Statistical Reasoning for Everyday Life

5th Edition Bennett Solutions Manual

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/statistical-reasoning-for-everyday-life-5th-edition-ben
nett-solutions-manual/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Statistical Reasoning for Everyday Life 5th Edition

Bennett Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/statistical-reasoning-for-
everyday-life-5th-edition-bennett-test-bank/

Statistical Reasoning for Everyday Life 4th Edition

Bennett Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/statistical-reasoning-for-
everyday-life-4th-edition-bennett-test-bank/

Management Skills for Everyday Life 3rd Edition Caproni

Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/management-skills-for-everyday-
life-3rd-edition-caproni-test-bank/

Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences 5th Edition

Agresti Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/statistical-methods-for-the-
social-sciences-5th-edition-agresti-solutions-manual/
Biology Science for Life 5th Edition Belk Solutions
Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/biology-science-for-life-5th-
edition-belk-solutions-manual/

Statistical Methods for Psychology 8th Edition Howell

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/statistical-methods-for-
psychology-8th-edition-howell-solutions-manual/

Sociology Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life

Brief Edition 5th Edition Newman Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/sociology-exploring-the-
architecture-of-everyday-life-brief-edition-5th-edition-newman-
test-bank/

Statistics for the Life Sciences 5th Edition Samuels

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/statistics-for-the-life-
sciences-5th-edition-samuels-solutions-manual/

Communication in Everyday Life A Survey of

Communication 3rd Edition Duck Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/communication-in-everyday-life-a-
survey-of-communication-3rd-edition-duck-solutions-manual/
 CHAPTER 6

Section 6.1
Statistical Literacy and Critical Thinking

1 No, we should not expect to get exactly heads. As shown in Figure 6.1,
you would get exactly 50 heads only about 8% of the time. However, if
the coin is fair, you should expect to get a result that is fairly
close to 50 heads.
2 A result is statistically significant if it is unlikely to have
occurred by chance.
3 Statistical significance applies to samples. If you conducted a census
that allowed you to determine the actual value of a population
parameter, then there would be no need to quantify the probability that
the value is correct, since it would have been measured. In contrast,
when you measure a sample statistic, there is always some probability
that it does not accurately reflect the true population parameter, and
the concept of statistical significance is designed to quantify that
uncertainty.
4 Statistical significance at the 0.05 level means that there is a 0.05
(or 5%, or 1 in 20) or less probability that the result occurred by
chance, and statistical significance at the 0.01 level means that there
is a 0.01 (or 1%, or 1 in 100)or less probability that the result
occurred by chance. A result that is statistically significant at the
0.05 level is not automatically also significant at the 0.01 level,
because a probability of 0.05 or less does not necessarily mean that
there is a 0.01 or less chance. However, a result that is statistically
significant at the 0.01 level is automatically also significant at the
0.05 level, because a probability of 0.01 or less is also less than a
0.05 chance.
5 This statement does not make sense. The term statistical significance
has a particular meaning with regard to the probability that results
occurred by chance; it does not simply mean that a topic is important.
6 This statement makes sense. Statistical significance is a measure of
the probability of the observed difference happening by chance. If the
probability of these differences happening is almost 50%, it would be
likely to have happened by chance!
7 This statement does not make sense. The question is not whether we
expect to get exactly 501 girls, but whether the result differs
significantly from what would be expected to occur by pure chance,
given that we always expect some distribution of results around the
most likely value. Instead of focusing on the probability of exactly
501 girls, we should include the probability of any other outcomes that
are more extreme, that is, should consider the probability of 501 or
more girls.
8 This statement does not make sense. At any level of statistical
significance, there is always some probability that the result is
incorrect.

Concepts and Applications

9 Statistically significant. The probability of ten correct answers with

random guesses is very small and much less than 0.05 (5%) which is a
common measure of statistical significance. (The student was probably
prepared for the quiz.)

73 Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

74 CHAPTER 6, PROBABILITY IN STATISTICS

10 Statistically significant. Given that Independents typically make up only

about 1 in 3 voters, the result of getting 25 Independents among 25 randomly
selected voters is extreme, and it is unlikely to occur by chance. The
probability is less than 0.05 (5%).
11 Statistically significant. The chance of getting a 6 in each of 10 rolls is
(1/6)10 = 0.0000000165, which is much less than 0.05.
12 Not statistically significant. The result could have occurred by chance.
The chance of not getting a single 6 in 10 rolls is (5/6)10 = 0.162, which is
greater than 0.05.
13 Statistically significant. The result is unlikely to occur by chance. It
would be rare to see that many passengers of a single gender.
14 Statistically significant. The result is unlikely to occur by chance. A
subway car containing 50 men (and no women), all of whom are bald, seems
unlikely.
15 Statistically significant. The result is unlikely to occur by chance. The
population in question has a proportion of almost 80% Americans of Mexican
ancestry and yet the sample taken showed a proportion of only 39% Americans
of Mexican ancestry.
16 Not statistically significant. The rate of headaches is about 6% in the
treatment group and 5% in the control group, and the difference between
those two rates could easily be explained by chance.
17 Even though the sample size is relatively small, such a large (21%)
improvement in mileage is most likely significant.
18 Based on the sample sizes (73 and 83 patients) and the large difference
between the two success rates (92% – 72% = 20%), it appears that the results
are statistically significant.
19 With 945 babies, the number of girls would usually be around 945/2 = 472.5,
so the result of 879 girls is a substantial difference (879 – 472.5 = 406.5)
from the results expected by chance. The results appear to be statistically
significant.
20 The results do have statistical significance at the 0.05 level, but not at
the 0.01 level. The bed nets do appear to be effective in reducing malaria,
although they do not guarantee protection from malaria. This makes some
sense if the subjects do not spend all of their time in bed. Mosquitoes can
bite at any time of day, not just at night. Preventing bites at night with
bed nets is not total protection.
21 a) If 100 samples were selected, the mean temperature would be 98.20°F or
less in 5 or fewer of the samples if the true mean were 98.60°F.
b) Selecting a sample with a mean this small is extremely unlikely if the
true mean is 98.60°F and would not be expected by chance.
22 The likelihood of such a difference occurring simply by chance is less than
0.01% (or 1 in 10,000), so the difference is likely due to the use of the
seat belts.
23 Yes, statistically significant. The result is unlikely to occur by chance.
24 Not statistically significant. The probability of getting another sample
with the same results is 87% and the result could easily occur by chance.

Section 6.2
Statistical Literacy and Critical Thinking

1 An outcome is the most basic possible result of an observation or

experiment. An event is a collection of one or more outcomes that share a
property of interest. For example, if you toss two coins, one possible
outcome is HT and another possible outcome is TH, but if you are interested
in whether the coin comes up heads, both of these outcomes represent the
same event of 1 head (and 1 tail).

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

 SECTION 6.2, BASICS OF PROBABILITY 75

2 The notation P(A) means the probability that event A will occur. We
often denote events by letters or symbols. The range of possible values
for P(A) is from 0 to 1 (inclusive), with 0 meaning there is no chance
that event A will occur and 1 meaning it is certain that event A will
occur.
3 The theoretical method is based on the assumption that all outcomes are
equally likely and relies on the known probabilities of individual
outcomes. The relative frequency method uses past data to make a
prediction about a future probability. The subjective method bases
probability on intuition and judgment. Examples will vary.
4 A probability distribution represents the probabilities of all possible
events. It can be displayed using a table with two columns (events and
probability of those events) or a graph or a formula.
5 This statement makes sense. The four different outcomes are HTTT, THTT,
TTHT, TTTH.
6 This statement makes sense. There are no months with more than 31 days,
so there is no chance of selecting such a month at random.
7 This statement makes sense. Subjective probabilities are based on
intuition, and it’s certainly reasonable to think that there is a 50%
chance that calculator batteries will need to be replaced during the
next 3 years.
8 This statement does not make sense. The two possibilities are
complements and therefore must always total to 1, but that does not
mean they are each 1/2.

Concepts and Applications

9 There are eight possible outcomes: GGG, GGB, GBG, BGG, GBB, BGB, BBG,
BBB. Only one outcome (GGG) corresponds to the event of three girls:
P(all girls) = 1/8, or 0.125.
10 There are 16 possible outcomes: GGGG, GGGB, GGBG, GBGG, BGGG, GGBB,
GBGB, GBBG, BGGB, BBGG, BGBG, GBBB, BGBB, BBGB, BBBG, BBBB. There are 6
possible outcomes that include two boys and two girls, taking into
account birth order: P(2 boys and 2 girls) = 6/16, or 0.375.
11 3/4, assuming that heads and tails are equally likely to occur. There
are four possible outcomes (HH, TH, HT, TT), and only three of them
include one head or two heads.
12 1/2, assuming all sides of die are equally likely to be rolled. There
are six numbers, and half of them are odd.
13 30/365 = 6/73, or 0.0822, assuming that the selection is random in the
sense that all of the 365 days have the same chance of being selected.
14 1/5, or 0.2, assuming that the guess is random in the sense that all
five possible answers have the same chance of being selected.
15 4/52 = 1/13, assuming that each card is equally likely to be drawn and
because there are four aces in the deck of 52 cards.
16 1/7, assuming that births on each day of week are equally likely.
17 1/365, assuming that births on the 365 days are equally likely.
18 1/2, or 0.5, assuming that heads and tails are equally likely to occur.
Each coin toss is independent of the tosses before it, and the
probability is unaffected by prior information.
19 1/2, or 0.5, assuming that boys and girls are equally likely. Each new
birth is independent of the preceding births, and the probability is
unaffected by prior information.
20 6/6 = 1, assuming that each face of the die is equally likely (a fair
die). Since the possible outcomes are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, any roll
would have a result less than 10.
21 P(day of week doesn’t have a “y”) = 0/7 = 0.
22 P(day of week has a “d”) = 7/7 = 1.
Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.
76 CHAPTER 6, PROBABILITY IN STATISTICS

