Interstate medical journal . Fig. 9.—Rabbit No. 3225. No sunlight. Fig. 10.—Rabbit No. 3228. callus. Good union. Large callus. Good union. trated by microphotographs. Difference in the size and density of the callus inthe two groups of experiments was fairly well seen in the of inspection and palpation of specimens: No. 3669. Sunlight. Firm union. Easily visible, solid callus. No. 3669. Sunlight. Firm union. Solid callus of moderate size. 742 INTERSTATE MEDICAL JOURNAL No. 3670. Sunlight. Firm union. Small callus, readily felt. No. 3671. No sunlight. Fi
Interstate medical journal . Fig. 9.—Rabbit No. 3225. No sunlight. Fig. 10.—Rabbit No. 3228. callus. Good union. Large callus. Good union. trated by microphotographs. Difference in the size and density of the callus inthe two groups of experiments was fairly well seen in the of inspection and palpation of specimens: No. 3669. Sunlight. Firm union. Easily visible, solid callus. No. 3669. Sunlight. Firm union. Solid callus of moderate size. 742 INTERSTATE MEDICAL JOURNAL No. 3670. Sunlight. Firm union. Small callus, readily felt. No. 3671. No sunlight. Firm union,. Callus barely visible, not palpable. No. 3672. No sunlight. Fibrous union. Small callus. No. 3673. No sunlight. Firm union. Callus not seen or felt. For purposes of comparison the microphotographs are arrangedwith the no sunlight specimens on the left, the sunlight speci-. Fig. 11.—Rabbit No. 3225. No sunlight. Fig. 12.—Rabbit No. 3228. callus. Soft union. Moderate callus. Soft union.
Size: 2413px × 1036px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookidinter, booksubjectmedicine
