Minot concludes his volume with a glance at paidology in order to stress the great relative importance for both the bodily and mental development of the early stages of life. The baby develops faster than the child; the child, than the youth, etc., and the rate of psychic unfoldment declines very rapidly from the first, as does that of the body. Week by week, from birth, there is a remarkable expansion of life. Each one of the senses learns how to function effectively and most of them learn to attract the attention, the power of correlating movements and making voluntary ones, and the rudiments of memory and association are laid down, as are the bases of disposition. The infant from the earliest months of its life knows much of the persons and objects in its environment and perhaps has even discovered its own ego. It touches, handles, tastes everything; is an inveterate investigator in an ever widening field of research; has at least a sense of intercourse and companionship; is already at home with time, space, cause, and relation; its feelings, will, and even intellect are developed, and in this order; and the foundations for knowledge and achievement are laid. Thus the child of school age is already senile so far as its infancy is concerned and the boy’s psychic processes are retarded, hard, and unspontaneous. Learning begins to be difficult. Nature no longer shoots the mind up the phyletic ladder but it must climb and grow henceforth by work as well as playwise. Thus man’s mental powers show the same law of progressive retardation as does his physical growth. Instead of drawing the dead line at forty, as Osler did, Minot draws it at twenty-five. Had he been versed in paidology or even known the Freudian conceptions of infancy, he might have greatly amplified his treatment of this stage of the psychic life with which his volume closes. But as it is, there are certain definite criticisms of his conclusions concerning gerontology. First, as I have said, he only attempts to show the cause and has nothing to say as to the cure of senescence. But he was not in quest of a panacea and was too true to the limitations of his science to pretend to have found one. This will be a disappointment only to those laymen who read him in furtherance of this pragmatic quest.