23 P(not queen) = 1 – P(queen) = 1 – 4/52 = 1 – 1/13 = 12/13. We are assuming a

fair deck of cards where each card is equally likely to be drawn.
24 P(not heart) = 1 – P(heart) = 1 – 13/52 = 1 – 1/4 = 3/4. We are assuming a
fair deck of cards where each card is equally likely to be drawn.
25 P(not correct) = 1 – P(correct) = 1 – 1/5 = 4/5 or 0.8, assuming that the
guess is random in the sense that all five possible answers have the same
chance of being selected. [See the answer to Exercise 14 for P(correct).]
26 Three names of days include the letter “t” (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday).
So P(no t) = 1 – P(t) = 1 – 3/7 = 4/7.
27 P(missing basket) = 1 – P(making basket) = 1 – 3/4 = 1/4, or 0.25
28 P(not born on Saturday) = 1 – P(born on Saturday) = 1 – 1/7 = 6/7
[See answer to Exercise 16 for P(born on Saturday)]
29 P(not type O) = 1 – P(type O) = 1 – 0.45 = 0.55
30 P(not defective) = 1 – P(defective) = 1 – 0.02 = 0.98
31 P(red) = 13/100 = 0.13; P(blue) = 27/100 = 0.27; P(yellow) = 8/100 = 0.08;
P(not orange) = 1 – P(orange) = 1 – 25/100 = 75/100 = 0.75. We are assuming
that all of the 100 of M&M’S are equally likely to be selected.
32 You would expect to get a score of 20%. We are assuming that with random
guessing, the different answers are all equally likely.
33 There are eight possible outcomes: GGG, BGG, GBG, GGB, BBG, BGB, GBB, BBB
For each of the parts below, the solution is obtained by dividing the number
of outcomes in the event by 8.

Result Probability
Three girls 1/8 = 0.125
Two girls, one boy 3/8 = 0.375
One girl, two boys 3/8 = 0.375
Three boys 1/8 = 0.125
Total 1.000

a) 1/8 = 0.125 (GGG)

b) 3/8 = 0.375 (BBG, BGB, GBB)
c) 1/8 = 0.125 (GBB)
d) 7/8 = 0.875 (GGG, BGG, GBG, GGB, BBG, BGB, GBB)
e) 4/8 = 0.5 (BBG, BGB, GBB, BBB)
34 a) 16: BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BGBB, GBBB, BBGG, BGBG, BGGB, GBGB, GBBG, GGBB,
BGGG, GBGG, GGBG, GGGB, GGGG.

Result Probability
Four girls 1/16 = 0.0625
Three girls, one boy 4/16 = 0.2500
Two girls, two boys 6/16 = 0.3750
One girl, three boys 4/16 = 0.2500
Four boys 1/16 = 0.0625
Total 1.0000

b) 2/16 = 1/8, or 0.125 (BBBB, GGGG)

c) 1/16 = 0.0625 (BGBG)
d) 6/16 = 3/8 = 0.375 (BBGG, BGBG, BGGB, GBGB, GBBG, GGBB)
35 The forecaster has been right 26 out 30 times, a relative frequency of 26/30
= 13/15, or 0.867. Thus, her probability of being correct on the next
forecast is 0.867.
36 A hundred year flood occurs about once every one hundred years, so the
probability of one this year is 1/100, or 0.01.
37 P(Success) = 0.72.
38 P(Success) = 67/73 = 0.918.

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

 SECTION 6.2, BASICS OF PROBABILITY 77

39
Outcomes for Tossing Four Fair Coins

Coin 1 Coin 2 Coin 3 Coin 4 Outcome Probability

H H H H HHHH 1/16
H H H T HHHT 1/16
H H T H HHTH 1/16
H H T T HHTT 1/16
H T H H HHTH 1/16
H T H T HTHT 1/16
H T T H HTTH 1/16
H T T T HTTT 1/16
T H H H THHH 1/16
T H H T THHT 1/16
T H T H THTH 1/16
T H T T THTT 1/16
T T H H TTHH 1/16
T T H T TTHT 1/16
T T T H TTTH 1/16
T T T T TTTT 1/16

Event Probability Distribution for Tossing Four Coins

4 heads, 0 tails 1/16 0.0625 HHHH
3 heads, 1 tail 4/16 0.25 HHHT, HHTH, HHTH, THHH
HHTT, HTHT, HTTH, THHT, THTH,
2 heads, 2 tails 6/16 0.375 TTHH
1 heads, 3 tails 4/16 0.25 HTTT, THTT, TTHT, TTTH
0 heads, 4 tails 1/16 0.0625 TTTT
Total 16/16 1

a) P(all same) = 2/16 = 1/8, or 0.125

b) P(not same) = 1 – P(same) = 1 – 2/16 = 14/16 = 7/8, or 0.875
c) P(two heads and two tails) = 6/16, or 0.375
40 a) P(any number) = 1/27, or 0.037
b) Based on the histogram 10 occurs the most with a relative
frequency of 82/1639, or 0.0500.
c) The histogram would have a shape that is very close to a uniform
distribution.

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

78 CHAPTER 6, PROBABILITY IN STATISTICS

Section 6.3
Statistical Literacy and Critical Thinking

1 The law of large numbers states that if a process is repeated through many
trials, the proportion of the trials in which event A occurs will be close
to the probability P(A). It does not apply to a single trial (observation or
experiment), or even to small numbers of trials, but only to a large number
of trials.
2 With the relatively small number of 10 tosses, the probability of getting a
result slightly away from the most likely outcome of 5 is still quite high.
However, when the number of tosses is 1000, the outcomes will be tightly
distributed around the most likely outcome of 500, so a result of 600 would
be highly improbable.
3 The expected value of a variable is the weighted average of all its possible
values. It is computed using the formula given in the text. Because it is an
average, we should expect a value close to the expected value to occur only
when there are a large number of events, so that the law of large numbers
comes into play.
4 The gambler’s fallacy is the mistaken belief that a streak of bad luck makes
a person “due” for a streak of good luck (or that a streak of good luck will
continue). Examples will vary.
5 This statement makes sense. Most people lose money in the lottery, so the
expected value, which represents what you can expect to get as a return,
should be less than what you spend. Furthermore, a lottery is a business,
and good business plans are created so as to make money rather than lose
money over the long term.
6 This statement makes sense. For every $1 bet, the expected return is 64¢,
so this is a losing game and there is no reason to bet much money on it.
7 This statement does not make sense. All sets of three numbers have the same
probability and the same chance of winning.
8 This statement does not make sense. This is an example of the gambler’s
fallacy.

Concepts and Applications

9 No, you should not expect to get exactly 250 girls since the probability of
that particular outcome is extremely small. The proportion of girls should
approach 0.5 as the number of births increases.
10 It means that the driver is “due” for an accident or a traffic citation. If
citations happen randomly, then the statement is not true. If citations
depend on driving habits, it may be a true statement.
11 For each of the possible outcomes heads or tails, your net winnings would be
(after subtracting the $10 it costs you to play) 5$ or $0. Therefore, your
expected net winnings = ($5)(1/2) + ($0)(1/2) = $2.50. It appears that you
should play. However, you are not tossing the coin, so there is a chance of
cheating occurring. It would be wise to be wary of such a bet.
12 You have a 1/10,000 chance of winning $4999 and a 9999/10,000 chance of
losing $1. Thus, your expected value is
($4999)(1/10,000) + (-$1)(9999/10,000) = -$0.50, or a loss of $0.50.
13 a) –$161 for surviving and $100,000 – $161 = $99,839 for not surviving.
b) P(surviving) = 0. 9986, P(not surviving) = 1 – P(surviving) = 0. 0014.
c) The expected value is –$161 × 0.9986+ $99,839 × 0.0014= -$21.
d) Yes, the insurance company can make a profit. The expected value for
the insurance company is $21, which indicates that the company can
expect to make an average of $21 for each such policy.

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

 SECTION 6.3, THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS 79

14 a) –$226 for surviving and $50,000 – $226 = $49,774 for not

surviving.
b) P(surviving) = 0. 9968, P(not surviving) = 1 – P(surviving) = 0.
0032.
c) The expected value is –$226 × 0.9968 + $49,774 × 0.0032= -$66.
d) Yes, the insurance company can make a profit. The expected value
for the insurance company is $66, which indicates that the
company can expect to make an average of $66 for each such
policy.
15 Your waiting time is uniformly distributed between 0 and 24 minutes.
The center of this symmetric distribution is 12 minutes, so 12 minutes
is your expected waiting time.
16 a) For a $5.00 bet, the expected value is –$5.00 × 20/38 + $5.00 ×
18/36 = $-0.26.
b) The best option is to not bet, because the expected value for no
bet is 0, which is better than ‒26¢.
17 The expected value for a $20 bet is –$20 × 251/495 + $20 × 244/495 = –
$0.28. So, in the long run, the expected value for each dollar bet is -
$0.28/$20.00 = -$0.014 or ‒1.4¢.
18 The expected value is (-$0.50)(9,999/10,000) + ($2788 –
$0.50)(1/10,000) = -$0.22. In the long run, you can expect to lose
$0.22 for each $0.50 bet.
19 For the 1-point attempt, Expected value = (1 × 0.94) + (0 × 0.06) =
0.94. For the 2-point attempt, Expected value = (2 × 0.37) + (0 ×
0.63) = 0.74. The 1-point attempt makes more sense in most cases.
However, if a team is two points behind with little or no time left, it
makes no sense to go for 1 point. The same is true if the team is
behind by 16 points and it is unlikely that the team will have enough
time to score three times.
20 a) The expected value is ($1,000,000)(1/90,000,000) +
($100,000)(1/110,000,000) + ($25,000)(1/110,000,000) +
($5,000)(1/36,667,000) + ($2,500)(1/27,500,000) = $0.012
b) 1.2 cents minus the cost of the stamp. Mathematically, it is not
worth entering the contest, but the small cost might be worth the
excitement of anticipating a win.
21 a) Decision 1:
Option A: Expected value = $1,000,000
Option B: Expected value = (%2,500,000 × 0.10) + ($1,000,000 ×
0.89) + ($0 × 0.01) = $1,140,000
Decision 2:
Option A: Expected value =
($1,000,000 × 0.11) + ($0 × 0.89) = $110,000
Option B: Expected value =
($2,500,000 × 0.10) + ($0 × 0.90) = $250,000
b) Responses are not consistent with expected values in Decision 1,
but they are consistent in Decision 2.
c) It appears that people choose the certain outcome ($1,000,000) in
Decision 1.
22 a) If you toss a head, with probability 0.5, the difference
decreases to 23; If you toss a tail, with probability 0.5, the
difference increases to 25.
b) On each of 1000 additional tosses, the probability is 0.5 that
the difference will increase and 0.5 that it will decrease. So,
overall, the difference is equally as likely to be greater than
24 as it is to be less than 24.
c) Once you have 24 more tails than heads, the difference is as
likely to increase as to decrease; thus, the number of tails is
likely to remain greater than the number of heads.
Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.
80 CHAPTER 6, PROBABILITY IN STATISTICS

d) By part (c), the number of tails is likely to exceed the number of

heads at any time. The gambler’s fallacy is that the difference
between heads and tails will eventually be corrected.

