Since it was not important to compare the amounts of skewness in different data, I have not attempted the more elaborate calculations of coefficients of skewness. These would give the results a more elegant statistical expression. The simpler method I have here used affords more convincing evidence of asymmetry for the non-mathematical reader. Young has published the results with Witmer's form board test on approximately two hundred Philadelphia children for each age, giving the results for the sexes separately for each half year of life-age (_227_). This affords 36 different groups in which he gives the median and upper and lower quintiles for the shortest time records. The lowest quintile is farther from the median in 25 cases, equal in 6 and less than the upper quintile in only 6 of the 36 comparisons. This skewness would have been even greater if children of the special classes had not been excluded from his groups. Stenquist's results (_54_) with his construction test are scored in arbitrary units in which allowance is made for the quality of the score, but we should expect no constant effect on the form of the distribution from the character of these units of measurement. At ages 6 to 13 he tested from 27 to 74 pupils randomly selected from the public schools, a total of over 400. For six of these eight ages the lower quartile is farther from the median than the upper quartile, when calculated from his distribution table. The number of cases at each age, however, is so small that the largest difference, 15 units, is not three times its probable error, 6. Smedley gave his ergograph test to about 700 school children of each of the ages we are considering. Since he tested so many more subjects than any other investigator this should provide the most valuable data on the question of distribution with a test recorded in the same physical units for the same task. Unfortunately, his results for two succeeding years are so directly contradictory to each other that they seem to have no significance for our problem. The simplest explanation of this contradiction is that the groups tested may have been selected on a different basis each year.