264 — BOTANICAL GAZETTE - [OCTOBER 
although often with some delay. Hence the leaf in this case does 
not prevent the growth of its own axillary bud, and if we speak of 
an inhibition in the previously mentioned cases, we have to add 
‘the remark that this inhibition only exists if the other leaf or the 
opposite bud are in connection with the first leaf. A comparison of 
figs. 20 and 21 is of interest. In both cases leaves with a piece of 
stem attached were suspended in 
moist air on February 20. They 
were drawn on April 1. In fig. 20 
the shoot (S) in the axilla of the 
leaf left attached to a longitudi- 
nally split piece of stem grew out. 
In fig. 21, one leaf with a whole, 
non-split piece of stem attached 
gave rise to the growth of the 
shoot (S) on the upper side of the 
stem where the leaf was removed, 
rd eee while fhe bud in the axilla of the 
leaf was prevented from growing. 
Fig. 22 is a case similar to fig. 14, one leaf with a 
piece of stem and the stalk / of the opposite leaf. In 
this case the bud (5) in the axilla of the intact leaf 
grew out. This is not the most common experience. 
More often in winter neither of the two axillary buds 
of the stem will grow out under such conditions. 
The experiment in which the piece of stem is split 
longitudinally (fig. 20), however, generally succeeds. 
The following observation is also of some signifi- 
22 cance. If we cut out a node, remove one leaf and its 
Fics. 20-22 bud, but preserve one leaf and the bud in its axilla, 
the latter will grow out into a shoot after some 
delay. Hence the removal of the opposite bud removes the in- 
hibiting influences which this bud naturally has on the growth 
of the bud in the axilla of a leaf. We can accelerate the growth of 
this latter bud, however, when in addition to the removal of the 
opposite bud and leaf we make an incision or cut out a piece from 
the rind apically to the axillary bud whose leaf is not removed. In 
ta 