Section 6.4
Statistical Literacy and Critical Thinking

1 Travel risk is a rate that quantifies the risk involved in traveling and is
often expressed in terms of an accident rate or death rate. These rates are
in essence expected values and represent probabilities. For example, an
annual accident rate of 750 accidents per 100,000 people tells us that the
probability of a person being involved in an accident (in one year) is 750
in 100,000 = 0.0075. Travel risks must be interpreted with care, as
sometimes they are stated per 100,000 people, as above, but other times they
are stated per trip or per mile.
2 Vital statistics are data related to births and deaths. The rate of 13.2
births per 1000 people means that on average, for every 1000 people in the
population, there are 13.2 births.
3 Life expectancy is the number of additional years a person of a given age
can expect to live on average. A 30-year-old person will have a shorter life
expectancy than a 20-year-old person because the 30-year-old person is not
expected to live as many additional years as the 20-year-old.
4 It means that based on current medical and health data, a person who is 20
years old today will, on average, live to be about 80 years old. However, if
there are improvements in medical treatments and public health, today’s 20-
year-olds will live longer than that on average.
5 This statement does not make sense. Many products do this, including
automobiles.
6 This statement does not make sense. Many fewer people ride motorcycles, so
the higher death rate does not imply higher absolute numbers of deaths.
7 This statement does not make sense. Life expectancy is an average based on
current medicine and public health statistics. An individual’s life span
depends on many other factors.
8 This statement makes sense. On average, a 60-year-old has fewer remaining
years of life than a 20-year old, which means a shorter life expectancy.
9 For 2000, the fatality rate per thousand departures was 92/9035 = 0.0102;
For 2008, the fatality rate per thousand departures was 3/10,437 = 0.0003;
For 2014, the fatality rate per thousand departures was 2/8,987= 0.0002.
The year 2014 was the safest because it had the lowest number of fatalities
per 1000 departures.
10 In 2000, the fatality rate per billion passenger miles was 92/692.8 =0.1328;
In 2008, the fatality rate per billion passenger miles was 3/722.8 =0.0042;
In 2014, the fatality rate per billion passenger miles was 2/ 868.4 =0.0023.
The year 2014 was the safest because it had the lowest rate of fatalities
per billion passenger miles.
11 For 2000, the fatality rate per million passengers was 92/666.2 =0.1381;
For 2008, the fatality rate per million passengers was 3/690.2 =0.0043;
For 2014, the fatality rate per million passengers was 2/ 756.0 =0.0026.
The year 2014 was the safest because it had the lowest number of fatalities
per million passengers.
12 For 2014, the fatality rate per passenger mile is 2/ 868,400,000,000 =
0.0000000000023 (or 2.3 × 10‒12) deaths per passenger mile. This very small
number is inconvenient to write and is not easily understood.
13 The birth rate in the United States was 3,952,937/316,128,839 = 0.0125 or
12.5 births per 1000 people.
14 The birth rate in California was 503,634/38,332,521 = 0.0131 or 13.1 births
per 1000 people.

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

 SECTION 6.5, COMBINING PROBABILITIES 81

15 The death rate in California was 250,567/38,332,521 = 0.0065 or 6.5

deaths per 1000 people. The death rate in Florida was
182,121/19,552,860 = 0.0093 or 9.3 deaths per 1000 people.
Florida probably has a higher death rate due to the large number of
older people who retire there.
16 The death rate in California was 250,567/38,332,521 = 0.0065 or 6.5
deaths per 1000 people. The death rate in the United States was
2,540,928/316,128,839 = 0.0080 or 8.0 deaths per 1000 people.
California has a lower death rate than the United States.
17 Based on current life expectancy data, a randomly selected 20-year-old
would be expected to live 59.5 additional years beyond his or her 20th
birthday.
18 Based on current life expectancy data, a randomly selected 18-year-old
would be expected to live 61.4 additional years beyond his or her 18th
birthday.
19 The death rate was 65 deaths per 100,000 people or approximately 6.5
deaths per 10,000 people.
20 The death rate was 74 deaths per 100,000 people or approximately 7.4
deaths per 10,000 people.
21 The death rate due to Alzheimer’s disease was 84,767/325,000,000 =
0.0002608 or 26.08 per 100,000 people.
22 The death rate due to heart disease was 611,105/325,000,000 = 0.0018803
or 188.03 per 100,000 people.
23 The death rate due to stroke was 128,978/325,000,000 = 0.0003969.
So, in a city of population 500,000 people, you would expect 0.0003969
× 500,000 = 198.43, approximately 198 people, would die due to a
stroke.
24 The death rate due to chronic respiratory diseases was
149,205/325,000,000 = 0.0004591. So, in a city of population 500,000
people, you would expect 0.0004591 × 500,000 = 229.55, approximately
230 people would die due to chronic respiratory diseases.
25 The death rate for 60-year-olds is estimated at 7.5 per 1000 people.
So out of 14 million people, 7.5 × 14,000,000/1000 = 105,000 people.
26 The death rate for 25-year-olds is estimated at 2 per 1000 people.
So out of 42 million people, 2 × 42,000,000/1000 = 84,000 people.
27 Based on current life expectancy data, they would be expected to live
another 40 years to age 80.
28 Based on current life expectancy data, they would be expected to live
another 10 years to age 90.
29 The life expectancy percentage increase is (80 – 48)/48 = 0.66 or a 66%
increase. Women in 2100 would be expected to live to 80 × 1.66 = 133
years old.
30 The life expectancy percentage increase is (74 – 46)/46 = 0.61 or a 61%
increase. Men in 2100 would be expected to live to 74 × 1.61 = 119
years old.

Section 6.5
Statistical Literacy and Critical Thinking

1 The student that is chosen from the statistics class for event A does
not affect the probability of choosing a female from the psychology
class for event B. Since the students are picked from different
classes, the two events are independent.
2 When the geneticists selects one pea out of the 4 peas (event G), it
will change the probability of choosing another pea from the remaining
three peas (event Y). The outcome of the first event affects the
probability of the second event, so the two events are dependent.

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

82 CHAPTER 6, PROBABILITY IN STATISTICS

3 Yes, a pollster could select an adult that is a male Republican. Events M

and R could occur at the same time, so the events are overlapping.
4 No, since you cannot roll an odd number and an even number at the same time,
these events are complementary as well as non-overlapping. By definition,
the complement of an event does not overlap with the event itself.
5 This statement does not make sense. The numbers drawn are independent of
previous outcomes.
6 This statement does not make sense. The outcomes are H1, H2, H3, H4, H5,
H6, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, so P(H or 2) = 7/12, not 2/3.
7 This statement makes sense. It is a valid application of the either/or rule
for non-overlapping events.
8 This statement makes sense. Lottery results from week to week are
independent, so what happened in the past does not affect what happens now
or in the future.

Concepts and Applications

9 Since the births are independent, P(Fourth child is a girl) = 1/2 = 0.5.
10 P(GGBB) = P(G1 and G2 and B3 and B4) = P(G1)P(G2)P(B3)P(B4) =
(0.5)(0.5)(0.5)(0.5) = 0.0625 since the four births are independent.
11 Since the digits are independent, P(12) = (1/10)(1/9) = 1/90.
12 a) When sampling with replacement, the outcomes of the first two
selections are independent, so
P(Orange1 and Orange2) = P(Orange1) × P(Orange2) = (6/123)(6/123) =
36/15129 = 0.00238.
b) When sampling without replacement, the outcomes of the first two
selections are dependent, so
P(Orange1 and Orange2) = P(Orange1) × P(Orange2 given Orange1) =
(6/123)(5/122) = 30/15006 = 0.00200
c) If hunters are being selected for a follow-up study, it doesn’t make
much sense to select the same hunter twice, so selecting without
replacement makes more sense. The probability from part (b) would be
more useful.
13 Since the selections can be repeated, the probabilities of each type remain
the same for each selection: 15/50 = 3/10 for rock, 20/50 = 2/5 for jazz,
and 15/50 = 3/10 for country.
a) P(two rock selections in a row) = (3/10) × (3/10) = 0.09
b) P(three jazz selections in a row) = (2/5) × (2/5) × (2/5) = 0.064
c) P(jazz and then country) = (2/5) × (3/10) = 0.12
d) There are 60 equally likely songs available for each selection.
No matter which song is played first, the probability that the next
one is the same is 1/50 = 0.02.
14 a) Dependent events, since the pollster will not call the same person
more than once, the first event will affect the probability of the
second event.
b) P(first male and second female) = P(first is male) × P(second is
female given first is male) = (60/100) × (40/99) = 0.242.
15 The number of people who either pled guilty or were sent to prison is
392 + 564 + 58 = 1014. Therefore, P(guilty plea or sent to prison) =
1014/1028 = 0.986.
16 The number of people who either pled not guilty or were not sent to prison
is 58 + 14 + 564 = 636. Therefore, P(not guilty plea or not sent to prison)
= 636/1028 = 0.619.
17 Altogether, 956 pled guilty out of the total of 1028.
P(First pled Guilty and Second pled Guilty) =
P(First pled Guilty) × P(Second pled Guilty given First pled Guilty) =
(956/1028)(955/1027) = 912,980/1,055,756 = 0.865.

