1918] LOEB—CORRELATION 161 
sister leaves, whose weight was reduced from approximately 13.8 
gm. to 7.6 gm. (by cutting out pieces from the center of the leaf as 
indicated in fig. 8), produced in the same time and under the 
same condition 755 mgm. of wate While the proportion of the 
mass of the two sets of leaves was the proportion of the mass 
- 7%, 
TABLE VIII 
= . 
E ge Sister leaves Number of Vereen : ag eaves ts pro- 
5 SE ents gm gm. = Poca g ae pee 
Leaves dip- (a) 5 leaves, with 
ping in water; _ center cut out .. II 0.755 7.61 99 
I. ; duration of (6) 5 sister leaves, 
Pac NR 9 1.405 13.80 101 
37 days 
Leaves dip- (a) 7 leaves, with 
ping in water; center cut out.. 21 1,213 9.899 122 
II. + duration o (b) 7 rooney leaves, 
emperiment = intact. 0.53. |. 25 1.995 16.935 118 
25 days 
eaves dip- (a) 9 leaves, with 
ping in water; center cut out.. 22 2.292 10.522 218 
III. + duration of ©) 9 Dredg ene: 
expermnent Intact... 5.1 +. 30 3.430 17.852 192 
32 days 
Leaves dip- (a) 12 leaves, with 
ping in water; center cut out . 33 2.175 IT.245 104 
IV. {duration of (6) 12 sister leaves, 
experiment Mia’. oo 33 2.761 19.395 142 
27 days 
Leaves kept (a) 5 leaves, with 
in moist air; center cut out... 13 0.690 5-42 109 
V. {duration of (6) 5 sister leaves, 
experiment MN eects 20 4,207 | (41.81 102 
38 days 
of the shoots produced was 75. These two quotients are almost 
identical. The same is true for experiments II, III, and V, while 
in IV there is a greater discrepancy. Experiments HI and IV. 
indicate that if there is such a discrepancy it seems to be in favor 
of the leaf reduced in size. Since light’ plays such an important 
role in the production of shoots the discrepancy may possibly 
be due to the accidental fact that the intact leaves shaded 
