It may be asked if these facts afford us any assistance in determining the amount of injury that we, as a people, sustain either directly or indirectly from hydatids. On carefully reviewing all the data before me, I may say that it is difficult to draw very precise conclusions; albeit it is not mere guess-work when I assert that in the United Kingdom several hundred human deaths occur annually from this cause. In some other countries the proportion is far greater; the oft-quoted case of Iceland, where the disorder is fatally endemic, still standing at the head of the afflicted territories. Our Australian colonies are probably entitled to the next place of distinction in this respect. We have strong and recent evidence of the truth of this statement. Thus a writer in the ‘Australian Med. and Surg. Review’ says: “This disease is becoming unpleasantly frequent, and at present we have no reliable mode of treatment, either theoretical or empirical.” Another writer observes (‘Melbourne Argus,’ May 18th, 1874), “Hydatid disease is endemic in this colony; and, though not so constantly met with as in Iceland, we may probably claim the doubtful honor of holding the second place in the list of countries so affected.” In the ‘Argus’ for June 20th of the same year, another writer refers to the frequent notices of cases of hydatids published in the various local newspapers. A retired medical man, the late Mr J. P. Rowe, writing in the ‘Melbourne Leader’ (Sept. 7th, 1872), incidentally remarked on the “notable increase of hydatid disease in the human subject.” Again, still more satisfactory evidence is afforded by a reviewer in the ‘Leader’ of the 31st January, 1874. Commenting on my manual, he not only takes occasion to speak of the prevalence of hydatids generally, but also supplies that kind of accurate statistical evidence of which we so much stand in need. He gives the following table, showing the number of _deaths_ from hydatids in Victoria for eleven years. It is instructive in many ways.