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

 SECTION 6.5, COMBINING PROBABILITIES 83

18 Altogether, 450 out of the total of 1028 were sent to prison.

P(First to Prison and Second to Prison) =
P(First to Prison) × P(Second to Prison given First to Prison) =
(450/1028)(449/1027) = 202,050/105,5756 = 0.191.
19 Of the total of 1028 defendants, 392 pled guilty and were sent to
prison, so P(Pled Guilty and Went to Prison) = 392/1028 = 0.381.
20 Of the total of 1028 defendants, 564 pled guilty and were not sent to
prison, so P(Pled Guilty and Did not go to Prison) = 564/1028 = 0.549.
21 The number of accidents in which the pedestrian was intoxicated or the
driver was intoxicated is 59 + 79 + 266 = 404. Therefore,
P(the pedestrian was intoxicated or the driver was intoxicated) =
404/985 = 0.410.
22 The number of accidents in which the pedestrian was not intoxicated or
the driver was not intoxicated is 266 + 581 + 79 = 926. Therefore,
P(the pedestrian was not intoxicated or the driver was not intoxicated)
= 926/985 = 0.940.
23 The number of accidents in which the pedestrian was intoxicated or the
driver was not intoxicated is 59 + 266 + 581 = 906. Therefore,
P(the pedestrian was intoxicated or the driver was not intoxicated) =
906/985 = 0.920.
24 The number of accidents in which the pedestrian was not intoxicated or
the driver was intoxicated is 79 + 581 + 59 = 719. Therefore,
P(the pedestrian was not intoxicated or the driver was intoxicated) =
719/985 = 0.730.
25 Of the 985 accidents, 138 involved intoxicated drivers. When two
accidents are selected without replacement, P(First Driver intoxicated
and Second driver intoxicated) = P(First Driver intoxicated) × P(Second
driver intoxicated given First Driver intoxicated) = (138/985)(137/984)
= 0.0195.
26 Of the 985 accidents, 325 involved intoxicated drivers. When two
accidents are selected without replacement,
P(First Pedestrian intoxicated and Second Pedestrian intoxicated) =
P(First Pedestrian intoxicated) × P(Second Pedestrian intoxicated given
First Pedestrian intoxicated) = (325/985)(324/984) = 0.109.
27 a) P(drug or placebo) = (120 + 100)/300 = 220/300 = 0.733
b) P(improved or not improved) = (138 + 162)/300 = 1
c) We can work this one in two ways:
P(drug or improved) = (65 + 55 + 42 + 31)/300 = 193/300 = 0.643;
also P(drug or improved) = P(drug) + P(improved) -
P(drug and improved) = 120/300 + 138/300 - 65/300 = 193/300 =
0.643.
d) P(drug and improved) = 65/300 = 0.22.
28 a) P(both improved) = (138/300) × (138/300) = 0.212
b) P(both improved) = (138/300) × (137/299) = 0.211
c) The results are close but different.
29 a) There are 1205 people surveyed, 1049 of whom responded and 156 of
whom refused to respond. Therefore, P(Refuse) = 156/1205 = 0.129.
This probability suggests that high refusal rates may be a
problem for pollsters since the survey might result in a sample
that is not representative of the population being surveyed.
Those who refuse may constitute a group with opinions that differ
from those who respond.
b) There are 202 people 60 and over who responded, so the
probability of choosing such a person at random is 202/1205 =
0.168.

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

84 CHAPTER 6, PROBABILITY IN STATISTICS

c) There are 1049 who responded plus 11 more in the 18-21 age group who
did not respond, for a total of 1060. Thus the probability that a
person is randomly chosen who responded or is in the 18-21 age group
is 1060/1205 = 0.880.
d) There are 156 people who refused to respond plus another 202 who are
over 59 and responded. Therefore, the probability that a randomly
chosen person refused to respond or is over 59 is 358/1205 = 0.297.
30 a) There are 156 people who refused to respond.
P(both refused) = (156/1205) × (156/1205) = 0.0168.
b) There are 156 people who refused to respond.
P(both refused) = (156/1205) × (155/1204) = 0.0167.
c) The results are close but different. In practice, we can treat them as
independent events, since 2/1205 is less than 5% of the population
size.
31 a)
Positive results Negative results Total
Used marijuana 119 3 122
Didn’t use 24 154 178
marijuana
Total 143 157 300

b) The total number of applicants that had a positive result was 143.
The total number of applicants that said they didn’t use marijuana was
178. Since the applicants that had a positive result and also said
they didn’t use marijuana was counted twice, we take away 24.
P(positive or does not use) = (143 + 178 – 24)/300 = 297/300 = 0.99
c) P(both tested positive) = (143/300) × (143/300) = 0.227
d) P(both tested positive) = (143/300) × (142/299) = 0.226
e) If two job applicants are being selected for follow-up testing, it
doesn’t make much sense to select the same person twice, so selecting
without replacement makes more sense.
32 a) P(B number) = 15/75 = 0.20
b) P(two B numbers in a row) = P(B number on first draw) × P(B number on
second draw | B number on the first draw) = 15/75 × 14/74 = 0.038.
c) P(B number or O number) = 30/75 = 0.400.
d) P(B number, then a G number, then an N number) = P(B number) ×
P(G number | B number) × P(N number | B number and a G number) =
15/75 × 15/74 × 15/73 = 0.0083
e) P(five non-B numbers) = 60/75 × 59/74 × 58/73 × 57/72 × 56/71 = 0.316.

Chapter 6 Review Exercises

1 The total number of subjects is (15 + 42 + 32 + 9) = 98. The total number

of subjects that lied was 42 + 9 = 51. P(Lied) = 51/98 = 0.520
2 The total number of subjects is (15 + 42 + 32 + 9) = 98. The number of
subjects that lied and their polygraph indicated not lying was 32.
P(Didn’t Lie and polygraph indicated not lying) = 32/98 = 0.327
3 The total number of subjects that lied was 42 + 9 = 51. The total number of
subjects whose polygraph indicated lying was 15 + 42 = 57.
P(Lied or polygraph indicated lying) = P(Lied) +
P(polygraph indicated lying) - P(Given lied and polygraph indicated lying) =
(51 + 57 – 42)/98 = 66/98, or 0.673.
4 The total number of subjects that did not lie was 15 + 32 = 47. The total
number of subjects whose polygraph indicated they did not lie was 32 + 9 =
41.
P(did not lie or polygraph indicated did not lie) = P(did not lie) +
P(polygraph indicated did not lie) - P(did not lie and polygraph indicated
did not lie) =(47 + 41 – 32)/98 = 56/98, or 0.571.
Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.
 CHAPTER 6, QUIZ 85

5 The total number of subjects that lied was 42 + 9 = 51. The total
number of subjects that did not lie was 15 + 32 = 47
P(lied or did not lie) = (51 + 47)/98 = 1.0
6 P(both lied) = (51/98) × (50/97) = 0.268
7 P(all three lied) = (51/98) × (50/97) × (49/96) = 0.137
8 Based on data from J. D. Power and Associates, 22% of car colors are
black, so any estimate between 0.05 and 0.35 is reasonable.
9 a) P(Not Good) = 1 – P(Good) = 1 – 0.27 = 0.73
b) P(Both good) = P(Good1 and Good2) = P(Good1)P(Good2)
=(0.27)(0.27) = 0.0729.
c) Expected number of good chips = 0.27 × 5 = 1.35.
d) P(all 5 good) = 0.275 = 0.001435. Getting 5 good ones in 5
selections has a very small probability if 27% of the chips are
good, so we would tend to believe that the true yield is greater
than 27%.
10 a) P(death due to motor vehicle crash) = 10.3/100,000 = 0.000103.
b) The probability that one person does not die in a crash is
1 – 0.000103 = 0.999897.
P(two randomly selected people do not die in vehicle crash) =
0.999897 × 0.999897 = 0.9998.

Chapter 6 Quiz

1 P(Correct) = 0.6, so P(Wrong) = 1 – 0.6 = 0.4 or 40%.

2 These are independent events, so P(First Correct and Second Correct) =
P(First Correct) × P(Second Correct) = (0.6)(0.6) = 0.36 or 36%.
3 Answers may vary. This doesn’t happen very often, so an estimate of
0.01 or lower is reasonable.
4 Yes, the method appears to be effective, since the probability is very
small that the trial results could have occurred by chance.
5 P(Ā) = 1 – P(A) = 1 – 0.65 = 0.35
6
Passed Failed Total
Group A 10 14 24
Group B 417 145 562
Total 427 159 586
P(Passed) = 427/586 = 0.729
7 P(Group B or Passed) = (562 + 10)/586 = 0.976.
8 P(First is Group A and Second is Group A) = (24/586)(23/585) = 0.00161.
9 P(Group A and Passed) = 10/586 = 0.0171
10 P(Failed or Group A) =
P(Failed) + P(Group A) – P(Failed and in Group A) =
(159 + 24 - 14)/586 = 0.288.

