204 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I40 



of 2 cm. (growth for 1943 classified under case (4)). Growth for 

 1943 in TTP 20-27 included an inner flush of 2 cm. and an outer flush 

 of 2.3 cm. TTP 20-31 presented an interesting circumstance in its 

 growth for 1943. On January 30, 1943, a large lateral bud arose from 

 the base of the terminal bud. During 1943 the two buds developed into 

 two coordinate branches. One of these contained two tip flushes, the 

 inner 5.6 and the outer 2 cm. ; the other branch contained one tip flush 

 of 6.8 cm. Thus cases (2) and (4) are as intimately connected, it 

 seems, as any two branches could relate them. TTP 20-36 on January 

 30, 1943, carried two lateral buds at the base of the terminal bud and 

 two lateral buds 2 cm. beloiv the base. During 1943, the four lateral 

 buds grew into four branches of one tip flush each, whereas the origi- 

 nal branch grew two tip flushes, an inner of 11. 6 cm. and an outer of 



1.6 cm. 



The series of branches under special study gave one example of case 

 (3). Branch TTP 20-38, on January 30, 1943, had two lateral buds 



1.7 cm. above the base of the 2.3-cm. terminal bud. During 1943 the 

 branch lengthened by one tip flush only. One lateral bud left no trace ; 

 the other grew into a 5.1 -cm. lateral branch. 



Examples of case (4) are by far the most numerous. They include 

 all branches of the series in which the examples of the other cases were 

 scattered. 



From the rather slight evidence at hand we may conclude, first, that 

 the presence of lateral buds on the terminal bud may or may not be 

 followed by the formation of two tip flushes ; and, second, that the 

 absence of such lateral buds does not preclude the formation of two tip 

 flushes. 



A consideration of buds in their relations to tip flushes necessitates 

 the mention of TTP 23-11. The original terminal bud of 1942, in Jan- 

 uary 1943, was dry and bent to the side. Taking its place, a lateral bud 

 at the base of the former had very nearly assumed a position proper 

 to a terminal bud. Very little evidence remained to show that the new 

 terminal had once been a lateral bud, and, in February 1944, the only 

 evidence was a slight bend in the branch at the start of 1943 growth. 

 Because this evidence of the conversion of a lateral bud into a leader 

 was virtually obliterated in one year, it raises the questions of how 

 often this may happen and also how often the tip growth of one or two 

 years may be lost when estimating the age of a branch by the number 

 of terminal bud scale scars. It would be rather difficult to explain the 

 discrepancy between age as determined by terminal bud scale scars and 

 age as determined by number of growth layers. 



