A STUDY OP METAMERISM. 449 



Table V. 



Attempts made to cut off 1 and 2 segments, 3/4 and 3/16, '94. 



Killed, 5/2, '94. 



1 segment regenerated . . . vas def. 14 



•I j> j> • . . „ 15 



1 ,, „ (indications of a divi- 



sion into 2) . „ 14 



2 segments „ . . . „ 15 



Conclusions from Tables I — V. — In all cases recorded 

 (6 cases) where two segments were cut off two regenerated. 



When three segments were cut off (14 cases) three grew 

 back in nine worms and two grew back in five worms. 



In those worms (14) where four segments were cut oflF, four 

 segments regenerated in five worms, and three segments grew 

 back in eight worms, and two segments and a third ^ in one 

 worm. 



When five segments were cut oflF in no case did five grow 

 back. In some of these worms a little more than five must 

 have been cut off, so that a small piece of the sixth was taken 

 off (see Nos. 2 and 6 and 7 of Table IV) and regenerated. In 

 four worms four segments grew back, in two worms three 

 segments grew back, and in one worm only two segments grew 

 back. 



Taking these four tables together, we see that up to four 

 segments lost, and including this, there is a tendency for the 

 worm to reproduce the number lost. This was actually done 

 in all the cases where two segments were lost, in nine cases 

 out of fourteen where three were lost, and in five cases out of 

 fourteen where four were lost. More than four segments the 

 worm does not seem to be able to regenerate, as a rule. 



The data given in Table V are not as accurate as in the pre- 

 ceding tables, because there was some confusion in the numbers 

 of the pots containing these worms. So far as the figures go, 

 they show that in three cases two segments must have been 

 cut off, that one individual then regenerated two, and two 



' The amputation was oblique, and cut off a part of the fifth segment. 