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Inc.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
yellow, translucent, rather firm, meaty, juicy, sugary vinous, rich; very
good; stone oval, medium in size, clinging; season with Wild Goose.
Pappaconi. Domestica. 1. Noisette Man. Comp. Jard. 2:499. 1860.
Imported into France from the Royal Gardens of Naples. Fruit
larger than Dame Aubert, brilliant yellow, ripens in September.
Papeleu. Domestica. 1. Hogg Fruit Man. 716. 1884.
Fruit medium in size, round, symmetrical; stem moderately long,
set in a narrow depression; suture very shallow; golden-yellow when
ripe, mottled with pale straw color; dots small, crimson; bloom light;
flesh yellow, tender and juicy, rich, sugary and highly flavored;
freestone; mid-season.
Paquet. Domestica. 1. U. S. D. A. Pom. Rpt. 26, Col. Pl. 1894.
Originated in 1889 with Peter Paquet, Oregon City, Oregon. Fruit
very large, oval; cavity large, deep, regular; stem about an inch long,
rather stout, curved; suture moderate; apex truncated; yellow
washed with red; dots many, yellow; skin thick; flesh yellow; very
good; stone oval, semi-clinging; early.
Park. Domestica ×? 1. Kerr Cat. 1894. 2. Ibid. 25. 1897. 3. Ohio Sta.
Bul. 162:256, 257. 1905.
Kerr says this is reputed to be a hybrid of Prunus domestica with a
native variety. Tree upright-spreading; fruit above medium size,
oblong-oval; cavity broad and deep; stem of medium length, stout;
greenish-yellow; flesh yellow; good; stone of medium size, clinging;
mid-season.
Parker. Species? 1. Wis. Sta. Bul. 63:52. 1897.
Reported as very productive and regular in bearing; fruit large;
good; early.
Parrott. Species? 1. Kan. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 30:63. 1908-09.
Parrott originated with A. H. Griesa, Lawrence, Kansas. Fruit
small, bright red; bloom thin; stone small; very late.
Parsonage. Domestica. 1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 367. 1857.
 Originated at Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York. Tree very
vigorous, upright, productive; fruit medium to large, oval; stem
medium; cavity small; pale yellow splashed with green; flesh yellow,
juicy, rich; freestone; mid-season.
Partridge. Species? 1. Can. Exp. Farm Bul. 2nd Ser. 3:54. 1900. 2.
Can. Exp. Farms Rpt. 548. 1901.
Grown at the Experimental Farm, Agassiz, British Columbia. Tree
vigorous; fruit medium, round; suture distinct; red with white bloom;
flesh yellowish, sweet, pleasant; early.
Pasqua. Nigra? 1. Can. Exp. Farms Rpt. 426. 1900.
Sent out by Thomas Frankland, Stonewall, Manitoba. Fruit large,
red; late.
Pathfinder. Triflora × (Triflora × Simonii?) 1. Rural N. Y. 68:752.
1909.
Pathfinder, a cross between Chabot and Wickson, was grown by
William Strong Arkansas. Fruit heart-shaped, strongly pointed, dark
colored; flesh firm, fine-grained and sweet.
Patten A. Munsoniana. 1. Ia. Sta. Bul. 46:286. 1900.
Received by the Iowa Experiment Station from C. G. Patten,
Charles City, Iowa, with whom the variety originated. Fruit medium in
size, ellipsoidal, flattened at both ends; cavity deep; suture a well-
marked groove; bright red to purplish-red; dots small, numerous;
bloom thin; flesh firm, meaty; good; stone of medium size, winged,
flat, clinging; not introduced.
Patten B. Americana. 1. Ia. Sta. Bul. 46:286. 1900.
Of the Stoddard type, from C. G. Patten, Charles City, Iowa. Fruit
medium to large, conical, somewhat pointed; cavity shallow; stem
long; suture clearly outlined; apex pointed; dark purplish-red; dots
numerous, small; bloom thick; skin thick, brittle; flesh yellow-brown;
good; stone large, flat, clinging.
Peach Leaf. Hortulana. 1. Wis. Sta. Bul. 63:52. 1897. 2. Vt. Sta. An.
Rpt. 11:285. 1898.
 Peachleaf 2.
A variety of unknown origin grown for many years by B. A.
Mathews of Iowa. Given as synonymous to Kanawha by the
American Pomological Society. Waugh says this is an error. Fruit
medium in size, round; cavity slight; suture a faint line; deep wine
red; dots many, small; flesh yellow, firm; good; stone medium, rough.
Peach-plum. Domestica. 1. Ray Hist. Plant. 2:1529. 1688. 2. Rea
Flora 208. 1676.
Peach Plum 1.
A yellow variety grown in the Seventeenth Century.
Peake. Domestica. 1. Parkinson Par. Ter. 578. 1629.
Parkinson says of it, “long, whitish and very good.”
Pearl. Americana mollis. 1. Kerr Cat. 11. 1898. 2. Terry Cat. 5. 1900.
3. Ill. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 424. 1905.
From H. A. Terry, Crescent, Iowa; grown from seed of Van Buren
planted about 1891. Tree very productive, vigorous, upright; fruit
large, white becoming pale red; of best quality; ripens last of August.
Pear Plum. Domestica. 1. Kraft Pom. Aust. 2:45, Tab. 199 fig. 2.
1796. 2. N. E. Farmer Dict. 266. 1797.
Die veilchenfarbige Birnpflaume 1. Prune poire grosse violette 1.
Kraft in 1796 described a little-known Pear plum. Tree medium in
size, unproductive; fruit very large, pear-shaped; suture distinct;
stem long; reddish-purple; flesh juicy, unpleasant; freestone. This
may or may not be the same as the New England variety of this
name mentioned in the references.
Peasant. Species? 1. Can. Exp. Farm Bul. 2nd Ser. 3:55. 1900.
Tested by the Experimental Farm at Agassiz, British Columbia.
Tree vigorous; fruit small, roundish, purple; flesh yellowish, juicy,
sweet; mid-season.
Peerless. Americana. 1. Meneray Cat.
 A seedling of Harrison grown by H. A. Terry and introduced by F.
W. Meneray, Council Bluffs, Iowa. Fruit large, oblong, dark red; skin
thin; flesh yellow, firm; good; freestone.
Pekin. Species? Letter from Kerr.
Originated by Theodore Williams, Benson, Nebraska.
Pendent. Munsoniana × Hortulana mineri. 1. Kerr Cat. 19. 1898. 2.
Vt. Sta. Bul. 67:18. 1898.
A cross between Pottawattamie and Forest Garden from Theodore
Williams of Benson, Nebraska; introduced by J. W. Kerr in 1898.
Tree slender, a rapid grower, productive; fruit medium to large,
roundish inclined to oblong, red; semi-clinging; mid-season.
Penning. Americana. 1. Kerr Cat. 11. 1897. 2. Waugh Plum Cult.
160. 1901.
Penning’s Free 2. Penning’s Free 1.
Originated with Martin Penning of Minnesota; a perfect freestone.
Penning Peach. Americana. 1. Kerr Cat. 7. 1896. 2. Wis. Sta. Bul.
63:52. 1897. 3. Kerr Cat. 11. 1899.
C. W. H. Heideman of Minnesota says this variety was introduced
about thirty years ago as the Peach plum and was sold under that
name by Northwestern nurserymen; he added the name Penning to
avoid confusion; it closely resembles Harrison and is by some
considered identical with that variety. Tree hardy and healthy, a shy
bearer; fruit medium to large, oblong, purplish-red; flesh sweet; semi-
clinging; mid-season.
Penobscot. Domestica. 1. Horticulturist 1:196. 1846. 2. Elliott Fr.
Book 428. 1854. 3. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat. 222, 244. 1858.
Originated about 1840 with James McLaughlin of Bangor, Maine.
Rejected by the American Pomological Society in 1858. Tree
productive; fruit large, oval; suture distinct; cavity small; stem of
medium length; greenish-yellow with a red blush in the sun; bloom
thin; flesh yellow, sweet; flavor pleasant; stone long, pointed at both
ends, clinging; early.
Pennock. Prunus besseyi × Domestica? 1. Vt. Sta. Bul. 67:18. 1898.
2. Colo. Sta. Bul. 50:43. 1898.
Pennock’s Hybrid 2.
Pennock was raised in 1893 by C. E. Pennock of Fort Collins,
Colorado, from seed of Prunus besseyi supposed to have been
pollinated by Arctic. Tree dwarfish, upright; leaves of medium size,
ovate, coarsely serrate, thickish, finely tomentose on either side;
petiole short, stiff, sometimes with one gland at the base of the
blade; fruit small, roundish; suture slight; deep blue; bloom heavy;
flavor intermediate between the plum and cherry; stone small, round
and cherry-like.
Peoly Early Blue. Domestica. 1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 309. 1845.
2. Thomas Am. Fruit Cult. 346. 1849.
From Massachusetts. Fruit medium in size, oblong; stem short;
suture obscure; dark blue; bloom light; flesh yellow; pleasant; fair
quality; semi-clinging; early.
Perdrigon des Alpes. Domestica. 1. Lond. Hort. Soc. Cat. 151.
1831.
The London Horticultural Society listed Perdrigon des Alpes and
Perdrigon Violet des Alpes as distinct varieties but there seems to be
little difference between them.
Perdrigon of Cernay. Domestica. 1. Quintinye Com. Gard. 68, 69.
1699.
Cernay Perdrigon 1.
Mentioned in the preceding reference as round or oblate, with a
dry and mealy flesh.
Perdrigon Tardif. Domestica. 1. Quintinye Com. Gard. 67. 1699. 2.
Lond. Hort. Soc. Cat. 151. 1831. 3. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:125.
1873. 4. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 450. 1889.
