114 



REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND FISHERIES. 



It will be seen in this table that for the purpose of comparison the 

 data have been arranged in two groups. In Group I, the next 

 moult took place at about one month and twenty-five days after mu- 

 tilation, while in Group II the lobsters moulted in the much longer 

 period of three months after mutilation. The given appendages 

 were all removed at nearly the same time. The lobsters were all ' 

 males, and were about the average length of seven and three-quarters 

 inches. They were all under the same conditions in regard to food, 

 temperature, and season of the year. Thus all the conditions were 

 evidently favorable for obtaining real comparative results. 



An examination of the data shows that the appendages regener- 

 ated much more rapidly in the first than in the second group. This is 

 clearly seen in a comparison of lobsters No. 34 and No. 30. The 

 right cheliped of both lobsters were removed at the same date, August 

 -1. Five of the measurements of the regenerated limbs, taken be- 

 tween the date of mutilation and the next moult, may be grouped 

 ^s follows: 



In this comparison it is to be observed that in lobster No. 34 in 

 one montJi and twenty-five days the right cheliped not only regenerated 

 twice as fast but it attained exactly the same length that the corresponding 

 cheliped in Lobster No. 30 did in a period of nearly three months. 

 Similar comparisons might be made on all the appendages with the 

 result that the limbs which were removed nearer the date of moult 

 regenerated ynore rapidly than the limbs which were removed farther 

 from the date of the moulting process. 



