26 EFFECT OF STIMULATION ON TURGESCENT VEGETABLE TISSUES. 
Exp. 30.—Aug. 22, 1886. Sunflower-pith ; lever method. 
Times of « » Times of « » 
Observation. Rate of “ gro wth. observation. Rate of “ growt 
A.M. A.M. . 
11.375 .......... Tap-water put fn. 114T5 ............ Siphoned out 
11.385 ........... 89 water. 
11.89 — ........ .. 95 1L485 ...:42 per cent. quinine solu- 
113 tion put in. 
111 Shortened immediately. 
11.42  ........... 117 11.495 .......... —81 (contracts). 
109 11.505 .......... —136  , 
1149  ........... 105 1L58  .......... Stationary. 
1147  ........... 58 Flaccid. 
Result : immediate contraction and death. 
Exp. 31.—Sept. 14, 1886. Jerusalem-Artichoke pith; lever. 
Times of observation. Rate of “ growth.” Temperature. 
o 
Water put in. 23 
Siphoned out water. 28:5 
1 per-cent. quinine 20 
solution. 
Shortened immediately. 
12472 ................. —147 (contracts). » 
1249 ................. — 69 
33 95 
Result: immediate contraction. 
ErrkcT or PLASMOLYSIS. 
On this point our experiments are incomplete; and we can do 
no more at present than call attention to what we are inclined to 
think a curious point. Solutions of common salt or of KNO, are 
shown by De Vries to produce contraction of turgescent tissues ; 
and we naturally expected that they would therefore produce & 
shortening such as would be indicated by an upward movement 
of the long arm of the auxanometer-lever ; but this was not the 
case. We have seen that carbolic acid, quinine, acetic acid, &c. 
produce a contraction strong enough to depress the short arm of 
the lever; and we cannot explain how it is that the same effect 
is not produced by solutions of salts sufficiently concentrated to 
produce plasmolysis. 