Damas de Septembre 4 incor. Königs Pflaume aus Paris 4.
Königspflaume von Paris 3. Later Perdrigon 1. Royale de Paris
Tardive 4. September Damascene 4 incor. Späte Herrn Pflaume 4.
Späte Königs Pflaume 4. Späte Königs Pflaume aus Paris 4. Später
Perdrigon 4. Später Perdrigon 3.
Quintinye, in 1699, mentioned a Later Perdrigon which is probably
this variety. Duhamel confused this variety with the Impératrice but
they are distinct. In America this Perdrigon is unknown. Tree small;
leaves small, obovate; flowers very small; fruit small, roundish-
ellipsoid; suture distinct; skin thick, purplish-black; stem short; cavity
shallow; flesh yellowish, fine, firm, sweet; freestone; late.
Pershore. Domestica. 1. Hogg Fruit Man. 375. 1866. 2. Mas Pom.
Gen. 2:111. 1873. 3. Garden 49:225. 1896.
Pershore Yellow Egg 3.
Grown largely in the Pershore district, Worcester County, England.
Tree vigorous, productive; fruit medium, obovate; suture indistinct;
golden-yellow; flesh clear yellow, neither juicy nor sweet; quality fair;
stone small, clinging; fit only for culinary purposes; propagated by
suckers.
Petite Quetsche Sucrée. Domestica. 1. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:181.
1873. 2. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 437. 1889.
Ananas Zwetsche 2. Kleine Zuckerzwetsche 2. Kleine Zucker
Zwetsche 1.
A German variety produced from seed of Violette Diaper. Fruit
small, oval; suture shallow; cavity small; stem slender; dark purple;
bloom thick; flesh yellow, fine-grained, juicy, sweet; freestone; mid-
season.
Phiolenartige Gelbe Zwetsche. Species? 1. Mathieu Nom. Pom.
442. 1889.
Mathieu found the name of this variety in Wiener Garten-Zeitung
288. 1884.
Pilot. Americana. 1. Wis. Sta. Bul. 63:24, 52. 1897. 2. Ibid. 87:15.
1901. 3. Dak. Sta. Bul. 93:31. 1904.
Originated with M. E. Hinckley at Marcus, Iowa, from seed of a
wild plum gathered on the Little Sioux River near Cherokee, Iowa;
seed planted in 1870. Tree open, spreading, drooping; fruit large,
oblong-oval with rounded apex; suture distinct; yellow mottled with
light and dark red; skin thick, tough; flesh firm, rich and sweet; good;
stone long-oval, pointed, margined; mid-season; cracks and rots in
wet seasons.
Pink Damson. Insititia? 1. Montreal Hort. Soc. Rpt. 93. 1885.
Fruit small, pinkish-red; flesh light pink, soft; quality fair; very early.
Pioneer Prune. Domestica. 1. Pioneer Nur. Cat. 1900.
A variety grown for several years by the Pioneer Nursery
Company, Salt Lake City, Utah; discarded because of its close
resemblance to the Italian Prune.
Piper. Americana. 1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt. 162. 1891. 2. Wis. Sta.
Bul. 63:52. 1897. 3. Ia. Sta. Bul. 46:287. 1900. 4. Wis. Sta.
Bul. 87:15, 16 fig. 4. 1901.
Piper’s Peach 1, 2, 3. Piper’s Peach 4.
Found wild near Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota, about
1887 by J. S. Harris of Crescent, Minnesota. Tree vigorous, upright,
hardy, productive; fruit large, round, bright red; flesh orange-yellow,
sweet and rich; good; stone roundish, slightly margined, nearly free;
mid-season; mentioned in the catalog of the American Pomological
Society in 1899.
Piram. Angustifolia varians. 1. Cornell Sta. Bul. 38:80. 1892. 2. Tex.
Sta. Bul. 32:490, 491. 1894. 3. Waugh Plum Cult. 197. 1901.
A seedling from Goliad County, Texas, originated by G.
Onderdonk; named after Piram Hall about 1875. Tree hardy,
productive; fruit medium to large, roundish; suture indistinct; light
yellow; dots white; bloom thin; skin thin and tender; flesh yellow, soft,
sweet; fair to good; clingstone; mid-season.
Pissardi. Cerasifera. 1. Rev. Hort. 191. 1881. 2. Gard. Mon. 25:367.
1883. 3. Rural N. Y. 44:479. 1885. 4. Gard. and For. 1:178.
1888. 5. Garden 55:314. 1899. 6. Bailey Cyc. Hort. 1447.
1901.
 Prunus Cerasifera Atropurpurea 5. Prunus Pissardi 5. Prunus
Pissardii 3. Purple-leaved Plum 3. The Purple Myrobalan 5. Prunus
Pissardi 1, 2, 4.
See Prunus cerasifera, p. 000. Tree large; shoots purplish; foliage
while unfolding tinged with red, later becoming dark purple; fruit
medium in size; skin purplish, showing color in unripe stage, thin,
tough; suture obscure; flesh firm, juicy, moderately acid, inferior in
quality; clingstone.
Plantz. Domestica. 1. Cal. State Bd. Hort. Rpt. 129, 130 fig. 1891.
Plantz’s Seedling 1.
A chance seedling found by W. A. Plantz of New Castle,
California, about 1883. Tree thrifty, productive; fruit large, oval,
tapering towards the stem, reddish-purple; flesh yellow, sugary, rich,
juicy and sweet; ripens in California about three weeks before the
Hungarian Prune.
Plunk. Americana. 1. Wis. Sta. Bul. 63:44. 1897. 2. Kerr Cat. 9.
1897. 3. Waugh Plum Cult. 160. 1901.
Large Red Sweet 3. Large Red Sweet 1, 2.
Introduced by Charles Luedloff, Cologne, Minnesota. Tree a rapid
grower with good foliage; fruit large, round, dark red or purplish-red;
flesh reddish, not juicy, very sweet; good; clingstone; early.
Pomaria. Domestica. 1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt. 189. 1867.
A seedling of the Reine Claude from South Carolina, about 1867.
Tree productive; fruit medium in size, blue; bloom heavy; superior to
its parent in flavor.
Pomona. Americana × Hortulana mineri? 1. S. Dak. Sta. Bul. 93:31.
1904.
Originated by E. D. Cowles, Vermilion, South Dakota; under test at
the South Dakota Experiment Station. Said to be “a natural cross of
Forest Garden and Miner.”
Pond Purple. Domestica. 1. Kenrick Am. Orch. 209. 1835. 2.
Downing Fr. Trees Am. 309. 1845. 3. Thomas Am. Fruit Cult.
 344 fig. 368. 1867.
Pond’s Purple 2. Pond’s Seedling 2, 3.
Grown in the garden of Henry Hill, Boston; introduced by Samuel
Pond of Cambridge, Massachusetts. As it resembles the well-known
Pond, it has been confused with that variety. Young branches downy;
fruit of medium size, roundish; stem short; purple; flesh yellowish,
rather dry, sweet, mingled with acid; quality fair; freestone; early.
Pontbriant. Domestica. 1. Pom. France 7:30 fig. 1871. 2. Cat. Cong.
Pom. France 344. 1887.
De Pontbriant 2. Prune De Pontbriant 1.
Raised by M. F. Morel, Lyons, France, from seed of the Purple
Gage planted in 1851. Tree of medium vigor; fruit large, round, a little
more truncated at the base than at the apex; cavity narrow, shallow;
stem long and stout; suture shallow and wide; reddish-purple,
deeper on the sunny side; bloom heavy; flesh pale yellow, medium
fine grained, melting, very juicy, with a very sweet and aromatic
flavor; freestone.
Pontford. Domestica. 1. Watkins Cat. 46. 1892?
Tree very productive; fruit of medium size, purple; mid-season;
suitable for market.
Pontotoc. Hortulana. 1. Vt. Sta. An. Rpt. 11:286. 1898.
Mentioned in the catalog of F. T. Ramsey in 1898 as not yet well
tested.
Porsch Rote Zwetsche. Species? Listed in Mathieu Nom. Pom.
443. 1889.
Potter. Americana? 1. Waugh Plum Cult. 233. 1901.
Mentioned by Waugh who says it originated in Cherokee County,
Iowa, and is probably an Americana.
Poupart. Domestica. 1. Hogg Fruit Man. 717. 1884.
Poupart’s 1.
 Mr. Poupart, market gardener at Brompton, grew this variety,
according to Hogg, who says it is an enormous bearer and an
excellent preserving plum. Fruit medium, nearly round, resembling
Purple Gage; light purple, dotted and streaked with darker shades;
flesh reddish, firm, sweet, with a Sloe flavor; freestone.
Powell Damson. Insititia. 1. Watkins Cat. 48. 1892?
Mentioned in the preceding reference as a new variety. Tree
vigorous, productive and large.
Prairie Flower. Hortulana mineri. 1. Col., O., Hort. Soc. Rpt. 5:10.
1890. 2. Ia. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 276. 1893. 3. Mich. Sta. Bul.
118:54. 1895. 4. Waugh Plum Cult. 175. 1901.
Prairie 3. Prairie Flower 3.
Prairie Flower, a supposed seedling of Miner, originated in Adrian
County, Missouri; introduced by Stark Brothers about 1884. Fruit of
medium size, roundish-oval; suture a line; cavity shallow; skin thick,
red over yellow; bloom thin; flesh yellow; good; stone oval, slightly
flattened, clinging; season late. Mentioned in the last two issues of
the catalog of the American Pomological Society.
Prairie Rose. Nigra? 1. Can. Exp. Farms Rpt. 426. 1900.
A seedling raised at the Experimental Farm at Indian Head,
Northwest Territory, Canada. Fruit of medium size, red; good; mid-
season.
Précoce Defresne. Species? Mentioned in Mathieu Nom. Pom. 443.
1889.
Précoce de Freudenberg. Domestica. 1. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 430.
1889. 2. Guide Prat. 156, 361. 1895.
Freudenberger Früh Pflaume 1. Freudenberger Früh Pflaume 2.
Précoce de Freudenberg 1.
This variety is of German origin. Fruit of medium size, oval,
reddish-brown; flesh yellow, firm; good; early.
