244 GEORGE T. HARGITT. 



bud is similar to that of the old tentacle, with the exception noted 

 above, and is undoubtedly of the same structure. 



Hargitt (op. cit., p. 244) in referring to bifid and trifid tenta- 

 cles suggested that they might have orginataed is the result of 

 some injury to the distal end of the tentacle. This seemed to 

 be especially indicated by the one trifid tentacle found. In this 

 case there seemed to be a degeneration or atrophy of the median 

 branch, which was probably the end of the original tentacle. 

 From the sides of this tentacle two branches arose opposite each 

 other which were considerably longer than the median tip (cf. 

 Fig. 2). He says concerning the cause of this : " The degenerating 

 middle tip would very naturally suggest the probability that an 

 injury might have been the predisposing cause of the secondary 

 tips ; on the other hand, it must not be overlooked that in each 

 of the other specimens with double tips no such cause seems at 

 all evident." 



It was with the thought of trying to determine whether there 

 was any sign of injury which might have influenced the forma- 

 tion of a bud in that region, as well as to determine the histo- 

 genic changes involved in its formation, that I was led to under- 

 take a careful study of this budding tentacle. 



The tentacle was stained in toto with borax carmine. Sections 

 were cut transversely across the tentacle, thus making the sec- 

 tions of the bud longitudinal. 



Fig. 6 represents a section of the entire tentacle showing the 

 bud in its general relations. The entoderm of the bud is seen to 

 be directly continuous with the entoderm of the tentacle. The 

 bud is solid with the exception of a cavity at the distal end and 

 there is no connection between this cavity and the cavity of the 

 tentacle. It will be noticed, however, that the cells are arranged 

 more or less definitely in two rows with the dividing line quite 

 distinctly marked in the proximal region, as though in further 

 growth these would pull apart and thus connect the distal cavity 

 of the bud with the cavity of the tentacle. On either side of the 

 bud are masses of the rather dense tissue which makes up the suc- 

 torial or adhesive pad already mentioned. This tissue resembles 

 very much muscular tissue rather than glandular tissue, suggest- 

 ing that the pad acts by virtue of its muscularity, rather than by 



