In enumerating these various changes which are observed in the breasts, we fully agree with Dr. Montgomery in saying, that the alteration in the colour of the areola is by no means that upon which we can depend with most certainty: in the first place, we frequently meet with so little discolouration during the earlier months as to be altogether inappreciable; we have also already shown that if the patient be a brunette, and has already had children, the colour of the areola cannot be trusted to, as it never entirely disappears after her first pregnancy. On the other hand, we occasionally meet with a considerable change of colour in the unimpregnated state, arising from uterine irritation, as in dysmenorrhoea, &c. Where, however, this is accompanied by the other changes above enumerated, there can be, we apprehend, no doubt as to the existence of the pregnancy. Dr. Smellie, and also Dr. W. Hunter both considered the areola as proof positive of pregnancy. The latter one decided upon a case of pregnancy under very extraordinary circumstances; the body of a young female was brought into the dissecting room, which at the first glance he pronounced to be pregnant, but the accuracy of his diagnosis was not a little doubted when it was ascertained that a perfect hymen was present: to decide the point he had the abdomen opened when the uterus was found to contain a small foetus. _Movements of the foetus._ The sensation to the mother of the child moving in the uterus, cannot be looked upon as a certain sign of pregnancy, for even women who have had large families of children are frequently deceived in this respect by the movement of flatus in the intestines, by occasional spasmodic twitchings of the abdominal muscles, &c.; but when the motion of the child can be distinctly felt by the hand of an experienced practitioner, it will no longer admit of any doubt: this, however, is a symptom which can seldom be made use of before the middle of the sixth or seventh month.