350 CHARLES K. STOCKAKD. 



Considering the six specimens that regenerated the chela- oi 

 the first pair equal in size it is important to find that tour o! 

 these cases, specimens 16, 20, 21 and 39, had the larger number 

 of posterior appendages removed from the side of the original 

 small chela and not from that of the large chela, so that the 

 greater amount of material remained on the large chela side. 

 Such operations were intended as a control for the results fol- 

 lowing the removal of posterior appendages from the large chela 

 side. Although in these four specimens there was more material 

 on the original large chela side and this side was called upon lo 

 regenerate fewer appendages it failed to produce a great chela 

 from the stump of the original one. 



In specimen 16 the first chelse remained equal in size and were 

 both of the small chela type after a second moult. The left 

 chela was then removed and after the next moult the right de- 

 veloped into a great chela and the left again regenerated small. 

 Both first chelae in specimens 20 and 21 were also of the small 

 chela type, while in specimen 39 the small chela failed to re- 

 generate at the first moult after the operation though a chela 

 of the small type regenerated from the base of the great chela 

 and remained small while the right small chela regenerated at 

 the next moult . 



Specimens 31 and 32 had both first chela- and a number of 

 appendages, four and three, on the great chela side removed. 

 After the moult following the operation the first chela? were equal 

 in size. Yet again specimens 27, 35 and 38 were operated upon in 

 an identical fashion and after the moult they were able to produce- 

 a great chela from the original great chela stump even though 

 this side was called upon to regenerate three other appendages. 



Of the fifteen cases tried, therefore, eight regenerate their first 

 chela; in the original condition of asymmetry while six regenerate 

 the chehe of the first pair equal in sixc- and usually similar in 

 type whether additional appendages are amputated from the 

 great chela side or from the small chela side. Such a fact would 

 seem to indicate that the amount of appendage material present 

 on either side is an unimportant factor in determining the typr 

 of the first chela on a given side, and it seems to show lurtln-r 

 that there is no clearly evident bilateral distribution of growth 

 energy in these regenerating specimens. 



