152 TIME 



mean 0-2605 that is to say 0-282, we can see that the difference 

 0-022 represents a divergence of 0003 in the value of 2, which 

 is not very far off from the acceptable value 0-002. The sole 

 and exceptional divergence of 0-038 observed for the wound of 

 10 sq. cm. indicates that, when woimds inferior to this dimen- 

 sion are dealt with, the preponderant role of epithelization 

 destroys the accord which characterizes the phenomenon as a 

 whole: contraction plus epithelization. We already know 

 (Fig. 19, p. 87) that small wounds, just as very large ones, no 

 longer show the marked differences in their indices exhibited 

 by the majority of lesions between 10 and 150 sq. cm. for the 

 age of twenty. 



But there is a better way to convince ourselves of the value 

 of the coefficient A. It consists in computing it for different 

 ages. Inasmuch as it is precisely the age which interests us, 

 we can in this way make the crucial experiment. The calcula- 

 tion of A for 30 years and for 40 years gives the figures of 

 the table on page 153. It will be noticed that the columns are 

 shorter than those of the preceding table (20 years). This 

 is due to the fact that the index, as may be remembered (see 

 p. 87) remains constant above a certain area. The coefficient 

 A being the product of the index i by the square root of the 

 area would have increased indefinitely beyond this limit and 

 would have become meaningless. We are therefore obliged to 

 keep within the limits imposed by the variations of /. 



An examination of the figures in the columns 3 and 5 (values 



of the coefficient A=iV S) shows that the constancy is in the 

 first case as good as, and in the second case better than, for the 

 values corresponding to the age of twenty. Indeed, the maxi- 

 mum divergence for 20 years was 0-038, whereas for 30 years 

 it is only 0-025 ^^^ ^^r 40 years o-oo6. The maximum diver- 

 gences from the mean values are 0-022, 0-018, and 0-003 

 respectively. Considering that we are dealing with biological 

 phenomena, in which the same precision as in physical 

 phenomena cannot be obtained, that we have not taken into 

 account the causes of error enumerated above, and that, 

 moreover, it was especially important to put in evidence the 



