But in this, as in all other varieties of gouty arthritis, the one and only unequivocal objective proof of the nature of the disorder is the _presence of tophi_. Lamentable indeed is the frequency with which this fact is forgotten, to our confounding and the patient’s detriment. As Hilton Fagge, discussing the diagnosis of gout, long since observed: “All those parts which are apt to be the seat of tophi should be examined. If a single deposit of urate of soda can be found it settles the question.” In conclusion, before passing to consideration of _chronic articular gout_, it will be convenient here to discuss certain _concomitant phenomena_ of the acute types. We refer to the muscular and nerve forms of fibrositis, which, we hasten to add, are of common occurrence also in the chronic types of articular gout. COLLATERAL PHENOMENA OF GOUT The liability of acute articular gout to be complicated by _muscular_ and _nerve_ disorders has already been briefly alluded to. Also it was pointed out that in respect of this tendency gout displayed an analogy with the _specific_ infections, viz., in that these latter too are prone not only to arthritic, but to muscular and nerve, lesions also. Our forefathers, greatly exercised by this apparent overlapping of “gout” and “rheumatism,” in their efforts at discrimination drew fanciful contrasts between the subjective sensations produced by gout and rheumatism, but all to no end, for said Heberden, “It must be owned that there are cases in which the criteria of both are so blended together that it is not easy to determine whether the pain be gout or rheumatism.” Gradually, however, a change in attitude made itself felt. It became no longer customary to regard such examples as blends of gout and “rheumatism,” but to hold the _muscular_ and _nerve_ disorders as also attributable to the underlying gout. Thus, so impressed was Garrod with the frequency of the incidence of _lumbago_ and _sciatica_ in _gouty_ subjects that he was doubtful as to whether they ought to have been classed by him as among the “diseases to which gouty persons are particularly liable.” He thought “they might perhaps have been properly classed among the forms of _irregular_ gout.” Duckworth, again, felt sure “that much so-called ‘muscular’ rheumatism is really gouty,” and forthwith ranked its manifestations among the _irregular_ forms of gout. Hilton Fagge was likewise convinced that the muscular types of fibrositis are frequently and obviously related to gout; while Sir William Gowers, discussing this same muscular fibrositis, is even more explicit: “It is currently associated with gout, and the truth of the belief is soon impressed upon the practitioner. But it is gout with a difference: it may occur in those who are gouty in the common sense of the word, but some of the most severe cases I have seen, especially the brachial form, have been in those who have inherited a tendency to gout, but have not merited its development.”