Alterations in those factors which act as vital conditions compose the great mass of physiological stimuli which act continuously on every living organism. The first point to be considered in every alteration is its _direction_. The alterations produced by stimuli may be of two different kinds, either positive or negative. The quantity of foodstuffs, water or oxygen, in the surrounding medium, can undergo an increase or diminution; as may the temperature, intensity of light, the atmospheric and osmotic pressure. The strength of the electric current, which may be applied, can also be regulated. In accordance with the definition of stimulation already referred to, we must consider these alterations, whether negative or positive, as forms of _stimulation_. Now the question arises: Is this point of view justifiable? Should one also consider, for example, the lessening or total removal of a vital condition as a stimulus? Should one consider the removal of water or oxygen, cooling or darkening, as a stimulus? It has, in point of fact, been occasionally attempted _not_ to regard these negative deviations as forms of stimuli. These observers permitted themselves to be led by the dogma, that only that which produces an excitation, that is, an increase of the processes in the living substance, should be regarded as a stimulus. Such a limitation of the conception of stimuli would only result from the one-sided consideration of an all too limited circle of facts. Considered from the point of view which results from a broader range of experience, this narrow view becomes untenable.