
14.4 425 44 .2440 85? .1393 130 155 54.2
14.1 597 36 .2153 315 .1572 169 153 26.5
15.7 552 39 .2551 765 .1775 167 128 29.7
15.6 575 45 .228? 760 .1770 19? 150 54.8
12.7 770 42 .2468 @85 .1955 170 150 55.2
12.1 515 46 .2631 842 .2070 172 144 55.5fin ff
11.3
11.6
11.1
406
290
509
41
68
45
.2220
.2485
•2575
767
368
355
.1645
.1955
.2002
185
274
175
142
213
ISO
SOtS
58.5
55.0
^Figures glean represent the average of too samples of 1000 fruits each.
54
TABLE XI
A n a ly sis  o f  Lata P resen ted  in  T ab le  X 
(Gland coun t a s  Independent v a r i a b l e }
|te m
R eg ress io n  
Mean c o e f f ic ie n t
S tan d ard
d e v ia tio n  o f  » t*  *t« Degrees
re g re s s io n  v a lu e  v a lu e  o f
c o e f f i c i e n t  o b ta in e d  a t  .0 5  freedom
A ir d ry  p la n t  
w eigh t in  grams 456*74 -0 .9 6
Grams o f f r u i t  p e r  
1 0 0  grams o f  a i r  
d ry  p la n t  42*2 -0*60
H eight o f 1000 
f r u i t  In  gram* 0.2512 -9 .0017
Humber o f seed  p e r 
1 0 0 0  f r u i t  ( 0 0 0
o m itted ) @15.9 -2 .1 2
H eight o f  seed  p e r  
1 0 0 0  f r u i t  in
grass© 0*1758 -0 .0016
C a lc u la te d  number o f  
f r u i t  p e r  1 0 0  grams 
o f  a i r  d ry  p la n t  
(000 o m itted ) 1 8 1 .9  -0 .7 2 5
C a lc u la te d  numbers o f  
seed  p e r  1 0 0  grams o f  
a i r  d ry  p la n t  ( 0 0 0  
o m itte d )  148*5 -1 4 .4 1
C a lc u la te d  w eight in  
grams Cf seed  p e r
1 0 0  grams o f  a i r
d ry  p la n t  5 2 .1  -0*518
7.82
0*54
0.15
2*46
0 .54
1.3S
1 .7 8
0.125 2 .110  17
1 .116  2 .110  17
0.001 2 .050  56
0.864 2 .050  56
0 .046  2 .050  56
0 .596  2 .110  17
0 .809 2 .110  17
0 .47 1 .112  2 .110  17
$5
Bata concerning the production o f eeed in  1947 by p la n ts d iffe r in g  
in  numbers o f glands per u n it o f  area on the under le a f  su rfa ce  are 
presented in  fa b le  111* A sm mstry o f  the an a lyses o f  th ese  data to  t e s t  
fo r  s ig n ific a n c e  o f  the d iffe r e n c e s  found i s  g iven  in  fa b le  X III•
th e  nine p la n ts in  th e high gland d e n sity  group averaged 10*6 glands 
per u n it  area cm th e under su rface  of th e lea v e s w h ile  th ose in  the low  
gland d e n sity  group averaged 9 .1  glands* th e  p la n ts In th e high gland  
d e n sity  group averaged more a ir  dry w eight than th ose in  th e  low  gland  
d e n sity  group* This d iffe r e n c e  was h igh ly  s ig n if ic a n t  as shewn in  
Table X III.
In a l l  other seed  production fa c to r s  fear which th ese  two lo t s  were 
compared, the high gland d e n s ity  group produced s ig n if ic a n t ly  le s s  than  
the low  gland d e n sity  group* In th e comparisons o f w eight o f  seed  per 
1000 f r u it  in  g r a ss , c a lc u la ted  number o f  eeed per 100 grams o f a ir  dry 
p la n t , and ca lcu la ted  w eight in  grams o f seed  per 100 grams o f  a ir  dry 
p la n t, the d iffe r e n c e  was h ig h ly  s ig n if ic a n t , the *t* value obtained  
being greater than n ecessary  fo r  s ig n ific a n c e  a t  th e 1% le v e l*
Seed S et H ith and Without Bagging, In order to  determ ine whether 
p la n ts o f wormseed would s e t  seed  under bags which prevented cro ss  
p o llin a t io n , p ortion s o f seven  p la n ts o f the commercial type were covered  
w ith  parchment bags Ju st p rior  to  the opening o f  the flow ers*  These bags 
remained over the branches u n t il  th e p la n ts were a t a sta g e  o f m aturity  
