Now, as we hope to show later, whatever be the proximate cause of gout it is at any rate _not uric acid_. The fact, too, that higher degrees of _lithæmia_ are to be met with in conditions, not even remotely connected with gout, renders it impossible to accept the view that the excess of urates in the blood is responsible for all the varied symptoms accredited by Murchison and his followers to lithæmia. For the same reason, it is difficult to uphold the hypothesis that “the tendency to lithæmia in early life may be an early expression of the ‘gouty’ diathesis.” In short, excess of uric acid in the blood or lithæmia is not pathognomonic of gout, much less of “potential” gout. But further discussion of this assumed relationship of lithæmia to gout may well be postponed until, in the light of recent blood analyses, we come to consider more narrowly the contention at one time widely held, that lithæmia is an _irregular_ manifestation of gout. If we are compelled to adopt a more judicial attitude in regard to lithæmia, what of the similar assumptions as to the relationship of _lithuria_ or _lithiasis_ to gout? Now lithuria, like lithæmia, was and probably still is by some held to be an inherited “gouty” proclivity. Sufferers in youth from lithiasis were deemed likely to develop gout in later years. Not only was lithiasis observed to precede but also to be a concomitant or sequel to gout. Nevertheless, although uric acid, gravel and calculi, sometimes arise in those of “gouty” diathesis, these instances are but isolated, so rare indeed as to entitle them to be regarded as mere coincidences. Moreover, when we recall the fact that the formation of calculi takes place in the urinary passages, _i.e._, _outside_ the economy, it renders even more improbable the hypothesis that the two morbid phenomena are diverse expressions of the “gouty” diathesis. As a matter of fact, the large bulk of “gouty” subjects are immune from gravel. Conversely, only a negligible percentage of the victims of gravel develop gout. The geographical distribution of the two disorders is wholly distinct one from the other. The Indian native is a martyr to stone, but notably exempt from gout. Coming nearer home, we find stone relatively common in Scotland, but gout rare. Plowright’s researches, too, revealed no correspondence between the incidence of gout and the prevalence of stone in the several counties of England. In some counties in which the mortality from gout was high that from stone was low, and Norfolk, the one most prolific of stone in England, enjoys comparative immunity from gout.