Précoce de Lucas. Domestica. 1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 2d App.
156. 1876. 2. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 439. 1889. 3. Lucas Vollst.
 Hand. Obst. 474. 1894.
Lucas Frühzwetsche 2, 3. Précoce de Lucas 2. Quetsche Précoce
de Lucas 2.
Of foreign origin; tree vigorous, an early and abundant bearer; fruit
large, oval; stem long, slender; dark blue; bloom heavy; flesh
greenish, juicy, sweet; freestone; mid-season.
Précoce de Reutlinger. Domestica. Can. Exp. Farms Rpt. 433.
1905.
Précoce de Reutlinger Prune 1.
Tested at the Experimental Farm at Agassiz, British Columbia.
Fruit below medium size, oval; stem short; cavity small; suture well
defined and one side enlarged; deep purple; flesh yellowish, tender,
sweet, juicy, rich; stone small, free; mid-season.
Premium. Americana. 1. Cornell Sta. Bul. 38:41. 1892. 2. Colo. Sta.
Bul. 50:43. 1898. Peffer’s Premium 1, 2.
Introduced by George P. Peffer of Pewaukee, Wisconsin. Tree
vigorous with an open top, productive; leaves of medium size, broad-
ovate; fruit medium in size, round or inclining to oblate; cavity very
shallow; stem medium; suture nearly obsolete; deep red over
orange-yellow; dots numerous, small; bloom thin; flesh yellow, firm;
fair to good; stone circular, smooth, clinging; mid-season.
Preserver. Triflora × Angustifolia varians. 1. Vt. Sta. Bul. 67:18.
1898. 2. Kerr Cat. 11. 1900.
A supposed cross between Kelsey and Early Red; from D. H.
Watson, Brenham, Texas; introduced by William A. Yates in 1897.
Tree vigorous, compact; fruit of medium size, roundish, dark red;
flesh red, firm; mid-season.
President. Americana. 1. Meneray Cat. The President 1.
A seedling of Harrison grown by H. A. Terry, and introduced by F.
W. Meneray, Council Bluffs, Iowa. Tree productive; fruit large, yellow,
covered with red; flesh yellow, sweet, rich, firm; semi-clinging.
President. Domestica. 1. Gard. World 12:123. 1895. 2. Garden
58:294. 1900. 3. Ibid. 64:262. 1903.
Raised by Thomas Rivers of Sawbridgeworth, England; first fruited
in 1894 and introduced in 1901 by the originator. Tree compact,
productive; fruit large, oval, deep purple almost black; bloom heavy;
flesh with a sweet, rich flavor; freestone; late. Recommended for
culinary and market use.
President. Triflora × Simonii. 1. Vt. Sta. An. Rpt. 12:226. 1899.
Grown by Luther Burbank as a seedling of Wickson; named by
Waugh in 1899. Fruit large, heart-shaped; cavity deep, rounded;
stem short, very stout; suture shallow; apex pointed; dark, fire-red;
dots many, minute; bloom thin; skin thin; flesh firm, meaty, yellow;
flavor peculiar, a trifle like musk-melon; quality poor; stone large,
oval, pointed, flattened, semi-clinging.
President Courcelles. Domestica. 1. Guide Prat. 162, 361. 1895. 2.
Can. Exp. Farms Rpt. 401. 1898. 3. Can. Exp. Farm Bul. 2nd
Ser. 3:55. 1900.
President Courcelle 3.
Tested at the Experimental Farm at Agassiz, British Columbia.
Tree vigorous; fruit of medium size, globular or sometimes heart-
shaped; suture shallow; purple; flesh pale yellow or greenish, juicy,
sweet, pleasant; mid-season.
Presley. Hortulana mineri × Hortulana. 1. Vt. Sta. An. Rpt. 12:227.
1899.
From A. L. Bruce, Basin Springs, Texas. Waugh says its parentage
is probably Miner by Wayland. Fruit of medium size, inclined to oval;
cavity shallow; bright red; dots numerous, indistinct; flesh yellow;
good; stone small, round, flattened, clinging.
Price. Americana. 1. Meneray Cat.
Prof. Price 1.
A seedling grown by H. A. Terry; introduced by F. W. Meneray,
Council Bluffs, Iowa. Fruit large, oblong, yellow, tinged with red;
good; clingstone.
Pride of Waterloo. Domestica. 1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 3rd App.
182 fig. 1881. 2. W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 44:92. 1899.
Pride of Waterloo? 2.
Raised by A. H. Doles, Waterloo, New York, from seed of Smith
Orleans; distinct from Pond with which it is sometimes confused.
Tree upright, vigorous, very productive; branches smooth, reddish-
brown; fruit large, oval, narrowing towards the stem; suture indistinct;
cavity large; stem medium in length and thickness; reddish-purple;
bloom thin; flesh deep yellow, coarse, juicy, sweet, sprightly, not rich;
stone slightly adherent; mid-season.
Primate. Domestica. 1. Rivers Cat. 35. 1898-9. 2. Thompson Gard.
Ass’t 4:159. 1901. 3. Can. Exp. Farms Rpt. 433. 1905.
A seedling first fruited by Thomas Rivers, Sawbridgeworth,
England, in 1890, and introduced by him in 1897. Fruit large, round;
stem short, set in a medium cavity; suture distinct; sides often
unequal; purplish-red; dots numerous, small, golden; bloom thin;
flesh yellowish, juicy, sweet; good; stone small, free; ripens late and
hangs well after maturing.
Prince. Domestica. 1. Ray Hist. Plant. 2:1529. 1688.
Ray mentions a variety by this name. It may be the same as
Gloucestershire Violet.
Prince Early Damson. Insititia. 1. Prince Pom. Man. 2:87. 1832.
Prince’s Early Purple 1.
A seedling raised by William Prince. Fruit of medium size, ovate,
dark purple, pleasant; freestone; early.
Prince Orange Egg. Domestica. 1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 392.
1857. 2. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:187. 1873.
Oeuf Orange De Prince 2. Prince’s Orange Egg 2.
Grown by William Prince. Tree vigorous, productive; fruit large,
globular; cavity medium; stem short, stout; reddish-purple; dots
brownish-yellow; bloom thick; flesh greenish-yellow, a little coarse,
juicy, sweet and sprightly, not rich; semi-clinging; mid-season.
Prince Orange Gage. Domestica. 1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 405.
1857.
Noted only by Downing, who describes it as follows: “Fruit
medium, roundish-oval; suture moderate; skin yellow; stalk long, set
in an open cavity; flesh light yellow, coarse, juicy, pleasant, but not
rich; adheres to the stone; first of September.”
Prince Primordian. Domestica. 1. Prince Treat. Hort. 25. 1828. 2.
Prince Pom. Man. 2:79. 1832.
Prince’s Blue Primordian 1. Prince’s Blue Primordian 2.
A seedling of White Primordian, grown by William Prince. A very
early variety, of about the same size as its parent, oval in shape,
blue; flesh pleasantly flavored.
Pringle. Insititia? 1. U. S. D. A. Rpt. 503, Pl. 63. 1905.
Pringle is a Damson-like variety originating as a sprout from the
stock of a Lombard tree in the orchard of A. C. Pringle, Mears,
Michigan; introduced by E. Hawley & Sons of Hart, Michigan, about
1896.
Pringle Blue. Domestica. 1. N. Y. Sta. Rpt. 12:612. 1893.
Received by the New York Experiment Station in 1890 from L. M.
Macomber, North Ferrisburg, Vermont. Tree very productive; fruit
large, irregular-oval; cavity medium; suture shallow; skin thin, tender;
purplish-black; bloom thick; dots small, numerous; flesh pale yellow,
dry, firm; flavor flat; fair; stone semi-clinging; mid-season; of no
value.
Pringle Purple. Domestica. 1. N. Y. Sta. Rpt. 9:347. 1890.
Received by the New York Experiment Station in 1890 from L. M.
Macomber, North Ferrisburg, Vermont. Tree productive; fruit of
medium size, roundish, compressed; cavity small; suture a line; skin
thin, tender; reddish-purple, unattractive; bloom thinnish; dots small,
numerous; flesh light yellow, moderately juicy, slightly fibrous, firm,
mild; good; stone nearly free; mid-season; of no value.
Procureur. Domestica. 1. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:63. 1873.
Platte Hellrothe Königspflaume 1.
Probably of French origin. Tree vigorous, early, productive; fruit
large, round, flattened at the ends; suture well defined; dull yellow,
almost covered with bright purple; bloom thin; flesh pale yellow, juicy,
sweet, aromatic; quality fair; stone small, free; mid-season.
Profuse. Species? Letter from Kerr.
Originated by Theodore Williams, Benson, Nebraska.
Prof. Wittmack. Insititia? × Domestica? 1. Gard. Chron. 3:364.
1888.
The parentage of this variety is not definitely known but it is
thought to be a Mirabelle crossed with Italian Prune; grown by Herr
Ulhorn, Grevenbroich, Lower Rhenish Prussia. A sweet plum of the
prune type; freestone; good for either dessert or drying.
Pruneau. Species? 1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt. 117. 1875.
Reported from Quebec, Canada, in 1875; commonly grown from
suckers.
Prune d’Agen Double. Domestica. Mentioned in Mathieu Nom.
Pom. 420. 1889.
Prune d’Amour. Domestica. Listed in Mathieu Nom. Pom. 421.
1889.
Prune d’Automne. Domestica. 1. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:9. 1873.
Herbstpflaume 1.
Raised by Dr. Dorell of Kuttenberg, Bohemia. Tree of capricious
growth; fruit small, globular; suture indistinct; purplish-black; flesh
