(3

1881

Phyllanthus consanguineus

July 10 — waved 3 le branches with leaves (looked like compound leaves) in water 84°-85° for 4'. but leaves cohered for a time, & the bloom was not well removed, — pinned. open 7 leaves on one side (with Blue line on cork) & 7 on opposite side — & on one set, (as well as some other free leaves) placed drops of water at 9˚ 30; a.m.; but drops did not cohere well. — (12˚ brushed 2 or 3 leaves with water at 90° as drops wd not remain on)

July 14' 8˚ a.m. These leaves after 4 days exposure to blazing sun & hot days under Bell-glass — with drops not at all more injured than the opposite washed ones without any drops— But many leaves which had come into contact with cork & without any drops were much injured — I do not understand this.

(Right kind (viewed from apex) of middle branch & outer or basal side of 2 other branches with drops)

If any difference the leaves with drops appeared the best.

July 16' same result. certain

Can it be that when bloom removed there is local evaporation causing dep death or injury of part??

[in margin:] Leaf marked red wool

(4

July 16' 9˚. am.

Phyllanthus consanguineus

Washed alternate leaflets beginning at base of branch with S. Ether & then washed with water— but it seemed to shrivel up leaves — leaves on one branch pinned open & others left free. —

Moreover the ether did not seem to remove the bloom well. — Put drops of water on at 10˚ am under Bell-glass

July 22d 4˚ a. m. Of all the several leaflets only 2, which had drops of water placed on have remained on — others all died, & these 2 leaves have not been in the least affected by the water. — It is clear that S. Ether is highly injurious to these thin leaves. —

July 27th The 2 leaflets with drops under Bell-glass still uninjured & now thrown away