th a t th ey  could be harvested  fo r  seed* At th is  stage the branch covered  
w ith th e bag was harvested  and a ls o  the c lo s e s t  branch which had not been 
covered was cut and saved*
A fter  the branches had d ried  s u f f ic ie n t ly  fo r  th resh in g  o f the se e d , 
two sam ples o f 100 f r u it  were removed from each branch* These f r u it s
Si
M l  XIX
Seed deduction %j t a t s  Differing in tab m  of (tads tor 
talt Area on Under Bide of kef
1947
fruit per XOuO fruit1
Air dry 100 grass of *Mal Emb5**~Mght 
uland plant air dr/ plant weight of of seed
density Gran Gras® Qriii  seed Grass
W * w » w rnwn m t+mm * ”*   Mmumtnm n  «—HiawM .i .a n. imii ■■■J.iwi n
Calculated fruit 
per 100 grass 
of air dry plant 
(000 aalttedj
GalemlaUd 
iui'mr of seed 
per 100 grass 
of sir dry plant 
(000 wittjdi__
Calculated 
grains 9t 
per 100 grass 
of air dry plant
High Gland Density
0.3 m 28.9 .208 359 .136 139
20.1 510 31.1 .240 878 .162 130
19.5 440 33.9 .275 947 .202 124
19.1 446 29.5 .01 919 .164 128
18.7 551 56.1 *249 867 .167 145
18.5 225 28.4 .245 850 .178 116
17.5 441 36.1 .271 957 .201 129
17.2 451 43.8 •2S2 365 .181 174
17.1 498 42.3 .07 874 .171 181
Average
18.8 435.7 34.52 .246 886 .174 14Gi
111
114
115 
US 
126
99
m  
i  m 
i n
124*4
lt.9
0.0
25.1
a.o
24*2
20.6
26.0
Sl.S
30.®
24.4
Im Gland 
10.1
Density
199 46.2 .265 942 .206 174
9.9 410 42.2 .281 961 .207 110
9.S 290 Sl.Q .03 943 .181 219
9.2 276 50.3 •266 904 .190 116
9.2 00 51.5 .247 396 .190 201
3.9 199 47,2 .232 911 »tu 167
3.3 241 49.4 .236 940 .211 175
3.4 245 45.3 .235 895 .206 152
3.0 256 52.7 .234 194 .205 106
ivemfe
9.1 260.7 46.CE .270 918 .im 171.
114
140
207
i d
iss
111
l i t
166
187,4
IS.9
11.1
59.6
21.0
59.1
15.3
51.4
51.1 
58.0
figures given represent tfee average of two staples of 1000 fruits each.
8?
tknm xu x
A nalysis  o f  Data P resen ted  in  Table XIX
Itean
Item
•t** •t**
"High Lear D i f f e r -  «t« v a lu e  va lue
g lan d  g land  ones T ains a t  .0 5  a t  *01
d e n s i ty  d e n s i ty  (h -1 ) ob ta ined  IS  d / f  IS  d / f
A ir  d ry  p la n t  w eight in  
grams
G rass o f f r u i t  p e r  100 
grams o f  a i r  d ry  
p la n t
Weight o f 1000 f r u i t  in  
grams
Brasher o f  seed  p e r 1 0 0 0  
f r u i t  ( 0 0 0  o m itte d )
H eight o f  seed  p e r  1000 
f r u i t  in  grams
C a lc u la te d  number o f f r u i t  
p e r  1 0 0  grams o f  a i r  d ry  
p la n t  ( 0 0 0  o m itte d )
C a lc u la te d  number o f  seed  
p e r 1 0 0  grams o f  a i r  d ry  
p la n t  ( 0 0 0  e m itte d )
C a lc u la te d  w eight in  g ra s s  
©f seed  p e r  1 0 0  g ra s s  o f 
a i r  d ry  p la n t
456 ,7  260.7  *176.0 4 .8 2  2 .120  2.921
8 4 .52  46 .01  -11 .49  2 .7 9  2 .120
•246 .270 - .0 2 4  2.52 2 .120
806 ©18 -52 2 .MS 2 . 1 2 0
.174 .201 - .0 2 ?  5 .4 7 8  2 .120  2.821
1 4 0 .7  171 .7  '-6 1 .0  2.422 2 .120
124.4  157 .4  -5 5 .0  5.C69 2 .120  2.921
2 4 .4  5 4 .4  -1 0 .0  4 .201  2 . 1 2 0  2 .921
C8
were c a r e fu l ly  rubbed so  a s  t o  expose th e  seed  f o r  coun ting  • K esu lts  
e re  p resen te d  In  Table XI2* These d a te  show t h a t  on th e  aye rage th e re  
w ere 19*1 so re  seed s s e t  p e r  1 0 0  f r u i t  by th e  p la n ts  w ith o u t bagging 
th an  w ith  bagging* Most o f t h i s  d if f e re n c e  was c o n tr ib u te d  bj  p la n ts  
2 - 1  and 9 -4 .
