-74* 



direction of loco-action, Iea4a DM to believe that the data 

 not a good foundation for any fusion, Koreover the 



tU*y do 

 conclusion Hr-doeo indicate is not that drawn by Cole. 



As 0en from an exanimtirn of column 5, the 17 records show 

 that tJie Physiological anterior has shifted in one direction or the 

 other ^naveraee of seven tenths of an inter radius, per reaction* 

 Coles conclusion on this point, as seen above ie that "they^fbc *Ja *$'* 

 continued tc crawl, in the same general flireotion (an they did 

 Before) after righting themselves.* 



:-3oYor f as seen from an examination of column 3, the 

 19 records show an averse athlft of anterior (referring to th 

 rays used to right as anterior) of 15 inter radii per reaction* 

 Coles conclusion on this point, however ia that the animals right 

 in a direction nearly opp+Bite to that in which they were pre- 

 viously (and subsequently) crawling. But the arithmetical 

 difference between theae averages of data (1*5 - 7* .8) is 

 8 of an interradius a shift which is approximately equal to 

 the shift (,7 interradius) which Cole regards ae no shift at 

 all. Obviously, then a detailed examination of Ooles data does 

 not ce-nfizta |ii conolueiona* 



with an idea of clearing up the relationship between the 

 physiological anterior and the arms used In righting seventy* 

 five experiments were made with twenty-six tar fish (20 

 Pisaatar and 6 Aaterjna.)* The starfish used were in active 

 locomotion, except in case of some ef the Asterina as shown in 

 the record, manipulation WAS as gentle as possible, the animal 

 bein ? picked up by the disk and inverted qulokly without, in 

 meat eases, lifting it above the surface of the water* 

 Directive factors in the surroundings such .as light or areas of 

 shaddew etc*, were excluded by rotating the animal in successive 

 trials. 



