12 
The Philippine Journal of Science 
1917 
tensity of six units, one af 11.4° and the other at 25.2°. The 
figure for 25.2° is slightly higher than for 11.4°. An examina- 
tion of our Table 5 will show that the percentage of increase is 
within the possible limits of experimental error. The coefficient 
for a rise of 10° as calculated from these figures is 1.17. 
We will now examine Matthaei’s argument more in detail. 
Temperature. 
The following quotation gives Matthaei’s point of view in 
regard to light in her experiments : 
The limiting assimilation maximum, fixed directly by any given temper- 
ature, can then only be arrived at when the light is adequate for the 
decomposition of the amount of CO 2 in question, and when, also, of course, 
that amount of CO 2 is freely available. Therefore, to reach these maxima 
for the higher temperatures, more light must be employed, and the evidence 
that is to be looked for to show that the limit is reached, and that the 
light really is sufficient, will be of the nature of showing that, at the given 
temperature, increase of light no longer augments the assimilation. 
In this paper an attempt will first be made to show that in her 
work she has not proved that the limit was reached, and after- 
wards to demonstrate that the increase which she finds in the 
rate of assimilation is largely or entirely due to changes in the 
intensity of the light. Matthaei’s proof that light was not a 
” Op. cit., p. 68, par. 3. 