TABLE XIV
Seed S e t on P la n ts  o f Womseed With and W ithout Sagging To
C on tro l P o ll in a t io n
Mwerege' n i« £ ir " o f ' "seed ' per 1 0 0  f r u i t  
EUnt nuabar »lt-h togging Without bagging
2 - 1 40*5 92*5
5-1 95*0 94*0
4 -1 84*0 95.5
S - l 94*0 99 .0
6 - 2 m .& 90 .0
8 - 1 71*5 91.5
9-4 4 4 .5 92 .0
Average 74 .4 95 .5
Wild Type H a n ts  Compared to  Ccsimgrct&l Tyne g ia n ts  * During th e  
cou rse  o f t h i s  study  i t  was no ted  t h a t  th e  m a jo r ity  o f  p la n ts  found 
growing w ild  d i f f e r e d  in  ss&ity r e s p e c ts  fro® th e  predom inant type  found 
in  th e  f i e l d s  where th e  p la n t  wm  be ing  grown f o r  coam erc la l o i l  produc­
t i o n .  In  g e n e ra l th e  w ild  type  p la n ts  f i t  th e  d e s c r ip t io n  g iven  in  G ray’s 
Manual (14) f o r  C. a ab ro e io id e#  L* (Mexican T e a ), w h ile  th e  dom estic  o r 
commercial type  p la n ts  f i t  th e  d e s c r ip t io n  in  t h i s  Manual f o r  C* am broeio ides 
1* Var. antheli& inticuai !»• Qray (Wormaeed). However,  an o c ca s io n a l w ild  
type  p la n t  i s  found in  th e  c u l t iv a te d  wom seed f i e l d s  and v ic e  versa*  
In sp e c tio n  o f th e  d r ie d  specim ens in  the  Herbarium o f th e  n a t io n a l  
Arboretum s to re d  a t  th e  P la n t In d u s try  S ta t io n  a t  B e l t s v i l l e ,  M aryland,
58
shewed th a t  specim ens la b e l le d  C« am brosio ides L. and which were ty p ic a l  
o f  th e  predom inant w ild  type  found in  Maryland may be found i s  F o ld e r 
Humber 2228 and a re  numbered 9056, 155742, and 95555. Specimens ty p ic a l  
o f  th e  predom inant c u l t iv a te d  type and la b e l le d  ۥ am brosio ides a n th e l -  
rainticuBi may be found in  F o ld e r  £225 and a re  numbered 4158? and 41597.
I t  i s  o f  i n t e r e s t  t o  n o te  t h a t  a photograph o f th e  ty p e  o f  G» 
am brosio ides L inn. s p .  V i, 219 (1755) in  th e  Herbarium o f  lixm ean 
S o c ie ty ,  London, which was re c e iv e d  in  A p r i l ,  1919, and which may be 
found in  th e  Herbarium o f  The n a t io n a l  A rboretum , specimen Humber 
85145, ap p ea rs  t o  more c lo s e ly  resem ble th e  c u l t iv a te d  type  than  th e  
w ild  ty p e .
In  1946 eeed was c o l le c te d  from a few w ild  p la n ts  growing in  C a r r o l l ,  
H a rfo rd , C e c i l ,  W ashington, and T a lb o t C o u n tie s . Two rows o f 25 p la n ts  
o f  each  o f  th e  p ro g en ies  o f  14 w ild  p la n ts  were in c lu d ed  in  th e  n u rse ry  
a t  th e  P la n t  R esearch Farm in  1947. These were handled  in  th e  same 
manner a s  th e  commercial type  p la n ts  in  th e  n u rse ry  in  o rd er t h a t  
com parison cou ld  be made between th e  two ty p e s .
The w ild  type  p la n ts  were found t o  average sm a lle r  le a v e s  than  th e  
comm ercial type  p la n t s .  T his was e v id e n t from lo o k in g  a t  th e  p la n ts  
and i s  sheen by th e  f a c t  t h a t  th e  te n  l a r g e s t  le a v es  from each o f  50 
w ild  p la n ts  s e le c te d  a t  random, averaged  5 .55  cm le n g th  o f  l e a f  b lade 
w ith  a s ta n d a rd  d e v ia tio n  o f  1 .61  cm, w hile  i t  was seldom  a problem 
to  s e l e c t  1 0  le a v e s  from any o f  th e  commercial p la n ts  which averaged 
1 0 . 0  cm le n g th  o f  l e a f  b la d e .
The w ild  p la n ts  were a ls o  found to  have a d i f f e r e n t  odor when th e  
le a v e s  were b ru is e d ,  a  l i g h t e r  g reen  c o lo r  in  g e n e ra l ,  and th e  le a v e s  
l e s s  s tro n g ly  to o th ed  than  th e  commercial type p la n t s .
