shows by its shape how the points appear massed towards the center. In Fig. 5 the curve _AB_ shows, by its crests at _A_ and _B_, that the end points tended to free themselves from the rest in the judgments. But if the distance _AB_ be taken to represent the average of the judgments upon the filled space 1, 2, 3, 4, it will be seen to be shorter than what may be regarded as the average of the judgments upon the corresponding open space, namely, the distance _A'B'_, determined by the localizations of the end points alone. The comparative regularity of the curve indicates that the subject was unable to discriminate among the points of the filling with any degree of certainty. The localizations were scattered quite uniformly along the line. In these short distances the subject often judged four points as two, or even one. [Illustration: Fig. 5.] [Illustration: Fig. 6.] Turning to Fig. 6, we notice that the tendency is now to locate the end points in the filled distance outside of the localization of these same points when given without the intermediate points. It will also be seen from the irregularities in these two longer curves that there is now a clear-cut tendency to single out the individual points. The fact that the curves here are again higher over point 4 simply signifies that at this, the wrist end, the failure to discover the presence of the points was less frequent than towards the elbow. But this does not disturb the relation of the two series of judgments. As I have before said, the first two sets of experiments described in Section II. showed that the shorter filled distances are underestimated, while the longer distances are overestimated, and that between the two there is somewhat of an 'indifferent zone.' In those experiments the judgments were made directly on the cutaneous distances themselves. In the experiments the results of which are plotted in these curves, the judgment of distances is indirectly reached through the function of localization. But it will be observed that the results are substantially the same. The longer distances are overestimated and the shorter distances underestimated. The curves in Figs. 4, 5 and 6 were plotted on the combined results for two subjects. But before the combination was made the two main tendencies which I have just mentioned were observed to be the same for both subjects.