FERTILIZATION, CORTEX, AXD VOLUME. 



279 



TABLE II. 



DIAMETERS. 



Here again the outcome is a loss of 2.2 //. 



This may be said to complete the crude verification of my 

 earlier results. However there are suggestive discrepancies and 

 this remains true whether we compare the mass experiments or 

 those in which the eggs were kept identified throughout. Thus: 



In this tabulation, I have averaged all the observations, but 

 have introduced one correction in those of 1914. My original 

 list of individual eggs, it happens, includes one in which the 

 recorded loss was 1 1.8 ^ a figure which is probably wrong. Yet 

 this elimination makes no essential difference. An absolute 

 discrepancy in the magnitude of the losses reported now and in 

 1914 remains. This error, referred to the diameters of the orig- 

 inal eggs, amounts to 1.5 per cent. Is this significant? Does it 

 mean that the eggs of 1914 were to this extent flattened? 



IV. 



If so, it should be possible also to verify the results of Chambers 

 provided only we can make the necessary observations under 