40
O ther d if f e re n c e s  between th e se  type© a re  g iven  in  ta b le  X?* In  
a sk in g  th e  com parisons g iven  in  Table XV, p la n ts  were © elected  a t  random 
from each o f th e  w ild  type p ro g e n ie s , w hile  th e  p la n ts  fro® the  comz&er- 
c i a l  type  a re  th o se  used  f o r  g land  count com parisons rep o rte d  e a r l i e r  
in  t h i s  th e s is  and cannot be considered  as  random sam ples* For t h i s  
reason  no a ttem p t was made t o  compare th e  two ty p es  as to  s ig n if ic a n c e  
o f  th e  d if fe re n c e s  obtained*  In s te a d , the means a re  g iven  and th e  
s ta n d a rd  d e v ia tio n  o f  each In  o rd e r th a t  th e  v a r ia t io n  w ith in  th e  d a ta  
may be Judged*
The d a ta  p resen ted  in  Table I f  shows t h a t  among the  p la n ts  examined 
th e  w ild  ty p e  produced much l e e s  o i l ,  produced o i l  w ith  low er s p e c i f ic  
g r a v i ty ,  had s l i g h t l y  l e s s  a i r  d ry  w e ig h t, produced s l i g h t l y  l e s s  f r u i t  
p e r  1 0 0  grams of a i r  d ry  p la n t ,  averaged  much l e s s  w eigh t p e r m ature 
f r u i t ,  produced more th a n  tw ice  a s  many f r u i t  p e r u n i t  o f  w e ig h t, a v e r­
aged s l i g h t l y  l e s s  seed  s e t  p e r  1 0 0 0  f r u i t ,  produced more than  tw ice  
a s  many f r u i t  p e r u n i t  o f  p la n t  w e ig h t, produced l e s s  than  h a l f  a s  much 
w eight ©f seed  p e r  1 0 0 0  f r u i t  and produced l e s s  w eight o f  se ed  p e r  u n i t  
©f a i r  d ry  p la n t  w eigh t th an  th e  c o m e r  c i a l  type*
41
TABLE XV
Wild Type H a n ts  Compared t o  Gsmmrci&l ty p e  H a n ts
1947
Commercial Type 
Number
o f  s tan d a rd
p la n ts  Mean d e v ia tio n
Wild
Humber
o f  S tandard
p la n ts  Bean d e v ia tio n
C. Cm o i l  p a r  100 grams o f  
a i r  d ry  p la n t
S p e c if ic  g ra v i ty  o f  o i l
A ir  d ry  w eight o f p la n t  
in  grams
Grams o f f r u i t  p a r  1 0 0
grams o f  a i r  d ry  p la n t
Weight o f  1 0 0 0  f r u i t  in  
grams^
C a lc u la te d  number o f f r u i t  
p e r  1 0 0  grams o f  a i r  dsy 
p la n t  ( 0 0 0  o m itted )
Humber o f seed  p e r 1 0 0 0  
f r u i t *
C a lc u la te d  number o f  seed 
p e r  1 0 0  grams o f  a i r  d ry
p la n t  ( 0 0 0  o m itte d )
Weight o f  seed  from 1000 
f r u i t  in  grama^
C a lc u la te d  grams o f  seed  
p e r 1 0 0  grams o f a i r  d ry  
p la n t
54 0*994 0*420
20 0*975 0*010
IS  549 121
IS  40*5 @*5
IS  *258 *075
IS  156 51
IS  902 55
18 141 29
IS  *187 .021
IS  29 .4  7 .1
19 0*543 0 .558
4 0*965 0.QCB
28 555 157
28 5 7 .9  12 .7
28 *109 .040
28
28
28
2©
548
779
506
•062
116
125
156
.0X0
28 2 1 .6  7 .2
^Average o f two sam ples o f 1 0 0 0  f r u i t  each  from  each  p la n t .
Q m n m  ? i
MECtJSSICH
B ata p re se n te d  in  t h i s  s tu d y  in d ic a te  t h a t  th e  u su a l dom estic  ty p es  
o f wortaseed a re  s u p e r io r  t o  th e  predom inant w ild  ty p e s ,  both  In  quan­
t i t y  and s p e c i f ic  g r a v i ty  o f o i l  produced* I f  th e  dom estic  ty p es  worm 
o b ta in ed  th rough  m n * e  s e le c t io n  and in c re a s e  o f p la n ts  from  a  w ild  
p o p u la tio n  s im i la r  t o  t h a t  e x is t in g  in  M aryland today^ th en  i t  would 
appear t h a t  much improvement in  th e  comm ercial v a lu e  o f th e  p la n t  has 
been accom plished  by t h i s  s e le c tio n *
l i t t l e  ev idence i s  a v a i la b le  in  th e  l i t e r a t u r e  t o  show how t h i s  
i s  e la t io n  o f s u p e r io r  economic ty p e s  came about* O il w hich m eets th e  
minimum s p e c i f i c  g r a v i ty  demanded by th e  tra d e  has a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  odor 
which accompanies h igh  a s c a r id o le  con ten t*  The odor o f  o i l  from th e  
u su a l w ild  ty p es  d i f f e r s  m arkedly from th e  odor o f  o i l  from th e  u su a l 
dom estic  p lan ts*  Grower© may have been a b le  to  s e l e c t  ty p e s  w ith  h ig h e r 
s p e c i f i c  g ra v i ty  o i l  sim ply th rough  th e  sense  o f sm ell*
Improvement o f  o i l  y i e ld  may have been accom plished by rough f i e l d  
com parisons o f  th e  p r in c ip a l  ty p es  se cu rin g  in  dom estic  p lan tin g s*  The 
f a c t  th a t  such  f i e l d  com parisons were made i s  suppo rted  by a r e p o r t  o f 
Lowe and H arrison  (11) in  1920 concern ing  an in v e s t ig a t io n  o f p r a c t ic e s  
be ing  used  a t  t h a t  tim e in  th e  worsaieed p ro d u c tio n  a re a  o f  Maryland*
They n o ted  t h a t  d i f f e re n c e  in  y ie ld s  o f  o i l  was sometimes a t t r ib u t e d  
