4io 
The Ohio Naturalist. 
[Vol. IX, No. 2, 
in the Scyphomedusan, Cassiopea xamachana, “there is a well 
marked difference between the second and the first regeneration 
in favor of the former.’’ 
A rather long interval followed upon the second operation, 
before the plants commenced to regenerate again. The new 
stems were now growing from the axils between the stump of the 
old epicotyl and the stumps of the regenerated stems that were 
cut off March 15; and also from the axils between the latter ones 
and the cotyledons. In other words, in place of the two stems 
which had regenerated after the first operation there were regen r 
erating now four stems, as may be seen from the accompanying 
diagram. It should be mentioned, however, in this connection, 
that the four stems have not always regenerated equally well 
from each plant. 
The following Table III contains data concerning transpira¬ 
tion, Aveight of all the regenerated material and also extracts 
from protocols, relating to the condition of the plants: 
Table III. 
March 15 to April 6, 1908. 
Nature of Solution 
Transpiration 
Weight 
of 
regener. 
tissue 
Remarks 
March 28 
Total 
Daily 
average 
Grms. 
Grms. 
Grms. 
Control 
48.70 
2.21 
0.75 
StrA-chnine 0.01% 
14.50* 
1.11 
Dead 
0.001% 
31.15 
1.42 
0.30 
Regen. slightly 
0.0001% 
48.80 
2.22 
1.05 
Regen. Avell 
Digitalin 0.01% 
42.50 
1.48 
0.75 
Reg. stems small 
“ 0.001% 
74.25 
3.38 
1.80 
Reg. well 
0.0001% 
108.65 
4.94 
2.10 
Reg. stems large 
Pilocarpine 0.01% 
62.40 
2.84 
1.75 
Stems reg. Avell 
0.001% 
22.50 
1.02 
0.20 
Stems small 
“ 0.0001% 
96.75 
4.40 
1.90 
Stems quite large 
Atropine 0.01% 
39.15 
1.78 
0.60 
“ 0.001% 
42.45 
1.93 
0.85 
1 Stems regen. at 
“ 0.0001% 
53.55 
2.44 
0.95 
/ fairly good rate 
*Total transpiration for 13 days only; the plants died soon afterwards. 
