296 HARVEY CARR 



olfactory contact with the extraneous environment must have 

 been greatly minimized. 



In the cleanliness test a single error was made by one animal 

 in the first trial. A pronounced disturbance was manifested by 

 members of the normal and blind groups of animals. Pre- 

 sumably, the alterations in this experiment were primarily olfac- 

 tory in character. The facts indicate that these novel disturb- 

 ing conditions are sensed wholly or mainly by means of smell. 



The maze was learned with one side of the top open. This 

 top was now removed. No disturbance resulted ; neither were 

 normal animals affected. 



Both animals were affected by the rotation of the heteroge- 

 neous environment. Their average error record was 2.50 and 

 errors were present in 75% of the trials. The disturbing effect 

 was practically eliminated when the test was repeated. The 

 average error score per rat for the first test was 15. These 

 results are similar to those obtained for normal animals. 



Both animals were slightly disturbed when both maze and 

 environment were rotated. The average error record was but 

 .42 and the errors were confined to one-third of the trials. The 

 adaptive capacity of this group was not tested. These results 

 are similar to those for normal animals with the exception of 

 a smaller error score. Taken at their face value, the facts 

 indicate that anosmic animals are less sensitive to these changes 

 than are normal or blind rats. 



Rotation of the uncovered maze disturbed both animals. 

 Their error record for the first test was 5.08, and the disturbance 

 was present in 83% of the trials. A repetition of the test reduced 

 the above values to 1.00 and 60% respectively. For the first 

 test the normal records were 6.95 and 65%, while the correspond- 

 ing values for the second test were 1.72 and 47%. These results 

 indicate that anosmic animals are slightly less sensitive to these 

 changes than are normal rats. 



Variations in the position of the living cage exerted a pro- 

 nounced disturbance with one rat and a slight disturbance with 

 the other. The average error record was 5.00 and errors were 

 present in 75% of the trials. These rats were subjected to a 

 24-hr. exposure before being tested. The results indicate a 

 greater susceptibility than that of either blind or normal animals ; 

 a corrective function must be ascribed to olfaction in this case. 



