74 



Explauation of Tables — 



From the individuals in series A the two pairs of hinds legs were 

 removed. From the individuals in series B the right hind leg was removed. 

 The per cent, of regeneration was obtained by dividing the length of the 

 regenerated leg by the length of the leg with which it was compared. 



The animals of tables I and II are those on which the experiments 

 were tried in 1905. The per cent, of regeneration was also obtained by 

 dividing the regenerated leg length by the body length. 



The animals of tables III and IV are those that were kept until they 

 had moulted a second time. 



The animals of tables V and VI are those that were operated upon on 

 the next day after the moult. 



Tables VII, VIII, IX, and X give the date of operation, date of moult, 

 the time between moults and the per cent, of regeneration. 

 Discussion of results — 



Table I shows that the average per cent, of regeneration as measured 

 by comparing the length of tlie regenerated right hind leg with the length 

 of the normal right second leg in series A is 82.25. Table II shows that 

 the per cent, of i-egeneration as measured by comparing the length of regen- 

 erated right hind leg with the length of normal right second leg is 84.79. 

 This shows that the series with the lesser degree of injury has regenerated 

 2.54 per cent, more than the series with the greater dgree of injury. This 

 difference is scarcely enough to take into account. 



Table III shows that the average per cent, of regeneration as meas- 

 ured by comparing the length of the regenerated right hind leg with the 

 length of the removed right hind leg in series A is 60.8. Table IV shows 

 that the per cent, of regeneration as measured in the same way as series 

 A, table III, in series B is 62.5. This shows that the series with the lesser 

 degree of injury has regenerated 1.7 per cent, more than the series with 

 the greater degree of injury. This difference is less than before. 



Table V shows that the per cent, of regeneration as measured as above 

 in series A is 60.5. Table A^I shows that the per cent, of regeneration 

 measured as above in series B is 59.5. This shows that the series witli 

 the greater degree of injury has regenerated 1 per cent, more than the 

 series with the lesser degree of injury. In each case the two series com- 

 pared were treated in as nearly the same way as possible with the excep- 

 tion of the degree of injury. 