t o  th e  u se  o f  d i f f e r e n t  s t r a in s  o r  v a r i e t i e s  o f th e  herb  which had 
developed in  th e  many g e n e ra tio n s  o f  c u l tu re  o f th e  crop* They found 
t h a t  th re e  s t r a in s  were no ted  by some o f  th e  grow ers a s  fo llo w s * «T all 
H erb", »Beet-Seed%  and E vergreen*. a cco rd in g  to  in fo rm a tio n  th a t  th e y
4&
received*  cm© grouser bad p lan ted  a f i e l d  in  a l t e r n a t e  belt©  o f  "T a n  
Barb* and «Beet~Se©d« and had o b ta in ed  r e s u l t s  c le a r ly  in d ic a t in g  th a t  
th e r e  was a marked d if fe re n c e  In  th e  r e s u l t in g  crop*
I t  seems lo g ic a l  t h a t  once th e  m ajor p ro g ress  p o s s ib le  th rough  tins 
u se  o f  th e se  rough com parisons had been made* con tinued  t r i a l s  would 
become l e s s  f r u i t f u l  and i n t e r e s t  in  t h e i r  use f o r  improvement o f  th e  
p la n t  would lag*
The r e s u l t s  p re se n te d  in  t h i s  s tu d y  in d ic a te  t h a t  in c re a s e  in  o i l  
y ie ld in g  c a p a c ity  in  dom estic  p la n ts  i s  accompanied by a  d e c re a se  in  
seed  y ie ld in g  cap ac ity *  In  t h i s  case  i t  appears t h a t  n a tu r a l  s e le c t io n  
o p e ra tin g  i n  p la n t in g s  from, bu lk  seed  cou ld  g ra d u a lly  reduce o i l  p ro ­
duction*
Two methods o f  sav ing  se ed  f o r  p la n t in g  a re  g e n e ra l ly  used by v a rio u s  
comm ercial grow ers o f  wcrmseed* Doe method i s  t o  save some o f  th e  seed  
t h a t  accum ulates on th e  waged bed a s  a  r e s u l t  o f  th e  s h a t te r in g  t h a t  ta k e s  
p la c e  when th e  d ry  herb  i s  be ing  hand led  fo llo w in g  f i e l d  d ry in g  and p re ­
p a ra to ry  t o  d i s t i l l a t i o n *  k  second method i s  t o  s e l e c t  a few p la n ts  from 
th e  f i e l d  and th re s h  seed  from them , b u lk in g  th e  seed  th u s  ob tained*  
l&en t h i s  second method i s  used* th e  s e le c t io n  i s  u s u a l ly  aimed a t  sav in g  
th e  l a r g e r  p la n ts  in  th e  f i e l d  t h a t  ap p ea r to  be h e a v ily  covered  w ith  
f r u i t s *  The p la n ts  grown from  th e  seed  o b ta in ed  from e i t h e r  o f  th e s e  
methods u s u a l ly  undergo a second  s e le c t io n  p r io r  t o  p la n t in g ,  th e  l a r g e r  
p la n ts  be ing  p u lle d  from th e  seed  bed f o r  u se  in  th e  f i e ld *
The u se  o f  e i t h e r  o f  th e s e  methods o f  s e le c t in g  seed  m ight g ra d u a lly  
b r in g  in to  th e  ascendency p la n ts  capab le  o f  p roducing  a  la rg e  number o f  
heavy seed* I f  t h i s  s u r v iv a l  d i f f e r e n c e  o c c u rs , th e  dom estic popula­
t io n  may be d e c l in in g  g ra d u a lly  in  o i l  producing  cap ac ity *
44
The d a ta  p re sen te d  in  t h i s  s tu d y  appear t o  have c le a r ly  dem onstra ted  
th re e  im p o rtan t f a c t s  b e a rin g  on th e  p re s e n t problem  o f  improvement o f  
th e  o i l  p roducing  c a p a c ity  o f th e  wormseed p l a n t ,  namely s ! •  V a r ia tio n  
e x i s t s  in  g land  count on th e  under su rfa c e  o f le a v e s  o f e q u a l s i s e  tak en  
from a s im i la r  p o s i t io n  on d i f f e r e n t  p l a n t s .  2 . There i s  a h ig h ly  
s ig n ifica n t r e l a t io n s h ip  between t h i s  v a r ia t io n  and o i l  producing c a p a c ity  
o f th e  p l a n t s .  S . V a r ia tio n  in  g land  count i s  in h e r i te d .
With gland count as a to o l  f o r  rea so n a b ly  ra p id  e v a lu a tio n  o f  o i l  
producing  c a p a c ity  o f th e  in d iv id u a l  p la n t ,  i t  shou ld  be p o ss ib le  t o  
i s o l a t e  ty p es  t h a t  a re  s u p e r io r  to  th o se  in  g e n e ra l use  a t  th e  p re s e n t 
tim e .
Some in d ic a t io n  o f th e  in c re a s e  in  o i l  y ie ld  t h a t  m ight be r e a l is e d
th rough  th e  u se  o f  t h i s  to o l  i s  a v a i la b le  in  th e  v a r ia t io n  e x is t in g
in  g land  coun ts from p la n ts  s e le c te d  a t  random in  th e  com m ercial f i e l d s .
I t  may be r e c a l l e d  t h a t  a t o t a l  o f  211 p la n ts  were s e le c te d  from fo u r
f i e l d s  in  th e  Woodbine a re a  in  1958 and 1946 f o r  g lan d  count com parison.
In 1958 th e  h ig h e s t  g land  count o b ta in ed  fo r  an in d iv id u a l  p la n t  
was 170$ o f  th e  a v e ra g e , w h ile  in  1946 th e  h ig h e s t was 158$ o f  th e  
a v e rag e . Assuming t h a t  mean w eigh t o f p la n t  and s i s e  o f g lands does 
n o t v a ry  w ith  g land  c o u n t, th e  maximum in c re a s e  m ight be in  the  ne ighbo r­
hood o f  164$ o f  th e  p re s e n t o i l  y i e l d .
