d in the third year following a heavy nut crop.

The 158 trees examined provided the following distribution by fruit types:
---------------+------------------+--------------------------------
| Number of | Number of abnormal types found
Fruit Type | Individual Trees | in conjunction with
| | normal types
-----------+---+------------------+--------------------------------
| | | F G H
-----------+---+------------------+--------------------------------
Normal | A | 54 | 5 2 1
| B | 23 | 2 1
| C | 36 | 1 2
| D | 21 | 7 1
| E | 24 | 4 1
-----------|---+------------------+--------------------------------
| | 158 collections |
-----------+---+------------------+--------------------------------
Abnormal | F | 15 | 15
| G | 8 | 8
| H | 4 | 4
---------------+------------------+--------------------------------
27 collections

Shell color of the nuts varied between a brownish white and a pinkish
white color when fully dried. From the trees used as a sample, there
were 14 which might be classed in the brownish white categories, and the
remainder (144) as pinkish white or creamy white. Types B and C were the
ones which most frequently were found with the brownish white nutshell
color. Type A was typically pinkish or creamy white in color.

Nutshell thickness varied somewhat. In all but 2 cases, the nuts were
too hard to crack with the teeth. The thin-shelled ones are
_comparatively_ thin only, being about like paper-shelled pecans with
the shell thinnest on the sides of the nut. It is not suggested that
these two thin-shelled nuts be exploited as paper-shelled shagbarks
since they are poorly formed nuts and of small size. One of the two
trees might be a hybrid since it does not have a ciliate leaflet margin
although the buds, bark and leaves are typical of shagbark hickory. The
minimum shell thickness observed for the side of the nut was 1/2 a
millimeter (0.5 mm.) and the thickest was 2.0 millimeters. As previously
stated, nut types B and D (the elliptical and obovat