481

Overview Transcribe Versions Help

Here you can see all page revisions and compare the changes have been made in each revision. Left column shows the page title and transcription in the selected revision, right column shows what have been changed. Unchanged text is highlighted in white, deleted text is ~~highlighted in red~~, and inserted text is highlighted in green color.

3 revisions	mdierks at May 18, 2020 01:46 PM	Compared with
May 18, 2020mdierks Sep 11, 2018Archives & Special Collections Oct 27, 2017Archives & Special Collections	481 No 1. Not satisfactory for the purposes specified. " 2. The staining is here an obstruction to study rather than a help. No. 3. This good. No 4. Worthless, too thick and over stained. No 5. This good. No 6. This pretty good. Contains many reticulated vessels also. " 7. Too thick. No 8. The two sections not taken from equally old parts of stem. The longitudinal–section too thick for study. The cross section very good. No 9. Too thick. The common impression of preparations that sections of few stems must be made diagonally is an [?] - never one. Then should be for study good cross and longitudinal sections, as in the care of all other things of plants. No 10. A very good specimen so far as it goes but it should be supplemented by a cross section of same part of stem as these longitudinal sections were taken from. No 11. Pretty good so far as it goes; a little too thick. Should have a longitudinal section. No 12. Good. " 13. Good. Although a bit of epidermis peeled off from the leaf and the stains would be much better, and far less troublesome to prepare. No 14 Good No 15 Good, but same criticism holds as for No 13. " 16 "	481

481

3 revisions

481

481