"ieBGom he degree of varlance or seatter:about the line, but also by the nature of the deviation from linearity among the smooth) cur‘yilinear plots, - Those curves which were. concave upward were Spish tissues, noneofwhichhadbéén counted mére’ than‘seven (°° umes. SESH. Go cee dee peg te ee The average slopeof‘3decays< onl Lop-oep: plots4was “1.43, Table VITT shows’breakdowh inte groupsby: tines of organians andby tiseues, and ail samples:grouped: by.sollecting dates are recobded in Appendix Table. XIX. wal oS Differences in decay rates of tissues of the animals 1 - are not great, although the liverrate of decay is steepeat to a degree that is of borderling sigriitiéance.~“Comparison of rate of decline of ‘food items, 1,75, with rateof decay, of all ...5 samples, “1.43, shows that food items, with the exception of 2 auch plante. as thecoconut,: decline. more rapidly in, thelr rasito- active content thatean be accounted for golely on the basig™.\*! of their physical decay. However, the steep trend ef decline may result from the inadequacies of sampling. ‘The January 1955 collection may reflect variability in the effects of currents of season. Fubure sampling will show whether the Indicated decline is teuly unusually steep, or a vagary of sampling. Prom a study of the decay curves it is seen that most biological samples follow the soll trend sufflelently well to justify use of the soil decay rate in correcting sample counts bak to the time of collection over short periods, However, gomesampled.diveregwtdely7° Of greatest concern is the coco- But, ti‘theWALBewhitththe redtogctivity may decay very |