Influence of Regenerating Tissue on the Animal Body. 



45 



Table i shows the records for group A, the first column giving the 

 original disk diameters, the second column the diameters after 12 days, 

 the third column the length of the individual new arm-buds regenerated 

 during the 12 days. The fourth column gives the diameters after 20 

 days and the fifth column the length of the new arm -buds at this time. 

 Columns six and seven show the same after 28 days and columns eight 

 and nine after 34 days when the experiment ceased. A line of averages 

 at the foot of the table shows the general result. 



Table n gives the same data for Group B and a comparison of the 

 tables is facilitated by table in of averages. 



The individuals of both groups averaged 81.5 mm. in diameter at 

 the beginning of the experiment, and after 12 days the specimens of 

 Group A were 67.5 mm. in diameter, while those in Group B, which were 

 regenerating the disk-tissue in addition to the 5 oral-arms, were only 

 64.3 mm. in average diameter. In other words they averaged 3.2 mm. 

 smaller than the ones growing only the 5 arms. After this time, how- 

 ever, Group B did not decrease so rapidly, since the disk injury had almost 

 completely regenerated: thus after 20 days the A group was only 1.7 mm. 

 larger than B, after 28 days only 1.2 mm. larger, and after 34 days there 

 was still only 1.3 mm. difference in average size. 



TABLE II. Record of disk diameters and regeneration of oral-arms in Cassiopea, when 5 arms 



and a part of the disk are removed (in millimeters). 



* Not included in the average. 



f Oral-arms now branching so that the linear measurement does not indicate the entire amount of growth. 



TABLE III. Summary of Tables I and II for comparison. 



