The normal man he calls _Dioning_, the abnormal man _Urning_. Among Urnings, those who prefer effeminate males are christened by the name of _Mannling_; those who prefer powerful and masculine adults receive the name of _Weibling_; the Urning who cares for adolescents is styled a _Zwischen-Urning_. Men who seemed to be indifferently attracted by both sexes, he calls _Uranodioninge_. A genuine Dioning, who, from lack of women, or under the influence of special circumstances, consorts with persons of his own sex, is denominated _Uraniaster_. A genuine Urning, who has put restraint upon his inborn impulse, who has forced himself to cohabit with women, or has perhaps contracted marriage, is said to be _Virilisirt_--a virilised Urning. These outlandish names, though seemingly pedantic and superfluous, have their technical value, and are necessary to the understanding of Ulrichs' system. He is dealing exclusively with individuals classified by common parlance as males without distinction. Ulrichs believes that he can establish a real natural division between men proper, whom he calls _Dioninge_, and males of an anomalous sexual development, whom he calls _Urninge_. Having proceeded so far, he finds the necessity of distinguishing three broad types of the Urning, and of making out the crosses between Urning and Dioning, of which he also find three species. It will appear in the sequel that whatever may be thought about his psychological hypothesis, the nomenclature he has adopted is useful in discussion, and corresponds to well-defined phenomena, of which we have abundant information. The following table will make his analysis sufficiently plain:-- { (1) Man or Dioning ... Uraniaster, when { he has acquired the { tastes of the Urning. { The { { Mannling. Human { (2) Urning { Weibling. Male { { Zwischen-Urning. { { Virilised Urning. { { (3) Uranodioning. { (4) Hermaphrodite. Broadly speaking, the male includes two main species: Dioning and Urning, men with normal and men with abnormal instincts. What, then, constitutes the distinction between them? How are we justified in regarding them as radically divergent?