Accordingly, the diagnosis of manic-depressive psychosis might well have been rendered. The fact that the psychosis so far as known began in the involution period was not against the diagnosis since the so-called involution-melancholia of this period is at least in a certain fraction of cases nothing more or less than a form of manic-depressive psychosis. However, the =physical examination= made the diagnosis of manic-depressive psychosis a little doubtful. There was a superficial thickening of the arteries (blood pressure: systolic, 170; diastolic, 104), which thickening would not in itself be against the diagnosis of manic-depressive psychosis. (In point of fact, arteriosclerosis is rather common late in this disease and previous attacks could not be excluded on the basis of available history.) The contracted pupils were irregular and both reacted sluggishly to light, although better to accommodation; the right pupil was larger than the left. The arm reflexes were pretty active. The left knee-jerk could not be obtained, nor was the right knee-jerk more than very sluggish. The Achilles reflexes could not be obtained. Although there was not a positive Romberg sign, there was a considerable swaying in Romberg position. There was no speech defect. The other reflexes showed nothing abnormal. On the whole, we had to conclude that, although Mrs. Hunter might be an instance of manic-depressive psychosis, still there was much of neurological interest in the case. This conclusion was emphasized when the W. R. of the blood serum was found to be positive. The spinal fluid W. R. was also positive, and the gold sol index was of the “paretic” type. There were 74 cells to the cmm. Globulin stood at ++++, and albumin at ++++. This case, therefore, again illustrates, as well the protean nature of GENERAL PARESIS (the diagnosis rendered), as the doubtful value of making a psychiatric diagnosis without due consideration of the physical examination and laboratory findings. How easy might it have been, at least some years ago, to consider that this patient of 61 years had suffered a slight shock at some previous time (left knee-jerk absent), but was as a matter of fact a case of manic-depressive psychosis with a vascular complication! Note: We must again duly insist that the merely sluggish light reactions of the pupils in such a case as this do not especially point to general paresis. The literature seems to establish that sluggishness of light reaction precedes the classical Argyll-Robertson pupil. Yet it does not do to say that, if the Argyll-Robertson pupil pretty conclusively points to neurosyphilis (for exceptions see cases Falvey (55), Murphy (60)), then a sluggish pupillary reaction to light looks in the same direction. Sluggishness may precede stiffness in many, or perhaps all, cases, but sluggishness of pupils is a frequent phenomenon outside the syphilitic group of cases.