lties were proposed for shrunken kernels and empty nuts.
Through the years a large number of samples have been tested according
to this scoring schedule (11). In 1943, MacDaniels and Wilde (12)
summarized the previous work done, added many tests and evaluated the
scoring system. This was not considered to be altogether satisfactory.
In the first place, it was somewhat cumbersome and had never been
adopted by the Association nor had it been used much by others. The
figuring of percentages and penalties made a score too involved for wide
aceptance. A very serious difficulty was the problem of shrunken kernels
and empty nuts. Obviously, with a score related to the weight of the
sample before cracking, the inclusion of a number of empty nuts made it
impossible to make any accurate correction in the percentages that were
used in the score. Penalties did not solve the problem. Also the initial
weight of the sample varied with the amount of husk clinging to the
shells. From this work it was evident that an acceptable score would
have to be formulated on some other basis.

The next approach was to analyze data of this type statistically in an
attempt to devise a better scoring system (1). The results from such a
study proved valuable in answering such questions as 1) the size of
sample necessary to obtain significant differences between samples; 2)
the significance of small differences in measurements or in scores and
3) the amount of variation that is normal and without significance in
comparing varieties.

The following qualifications were considered essential to a workable
schedule:

1) The schedule must be easy to use.

2) The schedule must concern itself with objective qualities or
characters which can be weighed or measured. It cannot be concerned with
flavor and other characters upon which there may be disagreement and
which depend upon personal preference.

3) Characters must be avoided which vary with the treatment of the
samples themselves such as color of kernels.

4) It must give a score that will separate samples on small differences.

Considering the problem from these angles and scrutinizing the older
schedules, a number of ideas came out. First of all, why include the
shells? If shells are discarded a number of problems would be solved,
such as the cleaning of the nuts and adjustments for shrivelled and
empty nuts. Also, why reduce any of the weights or measures to
percentages which only add to the compl