x 1 inches in width,
thickness and depth. The majority of average sized nuts were roughly 3/4
x 1/2 x 3/4 inches.

The nut shapes have fallen into a general pattern which include the
following normal types:

Type A--The normal 4 angled nut, nearly rectangular in cross section
(Fig. 6a).

Type B--An elliptical form, nearly oval in cross section (Fig. 6b).

Type C--A smooth oval nut, oval or elliptical in cross section (Fig.
6c).

Type D--An obovate nut, oval to angled in cross section (Fig. 6d).

Type E--A fat globose nut, broadly oval to orbicular in cross
section (Fig. 6e).

[Illustration: Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E

Fig. 6a Fig. 6b Fig. 6c Fig. 6d Fig. 6e

Normal Fruit Forms of Shagbark Hickory (1X)]

[Illustration: Type F Type G Type H

Fig. 6f Fig. 6g Fig. 6h

Abnormal Fruit Forms of Shagbark Hickory (1X)]

In addition to the afore mentioned 5 normal types, three abnormal types
were encountered:

Type F--A smooth or angled nut, triangular in cross section--found
in the same trees as normal nut forms (Fig. 6f).

Type G--A smooth or angled nut square in cross section--found
on the same trees as normal nut forms (Fig. 6g).

Type H--A Siamese twin form occurring very rarely on the same
trees as other normal forms (Fig. 6h).

Type A was the commonest form of nut found in the Onondaga County area.
It roughly exceeded Types B, D and E by a 2:1 ratio. Type C exceeded
Types B, D and E with a ratio of about 7:5 in frequency of occurrence.
Types B and D were the two most easily cracked nut forms when using a
hammer and anvil for a cracking device. It should be noted at this time
that _all_ of the abnormal fruit types were found in _conjunction with_
normal fruit types. Thus, one individual tree used as a collection might
produce _both_ a normal nut type (A, B, C, D or E) _and_ an abnormal nut
type (F, G or H). Occasionally a few nuts in a collection from one tree
might be classed as a _second_ normal type. This was rare however (5
cases) and only occurred in "borderline trees" which were then
classified and recorded as per the dominant nut type for the tree. It
should be noted here that the nut type did _not_ vary from year to year
for the trees examined. Also the frequency of nut crops varied
considerably; less than 1/4 of the sample trees produced nuts each year.
Most of the trees produced crops in alternate years, and a very few have
not fruite