| 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 2 | .. | .. | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | | 61 | 763 | 377 | F1 | Do. | 1 | 2247 | F2 | Do. | 2 | 3 | 20 | 9 | 14 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | | | | | | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ | | | | | Totals (663) |115 |641 | 127| 53 | 39 | 10 | 8 | 39 | 57 | 41 | | | | | | Percentages |17.4|24.7|19.2| 8.0|5.9 |1.5 |2.7 |5.9 |8.6 |6.2 | | | | | | |\-----------------/|\---------------------------/| | | | | | | 69.3 30.7 | +------+-----+------+----+------------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------+ These earlier data were not even roughly quantitative, and it is the quantitative data that first give the key to the true relations. However, sufficient evidence for the change in the conclusion is certainly due. The evidence is found in a careful study of table 55, keeping constantly in mind this fundamental principle that the recessive condition alone in the parents can never give rise to the dominant; for the recessive condition implies entire absence of the dominant factor. But the pure dominant condition will vary in the direction of the recessive condition; such a result implies only a partial failure of the factor to develop completely; and we should not be surprised if occasionally the failure were complete. This implies no "reversal of dominance," but rather an arrested development of the factor. TABLE 50.--_Distribution of frequency of grades of "openness" in offspring when one parent is heterozygous and the other an original dominant (DR × D, originals)._