greenish-yellow, juicy; good; freestone; late.
Prune de Laghouat. Domestica? Mentioned in Mathieu Nom. Pom.
438. 1889.
Prune d’Ente Impériale. Domestica. Mentioned in Mathieu Nom.
Pom. 429. 1889.
Prune de Rudolphe. Domestica. 1. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:189. 1873.
Rudolph’s Pflaume 1.
Liegel received this variety in 1842 from Count Bressler of
Hungary. Origin uncertain. Tree vigorous, an early and prolific
bearer; fruit medium in size, obovate; suture indistinct; golden-
yellow, dotted with red; flesh clear yellow, sweet, juicy; good; stone
obovate, clinging; mid-season.
Prune de Seigneur. Species? Mentioned in Mathieu Nom. Pom.
450. 1889.
Prune de Prince.
Prune Tardive. Domestica. 1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 2nd App. 157.
1876.
Tree vigorous, very productive; fruit below medium size, oval; stem
long, slender, set in a small cavity; black; bloom thick; flesh greenish-
yellow, juicy, sweet; freestone; very late.
Pseudo Mirabelle. Insititia. Mentioned in Lond. Hort. Soc. Cat. 152.
1831.
Purple Favorite. Domestica. 1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 307. fig. 126.
1845. 2. N. Y. Agr. Soc. Rpt. 293 fig. 1848. 3. Mag. Hort.
16:455, 456 fig. 27. 1850. 4. Mas Le Verger 6:83, fig. 42.
1866-73.
Favorite Pourpre 4. Purple Favourite 4.
The original tree of Purple Favorite was planted at Newburgh, New
York, by the father of A. J. Downing; from whence it came is not
known. Fruit of medium size, roundish; cavity slight; suture lacking;
brownish-purple; bloom thin; flesh pale yellow, tender, juicy, sweet;
quality very good; stone small, round, free; mid-season. Listed in the
American Pomological Society catalog since 1852.
Purple Flesh. Triflora. 1. Stark Bros. Cat. 1909.
 A purple-fleshed variety introduced by Stark Brothers and
recommended by them as being hardy.
Purple-leaved Hybrid. Triflora × Cerasifera. 1. Burbank Cat. 16 fig.
1893.
K. P. 193 1.
A seedling of Kelsey pollinated by Pissardi; from Luther Burbank,
Santa Rosa, California. Resembles the male parent in wood, bark,
leaves, flowers and fruit; very ornamental on account of its large
purple leaves. Fruit larger than Pissardi, dark purple with many white
dots; bloom thin; flesh reddish-purple throughout, firm, subacid;
good; ripens several weeks before Kelsey.
Purple Panhandle. Angustifolia watsoni. 1. Kerr Cat. 1894. 2. Ibid.
21. 1897. 3. Bailey Ev. Nat. Fruits 222, 223. 1898. 4. Waugh
Plum Cult. 233. 1901.
Introduced from the Panhandle of Texas by F. T. Ramsey, Austin,
Texas. Tree small, rapid in growth; fruit below medium in size, round-
oblong, inclining to conic, purplish-red; quality poor; clingstone; early
to mid-season.
Purple Yosemite. Species? 1. Gard. Mon. 20:176. 1878. 2. Penin.
Hort. Soc. Rpt. 65. 1891. 3. Can. Exp. Farm Bul. 43:32. 1903.
Yosemite 1. Yosemite Purple 3.
Introduced by W. S. Carpenter of Rye, New York, who secured it
from the “Rocky Mountains.” Fruit large, roundish; cavity shallow;
suture a line; skin thick, deep, dull red; dots yellow, distinct; bloom
medium thick; flesh yellow, juicy, sweet; quality fair; stone oval,
flattened, clinging; mid-season.
Puymirol d’Ente. Domestica. 1. Wickson Cal. Fruits 356. 1891.
Originated at Puymirol in the southwest of France; introduced into
California; a type of the Agen. Tree productive; fruit large, inclined to
oblong; flesh very sweet; ripens a little earlier than Agen.
Quaker. Americana. 1. Ia. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 308. 1884. 2. Waugh Plum
Cult. 160. 1901.
 Found in the wild by Joseph Bundy of Springville, Linn County,
Iowa; introduced about 1862 by H. C. Raymond, Council Bluffs,
Iowa. Fruit large, roundish; cavity shallow; suture a line; stem long;
skin thick, dark red; bloom thick; dots many; flesh yellow, sweet,
pleasant; good; stone large, oblique-oval, flattened, semi-clinging;
mid-season.
Quality. Americana. 1. Wis. Sta. Bul. 63:24, 55. 1897. 2. Ia. Sta. Bul.
46:287. 1900. 3. Wis. Sta. Bul. 87:15. 1907.
Gaylord Quality 2.
Of unknown origin; top-grafted about 1880 by Edson Gaylord of
Nora Springs, Iowa, who afterwards distributed the variety. Fruit
below medium in size, round, dull purplish-red; dots white; bloom
heavy; flesh soft; quality fair; stone turgid; mid-season.
Quebec. Domestica. Mentioned in Can. Exp. Farm Bul. 43:38. 1903.
Queen. Americana. 1. Can. Exp. Farm Bul. 43:31. 1903.
Golden Queen 1.
From H. A. Terry coming from unknown parents and bearing its
first crop in 1897. Tree upright; fruit large, round, bright golden-
yellow; very good; said to be excellent for canning or dessert.
Queen May. Domestica. 1. Can. Exp. Farm Bul. 43:36. 1903.
First grown by Thomas Clark, Chateaugay, Quebec. Tree strong
and productive; fruit large, round; cavity narrow; suture indistinct;
greenish-yellow; bloom thin; dots indistinct; flesh greenish-yellow,
juicy, firm, sweet, rich; very good; clingstone.
Queen Mother. Domestica? 1. Parkinson Par. Ter. 576, 577, 578.
1629. 2. Rea Flora 207. 1676. 3. Ray Hist. Plant. 2:1529.
1688. 4. Quintinye Com. Gard. 69, 70. 1699. 5. Langley
Pomona 94, Pl. XXIV fig. 3. 1729. 6. Prince Pom. Man. 2:87.
1832. 7. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 310. 1845. 8. Floy-Lindley
Guide Orch. Gard. 291. 1846. 9. Mas Le Verger 6:41. 1866-
73. 10. Hogg Fruit Man. 719. 1884. 11. Mathieu Nom. Pom.
437, 448. 1889. 12. Guide Prat. 160, 361. 1895.
 Cherry of some ?1, ?3. Coeur de Pigeon 11. Damaske Violet ?1.
Damas Violet 7, 11, 12. Königin Mutter 11. Moschatelle of some 3.
Muscadine ?1. Petit Damas Rouge 9, 12. Petit Damas Rouge 6, 11.
Pigeon’s Heart 7, 10, 11, 12. Pigeons Heart 4. Queene Mother of
some 1. Queen Mother 9, 11, 12. Red Queen Mother 7, 11. Rotes
Taubenherz 11. Rotes Taubenherz 11. Small Red Damask 6. Small
Red Damson 6.
Queen Mother and Damas Violet have been confused for nearly
three centuries, yet they are distinct, as our descriptions show. Hogg
thought the Queen Mother mentioned by Ray and pictured as a
cordate-shaped fruit by Parkinson, was the Myrobalan. Tree medium
in size, compact, spherical; fruit small, nearly round; suture slightly
pronounced, halves equal; cavity nearly lacking; stem medium in
length; skin red to violet on the sunny side; flesh yellow, firm, juicy,
sweet; good; freestone; mid-season.
Queen of Arkansas. Species? Mentioned in Tex. Sta. Bul. 32:490.
1894.
Quetsche à feuille argentee. Species? 1. Guide Prat. 162, 362.
1895.
Frühzwetsche mit Silberblatt 1. Silberblattrige Zwetsche 1.
A variety from Hungary having silvery-colored leaves; said to ripen
two weeks before the German Prune.
Quetsche Aplatie. Domestica. 1. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:23. 1873. 2.
Mathieu Nom. Pom. 423. 1889.
Breitgedrückte Zwetsche 2. Breitgedrückte Kaiser Zwetsche 2.
Breitgedrückte Zwetsche 1. Donauers Zusammen Gedrückte
Zwetsche 1, 2. Plattrunde Zwetsche 1, 2. Quetsche Aplatie 2.
Found in a garden by M. Donauer of Saxe-Cobourg, Gotha. Fruit
of medium size, obovate, compressed; suture broad, shallow; dark
purple; bloom thick; flesh green, sweet, aromatic; good; stone rough,
free; mid-season.
Quetsche Buhl-Eltershofen. Domestica. 1. Mas Le Verger 6:159.
1866-73.
 A seedling raised by M. Liegel of Germany and named in honor of
M. Buhl-Eltershofen. Fruit above medium size, long-ovate; suture
distinct; deep purple; bloom light; flesh greenish-white, juicy; quality
good; stone large.
Quetsche Datte des Allemands. Domestica. 1. Guide Prat. 160,
362. 1895.
Fruit large, irregular-oval, darker color than German Prune; flesh
yellow, sweet; good; late.
Quetsche de Dobrowitz. Species? 1. Guide Prat. 160, 362. 1895.
Dobrowitzer Frühzwetsche 1. Quetsche de Doubrawie 1.
A Hungarian variety maturing about fifteen days earlier than
German Prune.
Quetsche de Kreuter. Domestica? 1. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 438.
1889. 2. Guide Prat. 163, 363. 1895.
Kreuter’s Zwetsche 1. Kreuters Zwetsche 2. Quetsche de Kreuter
1.
A variety of little merit.
Quetsche de Millot. Domestica. 1. Baltet Cult. Fr. 496. 1908.
Mentioned by Baltet as a better variety than the German Prune.
Quetsche De Ransleben. Domestica. 1. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:153.
1873.
Ranslebens Pflaume 1. Ranslebens Zwetsche 1.
A seedling of Reine Claude raised by M. Ransleben of Berlin,
Germany. Tree vigorous, an early and abundant bearer; fruit small,
long-oval; suture indistinct; purplish-brown; thick bloom; flesh green,
juicy; stone rough, free.
Quetsche de Transylvanie. Species? 1. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 450.
1889. 2. Guide Prat. 163, 362. 1895.
Quetsche de Transilvanie 2. Siebenburger Zwetsche 1.
Siebenburger Zwetsche 2.