REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF IXLAXD FISHERIES. 107 



interval between the time of injury and the date of the next moult 

 is long enough to permit a degree of development such that the limb 

 can moult with "functional" characteristics. 



With regard to the first phase of the question it can be stated that 

 no conclusive evidence was obtained that partially developed re- 

 generating buds were dropped during a moult. In regard to the 

 second alternative, that a limb wiU not begin to regenerate unless the 

 interval between the time of injurj^ and the date of moulting is suf- 

 ficient to permit the development of a functional appendage, two 

 questions arise. First, is there a definite time limit ■nithin which a 

 limb vnll not begin to regenerate before a moult? Second, if a limb 

 has begun to regenerate "oithin a comparatively short time before 

 the succeeding moult, will the rapidity of the regenerating process be 

 materially hastened or the moulting date delayed so as to favor the 

 restoration of the appendage? 



Of these two questions we will consider first whether there is a 

 definite time limit within which a limb will not begin to regenerate be- 

 fore a moult. 



In a general way it may be said that there appears to be such a 

 limit; for in a large number of instances it was found that an append- 

 age would not regenerate if it had been removed shortly before a 

 moult. Most of the data which furnished any definite evidence in 

 regard to the comparative length of this limit was obtained from 

 young lobsters. The following table shows the minimum number of 

 days in which regeneration did begin, and the maximum number of 

 daxs in which restoration did not begin, as noted in sixth and seventh 

 stage lobsters: 



