_Child J_. The data on J are so scant that little assurance as to her originality can be felt. At 7 she was in many ways an independent thinker. She composed "jingles" at the same time that she was reading Shakespearean plays, and the examiner commented on her "constructive imagery." She wrote acceptable poems before her tenth birthday. But for the most part she had been so occupied by rapid educational promotion that this is the most conspicuous feature in her description. _Child K_. This boy has without doubt an enthusiasm for scholarly inquiry. He made no spontaneous collections, had no pets, no imaginary companions or lands. In a sense these traits which are lacking in K's personality are usually counted as originalities in children of such high intelligence. But data are not at hand to enable a judgment to be made of the presence or absence of creativeness in this child. _Child L_. This is the case of a boy who showed such independent zeal for acquiring information that this curiosity had itself a creative tone. He is inventive and constructive even in mechanical ways--an exception in this particular group of cases. His teachers find him possessed of knowledge in mathematics which he must have derived from his own reflection. He also has marked initiative in using his knowledge, is full of constructive suggestions, makes many scientific experiments of his own, has many hobbies, and wants to do things to "advance scientific knowledge." Although he shows know unusual proficiency in the conventional arts, there can be no doubt that in affairs intellectual and scientific his mind is not only creative but also fertile. GENERAL STATEMENT If a general statement be attempted on the basis of such data as the descriptions and these summaries afford, it might be to the effect that one third of these highly intelligent children (A, D, H, L) show notable signs of creativeness. Another third (C, E, I, J) show such indications to a moderate degree. In the remaining third (B, F, G, K) there is at least no indication of marked constructive originality provided by these descriptions. Certainly these creative dispositions are more conspicuous in these cases than in the general population of children. How these very rare intelligences compare in this respect with those ranging from, say, 130 to 175 IQ we cannot know. Creativeness even at best is infrequent enough. In experiences of daily life of course such creativeness might be more often found in children in the middle range of high intelligences because there are so many more of these in the population.