Xn th e  e a r ly  y ears  o f  t h i s  s tu d y , no c o n s is te n t  r e la t io n s h ip  between 
g land  count and p la n t  w eight was fo u n d . Among th e  p la n ts  growing in  th e  
n u rse ry  in  1947, t h i r t y  were s e le c te d  a t  random from  each o f  fo u r  p ro­
g en ie s  from h igh  count p a re n ts  and fo u r  p ro g en ies  o f  low count p a re n ts .
The green w eigh t o f th e  p la n ts  from th e  h igh  count p a re n ts  averaged
45
075*1 g ra s s  eac h , w hile  th o se  from th e  low count p a re n ts  averaged  757*7 
grams each* M oisture sam ples were tak en  so  a s  t o  c a lc u la te  th e se  w eigh ts 
cm a d ry  m a tte r  b a s i s ,  b u t were lo s t*
Average y ie ld  in  e o s n e re ia l  f i e l d s ,  as f ig u re d  from th e  1950 and 
1940 A g r ic u l tu ra l  Census., i s  41*1 and 41*5 pounds o f  o i l  p e r a c re  r e s p e c t i ­
v e ly .  I f  we can assume t h a t  s e le c t io n  o f  th e  p la n ts  f o r  h ig h  o i l  y ie ld  
p e r  p la n t  w i l l  n o t d ec rease  th e  s iz e  o f th e  in d iv id u a l  p l a n t ,  th en  i t  
m ight be p o s s ib le  to  in c re a se  t h i s  o i l  y ie ld  t o  an average  o f  som ething 
s l i g h t l y  above 60 pounds p e r  acre*
th e  norm al degree  o f  s e l f  o r  c ro ss  f e r t i l i s a t i o n  would govern t o  
some e x te n t  th e  ease  and r a p id i ty  w ith  which t h i s  in c re a se  m ight be 
accom plished* Data p re se n te d  in  t h i s  s tu d y  does n o t e s ta b l i s h  th e  
normal b reed in g  b eh av io r o f w orasaed p la n ts*  The f a c t  t h a t  seed  was 
s e t  ab o u t a s  w e ll under  b ags, which were used  to  p rev e n t c ro ss  f e r t i l i s a ­
t i o n ,  a s  w ith o u t bags in d ic a te s  t h a t  th e  p la n ts  a re  capab le  o f s e l f  
f e r t i l i s a t i o n *
A f a c t  in d ic a t in g  th a t  th e  normal s i tu a t io n  i s  n o t a h ig h  deg ree  o f  
s e l f  f e r t i l i s a t i o n  i s  th e  v a r i a b i l i t y  e x is t in g  in  ty p e s  in  th e  comm ercial 
f i e l d s  • In  a p o p u la tio n  where th e  in d iv id u a l  p la n t  produces some 600,000 
seed  and on ly  1 2 , 0 0 0  p la n ts  a re  used  p e r  a c r e ,  i f  th e  norm al s i t u a t i o n  
were & high  degree o f  s e l f  f e r t i l i s a t i o n ,  one p a re n t could  produce th e  
n e ce ssa ry  seed  f o r  s e v e ra l  a c re s*  G reat v a r ia t io n  was found in  f i e l d s  
where th e  seed  had been saved from  a few p la n ts  f o r  each o f  s e v e ra l  
g e n e ra t io n s •
I f  th e  p la n ts  a re  la r g e ly  s e l f  f e r t i l i s e d ,  i t  should  be p o s s ib le  to  
improve th e  o i l  y ie ld in g  c a p a c ity  e a s i ly  afcd r a p id ly  by s e le c t in g  th o se  
p la n ts  w ith  r e l a t i v e ly  h ig h  g land  coun ts and bu lk ing  th e  seed  each  year*
46
I f  th e  p la n ts  a re  l a r g e ly  c ro s s  f e r t i l i s e d ,  s im i la r  s e le c t io n  o f  
h igh  g land  p la n ts  from th e  commercial f i e l d s  should  b r in g  s im ila r  r e s u l t s  
b u t a t  a much slow er r a t e .  More ra p id  improvement m ight be o b ta in ed  by 
th e  p la n tin g  o f  i s o la te d  n u r s e r ie s  o f th e  p ro g en ies  o f  h ig h  count p a re n ts  
and th e  e l im in a tio n  o f  th e  low count p la n ts  p r io r  t o  p o lle n  sh ed . leav es  
used  in  t h i s  s tu d y  were tak en  a f t e r  p o lle n  shedding  bad begun. Bom  
f a r t  h e r s tudy  m ight be n e c e s s a r y  to  be su re  t h a t  le a v e s  f o r  g land  com pari­
son can be taken  a t  an e a r l i e r  s ta g e .
I t  would appear t h a t  once th e  maximum had been approached in  i s o l a ­
t io n  o f  ty p es  w ith  h ig h  o i l  y i e ld ,  i t  m ight be n ecessa ry  to  m ain ta in  
seme con tinued  s e le c t io n  t o  c o u n te ra c t any tendency fo r  h ig h e r  s u rv iv a l  
o f  low o i l  p roducing  ty p e s  t o  b r in g  them in to  ascendency.
