We have mentioned that there is a third method of weighing the aptitudes of defective children. In our questionnaire we asked the teachers to give marks showing the relative ability of these children in the different subjects. From these marks it appears that in four subjects they are more successful than in others. These are gymnastics, drawing, writing, and reading. We regret that we did not include in our list sewing, manual work, and object lessons. Here are our results in figures. These indicate for each pupil the two subjects in which he has obtained the highest marks. Pupils. | Pupils. Reading 23 | Arithmetic 6 Writing 18 | Spelling 5 Drawing 11 | Singing 3 Gymnastics 11 | Recitation 3 It is not at all uncommon for a defective to take the first place in writing or in drawing. This is quite a remarkable fact, although we must hasten to add that in such cases the defective is usually the oldest child in the class. All these observations are sufficiently uniform, and lead to the same conclusion. The dominant features in the defective are the senses, the concrete perceptions, and motor ability. These are the faculties which are normally developed. His constant weakness in composition shows that the function of speech is quite evidently inferior to the sensory and motor functions. Let us weigh these facts and sum up. What a great mistake it would be to give to children of this kind the syllabus of instruction which has been made to suit normal children. This syllabus harmonises with the development of all the faculties. How, then, could one make children follow it whose aptitudes are limited? * * * * * Inquiries by questionnaire have one defect which has often been noted. They bring together statements furnished by correspondents who are often unknown, and whose judgment and accuracy it is impossible to estimate. Each of their observations, taken by itself, has little authority. It is the sum of concurring observations which should alone be taken into consideration; and even then it is necessary to be cautious before drawing any practical conclusion, because an agreement in the replies sometimes indicates nothing more than a general misconception.