26 Ada Springer 



A similar comparison to the one cited above may be made in 

 the following sets (Table V) : 



Injured animals 



After Normal animals 



In.wt. operation Increment In.zvt. Increment 



grams grams per cent grams per cent 



Set £1 2.264 1-887 14-7 Set G* 1.944 11.4 



Set £2 2.044 1-73 i°-5 Set G^ 2.iii(loss) 1.2 



Set £3 1.878 1. 614 14.2 Set G3 1.965 (lors) 6.5 



In the injured Sets E^ and E^ the initial weight in one case was 

 greater, while in the other it was less than the initial weight of 

 the normal control sets, G^ and G^; yet the percenatge increment 

 in both cases was greater in the injured sets. 



In Sets E^^ (Table VII), in which the animals were injured by 

 cutting the regenerating stumps, in E^*" (Table VII) in which the 

 regenerating stumps were left intact, and in G^ (Table VI), the 

 normal control, the average initial weights and percentage incre- 

 ments were as follows: 



After 



In.wt. operation Increment In.wt. Increment 



grams grams per cent grams per cent 



Set E'a 1.904 1.835 21 Set £ib 2.543 5.4 



Set G^ 2.18 II. 4 



Taking into consideration the difference in initial weight, the 

 large percentage of the injured set does not appear to be so anoma- 

 lous. This was also the case in the following sets (Table VIII) 

 where the experiment was the same. 



After 



In. wt. operation Increment In. wt. Increment 



grams grams per cent grams per cent 



Set £2^^ 1.954 1.878 21.3 Set £2^ 2.089 18.2 



Set Gi 2.18 1 1. 4 



In Sets H^ (Table IX), where the animals were injured by cutting 

 off the tails at the base, and H^ (Table XI), where the tails were 

 left intact, the average initial weight, and percentage increments 

 were as follows: 