Seed p ro d u c tio n  i s  abundant in  wormseed in  r e l a t i o n  to  need f o r  
p la n tin g  and i s  o f  l i t t l e  o th e r  u s e .  In  such  a s p e c ie s ,  any method 
which can be d e v ise d  to  s e l e c t  o r develop  p la n ts  w ith  in c re ased  e n e r­
g ie s  devoted  to  o i l  p roduction  should  be o f  v a lu e .
By way o f c o n t r a s t ,  th e  famous com  t e s t s  s t a r te d  by C y r il  G. Hopkins 
(18 ,22 ) in  1898 produced a f t e r  2 0  y e a rs  a s t r a i n  o f  com  th a t  co n ta in ed  
over 1 0 # on th e  average o f o i l  a s  c o n tra s te d  w ith  2% from a s t r a in  s e le c te d  
f o r  low o i l  c o n te n t ,  th e  o r ig in a l  com  from which th e se  s e le c t io n s  were 
made av erag in g  4 .7 # . These s t r a in s  have never proved o f commercial v a lu e , 
however, because th e  g ra in  y ie ld  was reduced to  such an e x te n t  t h a t  i t  
o f f s e t  th e  in c re a se d  v a lu e  o f th e  o i l .
S e le c tio n  o f  p la n ts  by th e  u se  of g land  coun ts made on th e  under 
s u r fa c e  o f th e  l e a f  should  prove o f v a lu e  in  im proving o i l  y ie ld  o f  
commercial f i e l d s  o f  American ic rm seed .
47
SUMM4HT
1* V a ria tio n  e x i s t s  in  th e  number o r g lands p e r u n i t  o f a re a  on th e  
under s u r fa c e  o f  l§ a ? e s  o f equal s i z e  tak en  frosi a s im ila r  p o s i t io n  
on d i f f e r e n t  p la n ts  of idaeric&n tforaseed •
Z* A h ig h ly  s ig n i f i c a n t  in c re a se  in  y ie ld  o f o i l  per u n i t  o f  p la n t  
w eight was found t o  accompany in c re a se  in  g lan d  number p e r u n i t  
o f  a re a  on th e  under su rfa c e  o f th e  le a f#
§ • P rogen ies fro®  p a re n ts  w ith  r e l a t i v e l y  h ig h  g land  count p e r  u n i t  o f 
a re a  m  th e  under su r fa c e  o f  th e  l e a f  were found t o  have a h ig h ly  
s ig n i f i c a n t  in c re a se  in  g land  number as compared t o  p ro g en ies  from 
p a re n ts  w ith  r e l a t i v e l y  low g lan d  count p e r u n i t  o f  a re a  on th e  
under l e a f  s tir  f a c e .
4# A sm a ll in c r e a s e ,  which lack ed  s ig n i f ic a n c e ,  was found in  s p e c i f i c
g r a v i ty  o f  o i l  a s  a s s o c ia te d  w ith  In c re a se  in  g land  count per  u n i t
o f  a re a  on th e  under su rfa c e  o f th e  le a f*
5* The w eigh t o f f r u i t  and seed  and th e  number o f  seed  produced by
v a rio u s  p la n ts  was found to  d ec rea se  w ith  in c re a se  in  g land  count 
on th e  under su rfa c e  o f th e  le a v e s  from th e se  p lan ts*  These t r e n d s  
were c o n s is te n t  b u t were s ig n i f i c a n t  in  only one y e a r  ou t o f th ree*
6 * The p o s i t io n  o f th e  l e a f  on th e  p la n t  and th e  s iz e  o f  th e  l e a f  were
found to  a f f e c t  th e  g lan d  number p e r  u n i t  o f  a re a  on th e  under su r fa c e  
o f  th e  le a f*
7# In  l i g h t  o f  th e  f in d in g s  p re s e n te d  in  t h i s  t h e s i s ,  d e te rm in a tio n  o f
th e  number o f  g lands p e r u n i t  o f a re a  on th e  under su rfa c e  o f  th e
l e a f  should  se rv e  a s  a v a lu a b le  to o l  in  th e  i s o l a t i o n  o f p la n ts  w ith  
s u p e r io r  o i l  producing capacity*
mSELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 . A e lle n , Paul and Theodor Ju s t*  Key end Synopsis o f  th e  American
S pec ies o f  The Genus Chenopodium L. Asu Midland l e t*  50*47-76. 
J u ly ,  1945.
2 . B runing, Hermann. Zur K enniniss dee am erikan ischea  lurm sam saolss •
Z e i t s c h r i f t  t o r  E x p e rim e n td le  P a tho log ic  und Thera p i s ,  V ol. 5 s 
564-507. S e v e r e r ,  1906.
5 .  G uenther, E rn e s t .  The E s s e n t ia l  O i ls .  V o l. I  H is to ry , O rig in  In
H a n t s ,  P roduction  and A n a ly s is . Mew Tories D. fa n  Eos tre n d  
Company, I n c . ,  1940. 427 pp .
4* B a ll ,  M. 0 .  end Beyer fcigdor. M iscellaneous A n the lm in tic  In v e s tig a ­
t io n s .  J o u r .  Amer. ¥ e t .  lied . A ssn. 69 *195. 1926.
