Mar,, 1921] HAENSELER — GROWTH OF ASPERGILLUS NIGER 1 53 
Table 3. Dry weights of fungus obtained from the cultures of series i to 5, and the yield ratios 
between cultures having the same salt proportions but varying in total concentration 
Ca(N03)2 Group 
NaNOs Group 
Culture 
Dry Weight of Fungus 
Ratio 
Dry Weight of Fungus 
Ratio 
No. 
Ser. I 
Ser. 2 
Ser. 3 
Ser. 2 
Ser. 3 
Ser. 4 
Ser. 5 
Ser. 5 
(0.5 Aim.) 
(2.1 Atm.) 
(4.2 Atm.) 
Ser. I 
Ser. 2 
(2.1 Atm.) 
(4.2 Atm.) 
Ser. 4 
K-Ii^I . . . 
.065 
."^47 
•ot/ 
2.66 
2.01 
.098 
.199 
• yy 
2.03 
r\.n^2 . . . 
.1 14 
•343 
.624 
3.01 
1.82 
.194 
.382 
1.97 
KIL.3. . . 
.168 
•474 
.874 
2.82 
1.84 
.292 
•553 
X Qr\ 
I .09 
ivi ■ • • 
.209 
.606 
.956 
2.90 
1.58 
.369 
.709 
1.92 
T? xr^r- 
KIL,5. . 
.248 
.762 
•949 
3.07 
1.25 
•457 
•775 
1.70 
IVI V^D . . . 
.282 
.848 
.983 
3.01 
1. 16 
.544 
•754 
ivl v^y • • • 
.302 
.900 
•985 
2.98 
1.09 
.621 
.723 
1. 10 
xvl . . . 
.^28 
.915 
•977 
2.79 
1.07 
.665 
.701 
1.05 
TloC^ 
s\2 y^v . . . 
.062 
.174 
.351 
2.81 
2.02 
.108 
.202 
X 8*7 
i\.2V^2 . . . 
.10^ 
.331 
.632 
3.21 
1. 91 
.214 
.390 
,1 .02 
TloCi 
,IS9 
•477 
.865 
3.00 
1. 81 
.282 
.564 
2.00 
l\-2v^4. . . 
.IQ9 
.625 
•947 
3.14 
1.52 
,369 
.721 
1-95 
K2L,5. . . 
.249 
.736 
.969 
2.96 
1.32 
•454 
•777 
1. 71 
r\.2v^D . . . 
.281 
.835 
.984 
2.97 
1. 18 
.546 
•743 
1.30 
. . . 
.'^07 
.900 
.991 
2.9^ 
1. 10 
.610 
.711 ■ 
I. 17 
.058 
.182 
•355 
3.14 
1.95 
.102 
.197 
1-93 
rv.3L.2. . . 
.103 
•334 
.610 
3-24 
1.83 
•193 
•386 
2.00 
K.3L.3. . . 
.151 
•477 
•875 
3.16 
1.83 
•283 
.560 
K3L.4. . . 
.205 
.605 
•957 
2^95 
1.58 
•373 
.714 
1.92 
^^3^5- ■ ■ 
to 
.730 
•957 
3.00 
1. 31 
.456 
.766 
1 .00 
.276 
.824 
.976 
2.99 
1. 18 
•551 
•743 
rvz|.v^ i . : . 
.061 
.189 
.341 
3.10 
1.80 
.101 
•203 
2.01 
R4C2 
,101 
•330 
.603 
3-27 
1.83 
•193 
•383 
1.98 
K.4L.3 . . . 
•159 
.491 
•874 
3^09 
1.78 
.294 
•565 
1.92 
R4C4. 
.207 
.600 
.960 
2.90 
1.60 
•369 
•731 
1.98 
R4C5... 
.231 
•730 
.966 
3.16 
1.32 
.468 
•759 
1.62 
R5C1... 
.056 
.180 
•354 
3.21 
1.97 
.104 
.191 
1.84 
R5C2... 
.110 
•340 
•634 
3 -09 
1.86 
.192 
•373 
1.94 
R5C3... 
.148 
•477 
.867 
3.22 
1.82 
.274 
•576 
2.10 
R5C4. . . 
.203 
•599 
•958 
2.95 
1.60 
.366 
•730 
1.99 
R6G1.. . 
.060 
.181 
•364 
3.02 
2.01 
.106 
.194 
1^83 
R6C2. . . 
.119 
•343 
636 
2.88 
1-85 
.188 
•378 
2.01 
R6C3... 
.148 
•479 
.886 
3^24 
1.85 
.285 
.555 
1^95 
R7C1... 
.055 
.186 
•352 
3^38 
1.89 
.091 
.193 
2.12 
R7C2... 
.101 
.326 
.625 
3-23 
1.92 
.204 
•358 
1.76 
R8C1... 
•059 
.194 
•324 
3^29 
1.67 
.092 
.192 
2.09 
Check 
.201 
.647 
•733 
•730 
total salt concentration. It will be noted that series i, which has a total 
osmotic salt-concentration value of 0.5 atmospheres, gave relatively low 
yields throughout all the salt proportions. In series 2, with a total osmotic 
salt-concentration value of 2.1 atmospheres, the yields are very much higher, 
and in series 3, with a concentration double that of series 2, the yields are 
still higher. Likewise in series 4 and 5 (represented graphically in figure 2 
by the heavy lines), markedly higher yields are shown for series 5 than for 
series 4 in which a much lower total salt concentration was employed. 
This direct correlation between total salt concentration and yield is 
quite clearly brought out in figure 2 by comparing each individual culture in 
series 2 with its corresponding cultures in the other series. Such a compari- 
