As regards the production of “nurses” by the phenomenon of proliferation, I can only remark that the endocyst is primarily concerned. The secondary and tertiary vesicles must be regarded as so many special bud-developments which, instead of becoming brood-capsules, become daughter-vesicles and grand-daughter vesicles, constantly developing in their interior secondary and tertiary brood-capsules and scolices, but sometimes, it would appear, developing neither the one nor the other. This is the view of Naunyn, which is somewhat opposed by Leuckart, who holds that the vesicles ordinarily arise from within the layers of the ectocyst. Speaking of these daughter-hydatids Leuckart remarks that “Naunyn denies that they take their origin between the lamellæ of the mother bladder--a fact, however, which, in agreement with Kuhl and Davaine, I have seen more than once and have followed out step by step.” For my own part I incline to the belief that the process as observed by Leuckart is exceptional, and that under ordinary circumstances it occurs as Naunyn has described it. Thus the long and short of the whole matter appears to be that the endocyst is capable of forming solitary scolices. Some of the scolices become differentiated to form brood-capsules, a portion of whose individual echinococcus-heads may, in their turn, become secondary brood-capsules, whilst others fail to become either scolices or brood-capsules. It accords with our knowledge of the general plan of development to believe that the daughter and grand-daughter hydatids are likewise peculiarly modified scolices. They are, in short, buds of the endocyst. The distribution of hydatids throughout the organs of the bearer, and their prevalence in particular countries, has especially engaged my attention. I have personally examined upwards of a thousand preparations of entozoa in our public collections; and of these, 788 are preserved in the anatomical and pathological museums of the metropolis. By this inspection I have obtained a tolerably accurate knowledge of the pathology, localisation and effects produced by the presence of bladder-worms in at least 200 unpublished cases of hydatid disease. Most of our museums exhibit one or more specimens that are unique. After making certain necessary deductions, I find that I have 192 new cases to add to the 135 cases of hydatid disease that I had previously recorded, affording a total of 327 cases available for statistical purposes. If an analysis of these cases be made and compared with the statistics furnished by Davaine, and if the whole be reduced to the lowest number of practically available terms, we at length obtain a result which, although it may be only approximatively correct, is nevertheless of much practical value and significance. The statistics in question stand as follows: