Of the _nervous_ phenomena relegated to gout we hear nowadays less and less. “Gouty” headaches are almost a thing of the past. The acute “gouty” delirium of older writers in many cases was but an euphemism for _alcoholism_, and likewise the _spinal paralyses_; while the _convulsions_ and _comas_ were certainly almost always attributable to _uræmia_. It would be held rash to-day to speak, like our forefathers, of “gouty” _cystitis_, _urethritis_, or _orchitis_, for there is no evidence of any pathological connection between them; and the same stricture is also applicable to the many _cutaneous_ affections affiliated without sound pretext to the _materies morbi_ of gout. In the early part of the nineteenth century the French school were most insistent on the prevalence and variety of the cutaneous manifestations of _l’arthritisme_; but even by them the all-pervading influence of gout in the etiology of skin disorders is no longer held even as a working hypothesis. _Conclusions._—The sum of my experience and reflections on so-called “irregular” gout leads me to regard it as an “abstraction” rather than as a proven clinical fact. Moreover, if I may judge by the “admission certificates” to the Royal Mineral Water Hospital, Bath—a fair test, as I maintain—many are of the same mind as myself, for during the past ten years I do not recall a single instance in which a patient sought admission thereto as suffering from “irregular” gout. But some writers on gout—indeed, I think I may say all—whatever doubts they entertain as to the propriety of retaining the term, yet qualify their pronouncement in favour of some particular variety of anomalous gout, _visceral_, _cutaneous_, or other. Still, in justification of my own uncompromising attitude, I must say that dispassionate analysis of their eclectic claims, in light of present day knowledge, to my mind fails to show any adequate reason for the faith that is in them. Of some of them I feel sure that sub-consciously they have been influenced by a respect for tradition, forgetful of Pliny’s sentiment,— “Quamvis enim cedere auctoritati debeam, rectius tamen arbitror, in tanta re, ratione quam auctoritate superari.”—_Lib. i., Ep. 20._ But, to resume, this much at any rate may be affirmed, viz., that there is no proof that visceral disturbances or cutaneous disorders are due to _uric acid_. On the other hand, in view of my contention that the inherent morbid potentialities of the “gouty” demand for their fruition the intervention of an _infection_, the reader may rightly ask whether the same agent may not be capable of evoking the _visceral_ or _cutaneous_, as opposed to the arthritic, manifestations of gout.