upper half of the pulvinus, which aids in the rapid curvature of the stimulated pulvinus."[1]
It was held, then, that the rapidity of the fall of leaf under stimulus is materially aided (1) by the expansion of the upper half of the pulvinus, which is normally in a state of compression, and (2) by the weight of the leaf. So much for theory. The experimental evidence available regarding the relative importance of the upper and lower halves of the pulvinus is not very conclusive. Lindsay attempted to decide the question by his amputation experiments. He showed that when the upper half was removed the leaf carried out the response, but rigor set in when the lower half was amputated. Pfeffer's experiments on the subject, however, contradicted the above results. He found that "after the upper half of the pulvinus was carefully removed, no movement was produced by stimulation, whereas when the lower half is absent a weakened power of movement is retained." Pfeffer, however, adds, "since the operation undoubtedly affects the irritability, it is impossible to determine from such experiments the exact part played by the active contraction of the lower half of the pulvinus."[1]
The cause of uncertainty in this investigation is twofold. First, it arises from the unknown change in irritability consequent on amputation; and, secondly, from absence of any quantitative standard by which the effect of selective amputation of the pulvinus may be measured. As regards the first, I have been able to reduce the depressing action caused by injury to a minimum by benumbing the tissue before operation, through local application of cold, and also allowing the shock-effect to disappear after a rest of several hours. As regards the physiological gauge of efficiency of the motor mechanism, such a measure is afforded by the
