226 Herbert W. Rand 
allowing the proximal end to become wide open, and they did not 
in any case reappear. 
During the second half hour after the operation the correspond- 
ing proximal and distal cut ends became distinctly different in 
two respects. First, a proximal cut end was much wrinkled, 
while its corresponding distal end was perfectly smooth. The 
most distal fragment of the tentacle sometimes afforded an excep- 
tion to this statement in that its proximal end, being of small 
diameter, wrinkled only slightly or not at all. In some cases the 
distal end of the basal fragment of the tentacle became more or 
less wrinkled, but here the wrinkles were only temporary, and they 
were usually quite smoothed out by the end of the first hour. 
Secondly, the hole at any distal end was much smaller and more 
smoothly circular in outline than the hole in the corresponding 
proximal cut end. Fig. 12 shows a typical case one hour after 
the cutting. The three fragments represented in the figure are 
consecutive pieces of one tentacle and they are drawn in their 
original axial relations to one another. ‘The pieces are shown in a 
somewhat contracted condition because they rarely became much 
extended. ‘The appearance of a similar set of three fragments 
six hours after the cutting is represented in Fig. 14, and this case 
is typical of all the experiments. ‘The basal piece is shown at a 
in the usual contracted condition, while at a’ it is represented in 
partial extension. Extension in this case seemed to involve con- 
traction of circular fibers. At this period may be noted three 
conspicuous differences between corresponding proximal and 
distal cutends. First, proximal ends are still more or less wrinkled 
and distal ends are not. In some cases wrinkles did occur within 
the distal half of a fragment but these wrinkles were merely exten- 
sions of the proximal wrinkles into the distal half of the piece. 
Such wrinkles never extended quite to the distal surface and 
never encroached upon a smooth zone immediately surrounding 
the distal opening. Secondly, every distal hole is conspicuously 
smaller than its corresponding proximal hole—that is, much 
smaller than the proximal hole of the next fragment distad. The 
third difference, and one which has not previously been noted, is 
this.—A distal cut end, except when the fragment is strongly 
