The W. R. of the serum proved positive, as did that of the spinal fluid. The gold sol reaction was characteristically “paretic”; there was an excess of albumin and a positive globulin, and there were 15 cells per cmm. There could be little or no doubt of the diagnosis of some form of neurosyphilis. The laboratory picture was consistent either with general paresis or with cerebrospinal syphilis. So far as we are aware in the present stage of knowledge, the two conditions can hardly be differentiated unless we choose to rely on therapeutics. However, it is exceedingly rare for general paresis to occur only two years after the original infection. If we can trust this statistical fact, we shall perhaps be wiser to term the case of Borofski one of DIFFUSE CEREBROSPINAL SYPHILIS, and not one of paresis. =Treatment=: Borofski was put on antisyphilitic treatment consisting of 0.6 gram of salvarsan twice a week and potassium iodid, together with intramuscular injections of mercury salicylate. The convulsions then ceased. After four months Borofski returned to work, and he has remained at work for a year. He has never regained his former health. Fifteen months after beginning of treatment the laboratory tests were again made (there had been more than 60 injections of salvarsan), and the cell count and gold sol reactions were found to be negative. Globulin and albumin were also in smaller amounts than in the original examination. However, the W. R. of the serum and the spinal fluid remained positive. Head and Fearnsides state that cases of cerebrospinal syphilis should return negative spinal fluid tests after six months of treatment. Upon this criterion of Head and Fearnsides, Borofski would not be a case of cerebrospinal syphilis; but it is probably impossible to separate various forms of neurosyphilis into categories on any such grounds. 1. Shall case David Borofski be regarded as one of paretic neurosyphilis (“general paresis”)? He has returned to work and has remained at work, though without regaining his former health. In any event, however, he does not offer the typical picture of inevitable decline and death presented by the typical case of Pietro Martiro (15) presented in our discussion of systematic diagnosis. However, we could not upon laboratory grounds, or even upon the ground of clinical observation, distinguish Borofski from Martiro; Borofski has greatly improved; Martiro is dead. Borofski developed his obvious neurosyphilis only two years after the original infection. The conservative syphilographer might, accordingly, reply that David Borofski is not a typical case of paretic neurosyphilis (“general paresis”) either in the length of the incubation period for his neurosyphilitic symptoms, or in his outcome.