It is psychologically likely that a drawing just before made or even looked at sometimes unfortunately influences a succeeding drawing. The most interesting apparent example of this is Figure 8a made just after Mrs. Sinclair had been looking at the several concentric circles of her last reproduction in the Sinclair-Irwin Group. First she got a whirl of circles, then the whirl assumed the shape of a triangle, then came two angles differently characterized, and finally the angles multiplied and constituted a star duplicating the original. And a careful study makes it impossible to doubt that there were anticipations. Some are too striking to be likely as accidents in the same series, and in some cases Mrs. Sinclair announced ahead that such-and-such an object would be found among the originals, and was right. Indeed, in cases where a set of originals was not viewed by the agent one by one, as the tests were proceeding, but were submitted in a heap together, it is a wonder that as a general rule the correspondences were found in due order, and we are hardly able to explain it. I do not, however, count any feature theoretically left over from the previous drawing as evidential, but only as an interesting glimpse into the mental processes. Neither does Mr. Sinclair, as I understand him. Nor do I reckon any “anticipation” as evidential, unless it was announced in advance, and then only in a reduced degree. And Mr. Sinclair’s principles of estimation were nearly the same. For he says (the italics mine): “Manifestly, if I grant the right to more than one guess, I am increasing the chances of guesswork, and correspondingly reducing the significance of the totals. What I have done is this: where such _cases have occurred, I have called them total failures, except in a few cases, where the description was so detailed and exact as to be overwhelming—as in the case of this ‘Happy Hooligan.’_ Even so, I have not called it a complete success, only a partial success. In order to be _classified as a complete success, my wife’s drawing must have been made for the particular drawing of mine which she had in her hand at that time_; and throughout this account, the reader is to understand that every drawing presented _was made in connection with the particular drawing printed alongside it—except in cases where I expressly state otherwise_.” Footnote 19: When she reached the snake original, the percipient made no drawing, but wrote “Man running fast.” If the reader will turn back to Experiment 2 of February 8th, where the original was a snake, he will again find the cat’s tail and living things fleeing. I more than ever suspect that buried in her subconsciousness is the memory of some incident wherein a snake and a cat and something else in flight figure. Footnote 20: O—original drawing. R—reproduction. Quoted matter was written by Mrs. S as a part of her result.