442) compares these two kinds of stupors to deep sleep when intelligence is completely suspended and to sleep with dreams. (These two types would correspond to our “absorbed mania” and true deep stupor.) He urges strongly the separation of stupor from melancholia as an entirely different type of reaction, in this connection citing the views pro and con of various authors. Of these Delasiauve is particularly cogent in discriminating stupor from melancholia on the grounds of the difference of the emotional reactions and of the intellectual disorder and the real paucity of thought in the former psychosis. After quoting these and other authors, Dagonet offers an explanation for the diversity of opinion. He says that stupor following another psychosis may retain some of its symptoms, so that a mixture obtains, as often in medicine. He then gives excellent descriptions of three types: the deep stupor with paralysis of the faculties, the cases that are absorbed in false ideas, and ecstatic cataleptics. The remainder of his paper is concerned with cases and discussions about them. He cites examples of stupor following fear or other emotional shocks, following grave injuries such as the loss of a limb, following head trauma and with typhoid fever. As to the last he points out that delirious features are prominent. Many authors have assigned sexual excesses as a cause of stupor. The psychosis, Dagonet says, is not pure but more a mixture of hypochondria and depression. Relationship with mania is next considered. He says that stupor may succeed, alternate with or precede mania. His cases seem mainly to have been what we call absorbed manics or manic stupors. In fact, he uses the last term. The commonest introductory psychosis, he claims, is depression, but from his brief case reports it would seem that most of his patients were not stuporous, in the narrow sense of the term, but severely retarded depressions. In fact, in perusing his case material comprising “stupors” in the course of many types of functional insanity, or as a complication of epilepsy or general paralysis, it is evident that in practice he does not follow the discriminative definitions of the earlier portion of his paper. For him, apparently, patients who are markedly inaccessible to examination from whatever cause are “stuporous.” He closes with excellent remarks on physical and psychic treatment. As to prognosis he has nothing to say beyond the opinion that most of the cases recover.