80 CM. JACKSON 



appropriate headings. Papers dealing merely with histological 

 changes are usually not mentioned. Extensive references to 

 the literature on inanition will be found in the articles by Morgulis 

 ('11) and Miihlmann ('99). 



LENGTH OF BODY AND TAIL 



With reference to the body weight compared to the bodj^ 

 (nose-anus) length at the end of the inanition period, the nor- 

 mal relations as determined by Donaldson ('09) were used for 

 comparison. As might be expected, the body weight following 

 inanition, both acute and chronic, is found to be lower than nor- 

 mal for corresponding trunk length, since the skeleton is known 

 to be in general but shghtly affected by inanition. The differ- 

 ence, however, is surprisingly small. It is a noteworthy fact 

 that the initial body weight of the animals used in he experi- 



TABLE 1 



Normal gross body weight (theoretical, Donaldson) corre- 

 sponding to body length at end of inanition period, average 

 (from individual calculations) 191 147 



Actual gross body weight found at beginning of the inani- 

 tion period, average (table 1) 255 214 



Actual gross body weight found at end of the inanition 

 period, average 170 ! 136 



ments is far greater than that normal for the body length at 

 the e7id of the inanition period. (The length cannot be accu- 

 rately measured in the living animal without anesthetics at the 

 heginning of the experiment.) 



Thus, as shown in table 1, the body length at the end of the 

 inanition period corresponds to a body weight much nearer to 

 the final than to the initial weight of the animals subjected to 

 inanition. 



There are two possible explanations for this surprisingly close 

 approach to the normal in the body weight after inanition. It is 

 possible that the rats at the beginning of the experiment were 



