ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION IN SAGARTIA 201 



with certainty, in his sections, any boundary between old and 

 new regions. His account is supplemented in this respect by 

 that of Gary ('11), who studied the regeneration of three species 

 of Aiptasia. According to Gary, all of the old mesenteries are 

 resorbed, first at the oral extremity of the piece and progres- 

 sively down the column until they have disappeared entirely.^ 

 Gary studied the process of regeneration following pedal lacera- 

 tion in another species (from Beaufort, North Garolina) that has 

 been incorrectly known as Gylista leucolena. Presumably de- 

 generation of the old mesenteries occurs in this species as in 

 Aiptasia. Resorption of old mesenteries, with the possible ex- 

 ception of occasional members torn during fission (seep. 171), 

 does not occur in S. luciae. 



Sequence of 7iew mesenteries 



A brief account of the various types of arrangement and order 

 of appearance of the mesenteries in regenerating anemones, as 

 described by Garlgren and Gary, will be followed by a discussion 

 of Garlgren's theories concerning the relation of these types to 

 one another. 



Figure 35 shows the types of arrangement of complete mesen- 

 teries found by Garlgren. Parts enclosed in the dotted lines 

 indicate old regions, without an attempt to represent the number 



2 After examining Garlgren's original figures ('04, Taf. IX, Fig«,4 and 7) and 

 text, I cannot agree with Gary ('11, p. 94) that "it seems very evident that all 

 of the mesenteries shown in Garlgren's Fig. 7, Taf. IX, are old ones which have 

 come over in the fragment from the parent individual and which will never come 

 to be a part of the permanent system of mesenteries of the actinian arising from 

 the laceration embryo." His interpretation of this figure may be correct, but 

 the evidence for it is by no means conclusive. Griticism of another sort is due 

 for Gary's treatment of Garlgren's paper in otherrespects. Glaring inaccuracies 

 in interpreting the statements concerning the figures mentioned above are 

 fortunately largely exposed by his quotation from the text. His mutilation of 

 Garlgren's excellent figures is not so obvious to anyone not having the latter's 

 paper at hand. Gomparison with the originals of the figures (Gary, '11, pp. 92, 

 93) purporting to be copied from Garlgren's paper ('04, Taf. IX, Fig. 4, 7), reveals 

 amazing discrepancies. To alter a figure in such fashion is a violation of the 

 privilege of copying, even if modification be acknowledged; to do it without 

 such admission is an offense against both the author, whose work is thereby 

 misrepresented, and the reader, whose confidence is abused. 



THE JOURNAIi OP EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY, VOL. 28, NO. 2 