$• B ecking, 0 . M. end L. B. Edwards. The U t i l i t y  o f  D eterm ination  o f
number and Dimensions o f G landu lar S c a le s  in  tiehtha S p e c ie s .
J o u r . Atasr. Fharm. A ssn ., S c i e n t i f i c  E d it io n , Vol.. 1X111, Bo. 9s 
225-5851. Septem ber, 194S.
6 .  H ee lseh er, Helena and F . J .  Bacon. H is to lo g ic a l  S tu d ie s  o f Genus
Mentha. Jo u r . Amer. Pharm. A ssn ., V o l. I l l ,  So. 6t624«
June , 1960.
7 . Hogs t a d ,  Anton, J r .  An In v e s t ig a tio n  o f  The American Worm&eed as
Grown in  South D akota. D iv . P h a r .,  S . D. S ta te  C o l. Ag. and
Me c h . A r ts ,  B ui. I s 5 1 . 1926.
8 .  Jep son , W. L. A Manual o f  th e  Flow ering P la n ts  o f  C a l i f o rn ia .
A sso c ia ted  S tu d en ts  s t o r e ,  Univ. o f  C a l . ,  B erkeley , C a l. pp 521.
9 . Foments, W. A. The P roduction  o f  OH o f  American lerm seed D. S . P.
in  I l l i n o i s • Jo u r . Amsr. B a rm . A ssn. 15 :2 & . 1924.
1 0 . LeKUnc, Floyd e t  a l .  OH o f  Chenopodium and Chexiopodlum P la n ts  f o r
th e  E ra d ic a tio n  o f  Round lo n m  in  Swine. D ep ts. o f  Bmrmaey, 
Animal Husbandry and f e t e r ln a r y .  South  Dakota A gr. Ix p . S ta t io n  
B ui. 285 a 9 .  1954.
11# Lowe, A. 1* and C. W» H a rr iso n . Worms* ed O il P roduction  in  M aryland.
Bureau o f  C hem istry , B altim ore S ta t io n  Monthly R eport f o r  O ctober, 
1920. pp . 52 -45 .
1 2 . M u e lle r , l .  R. T rave l R e p o rts , Bureau o f  H a n t  In d u s try . 1919.
1 5 . M elson, 1 .  g . A Chemical In v e s t ig a tio n  o f  The Com position o f  th e  
O il o f  Ghenopodium. 0 . S . D. A. Bureau o f  C hem istry C irc u la r  
He. 109 iS . 1915.
1 4 . R obinson, B. L. and II. L. F e m a ld . G ray’s  Mew Manual o f  Botany,
Seventh  E d it io n , iew f o r k * American look Company, 1906. 566 pp .
4®
15*
1 6 .
1 7 .
IB . 
1 ®. 
m .
E l.
EE.
25.
24 .
25 .
Shreve* F o r re s t  ©t a l .  The P la n t L ife  o f  .Mainland• Maryland 
l e a th e r  S erv ice*  V ol. S . Baltim ore* th e  Johns fcopkins 
Frees* 1910. 450 pp.
S ie v e r s * 4 .  F . The P roduction  o f Minor E s s e n t ia l  O ils in  The 
U nited S ta te® . Economic Botany* Viol. 1* So. E *148-160.
A p ril  -  June* 1947.
S ff ii ll ie * W. G. -and S . a . P essoa. a  Study o f  th e  A n the lm in tic  
P ro p e r t ie s  o f  The C o n s titu e n ts  o f  The O il o f Chenopodium.
Jo u r . P hara . and Exper* The ra p . E4 (5 ) s5 59-570. December* 1924.
Smith* Louie B. Ten G enerations o f Com B reeding . Baiv o f  111.
Agr. Exp. Sta* B ui. 128*457-575. 1908.
Snedecor* 0 .  ¥• S t a t i s t i c a l  Methods. The lows S ta te  C o llege  Frees* 
1946. pp . 11®.
S tsnd ley*  P. C. n o rth  American F lo ra  Chenopodiaees©• V ol. 21* F a r t  
1 .  The Hew fo rk  B o tan ica l Garden* 1916• p p . 27 .
0 . S . Bureau o f  th e  C ensus. F ie ld  Crops and A g ricu ltu re*  G eneral 
Report on A g r ic u ltu re , V ol. I l l ,  C hapter V I I I ,  16 th  Census 
o f th e  Ife ited  S ta te® , 1940.
W allace * H. A. and K. 1* Bressman* Corn and Corn Growing. Fourth  
E d it io n . New la rk s  John Wiley and Sons* I n c . ,  1957. 222 pp .
Welland* G. S . A S tu d y  o f The F a c to rs  In flu e n c in g  th e  Y ie ld  o f
A sca rid o le  in  Chenopodium Am broeioldes L. V ar. A nthelm lnticum . 
Ph.D . T h e s is . Univ. o f  Md. 1955. 85 p p .
w ell an d , 0 . S . ©t a l .  Worssseed O il P ro d u c tio n . B ui. Bo. 584 . 
Maryland Agr. Exp. S ta .*  1958. 20 p p .
W lrth* E. B. A Study o f  Chenopodium Ambrosioxded V ar. AntheIm iaticum
and I t s  V o la t i le  O il . Jo u r . Juaer. Fharsu M sn . 9*127-141. 1920.