We see, therefore, from the above, that Duckworth was well justified in describing his view as a combine of the humoral and neural hypotheses. His pathological differentiation between primary or inherited gout and secondary or acquired gout is as follows: In the _primary_ type “the toxæmia is dependent on the gouty neurosis ... and is therefore a secondary manifestation.” In _secondary_ or _acquired_ gout, “the toxæmia is directly induced by such habits as overload the digestive and excretory organs, and consequently prevents complete secondary disposal of nutritional elements of food; that if, together with such toxæmia, distinctly depressing and exhausting agencies, affecting the nervous system, come into operation, the special neurotic manifestations of the gouty diathesis will occur, and be impressed more or less deeply upon the individual and his offspring.” It is generally conceded that Duckworth’s theory as to the genesis of gout is pre-eminently catholic in conception, because, as Ewart rightly remarks, “it represents the most complete theory published in this country on the general pathology of gout,” and because “the able advocacy of its propounder has given it the support of arguments derived from pathological analogy and from clinical influence which will demand careful examination and searching criticism before they can be either disproved or adopted.” Albeit, it must be frankly admitted that Duckworth’s perception of gout as a _tropho-neurosis_ of central nervous origin has never gained wide acceptance; this no doubt largely because it was insusceptible of proof. In an endeavour to remove this reproach. Sir Willoughby Wade promulgated the view that the causal change in gout was partly in the central nervous system, partly in the _peripheral_ nerves of the inflamed limb. In other words, he regarded gouty arthritis as the outcome of a local _neuritis_, this latter being set up in the first instance by the faulty blood state, viz., uricæmia. On the other hand, the central nerve centres might occasion or aggravate the general gouty tendency through their influence over “recognised seats of metabolic activity.” Also the same might, through the medium of the vaso-motor nerves, determine the incidence of local attacks. It will be seen that Wade’s theory is but a variant of that propounded by Duckworth, viz., neuro-humoral. GROWING SCEPTICISM AS TO GARROD’S PATHOGENY OF GOUT It will be recalled that as far back as 1889 Duckworth displayed disquietude as to the adequacy of the purely chemical or purely physical view of the pathogeny of gout, as sufficing for an explanation of all its varied phenomena. Thus he writes: “It is incumbent, I believe, to invoke not only a chemical and physical basis for gouty disease, but to include also, in a comprehensive view, the marked determining influence of the _nervous_ factor in the problem.”