Researches on the Discharge; of the Electric Organ. 55 



and the commencement of the second response is given hy 



t + lMe-'-' + l. 

 This has a minimum with respect to t at 



t = -]]ogJ3Il 



The vahies of t,„ at this minimum are evah-ated as follows: 



Experiment hy Lucas: 



No. 3. 0-0029 sec. 

 No. n. 00020 



Experiment l)y tlie author: 



No. 74-No. 75. 000495 

 No. 65. 0-00695 



Thus we see tliat the existence of the minimum is a consequence 

 of the exponential property of the recovery, and therefore little 

 weight should he placed on this minimum. Since, as we see, the 

 minimum occurs very near to tlie end of the refractory period, it 

 would sometimes not be discoveix^d in an experimental result. It 

 is very proha])le then that the S(j-called irresponsible period report- 

 ed by Eucas in his first paper was an apparent phenomenon ap- 

 pearing for the reason that tlie observations were restricted in tlie 

 vicinity of this minimum, where the variation becomes zero. 



The corresponding phenomenon U) the supernormal increase 

 of the height of the second discharge was o1)served by Samojloff* 

 on tiie electric response of a muscle indirectly stimulated. Kecently 

 Adrian and Lucast interpreted the phenomenon by the summation 

 of two successive disturbances propagating through a nerve- 

 ending, 'iliey considered that a propagated <listurbance whose 

 propagation is stopped at the nerve-ending l)y its decrement, if 

 alone, is successfully transmitted through the block, when the like 

 disturbance passed before. In our case, it seems rather probable 

 that thé supernormal magnitude of the second discharge is not the 



* Arch. f. (Anat. u.) Physiol., Snppl-, 1908. 



t The Journal Physiology, Vol. 44, p. 68, 1912. 



