35│ 11│ 8│ 44 36│ 23│ 47│ 36 37│ 1│ 43│ 38 38│ 43│ 33│ 29 39│ 8│ 36│ 11 40│ 29│ 42│ 21 41│ 30│ 3│ 46 42│ 2│ 26│ 42 43│ 47│ 28│ 28 44│ 32│ 21│ 7 45│ 15│ 27│ 20 46│ 46│ 39│ 47 47│ 49│ 11│ 16 48│ 50│ 40│ 50 49│ 5│ 45│ 30 50│ 40│ 23│ 48 51│ 14│ 51│ 49 ═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════ The correlation between representative drawing and verbal description is practically zero. From knowledge of ability in one of these functions, among high school students, no inference can be made concerning the other. Ability in diagramming (a kind of analytical drawing) is also not correlated with representative drawing. On the other hand, the processes of diagramming and description exhibit a slight tendency to positive coherence, as do description and retention. Analytical drawing and retention have a decided tendency to cohere, with a coefficient of .433. In order to check his finding that school marks in drawing correlate well with school marks in other subjects, Ayer correlated the scores of these 51 high school pupils in _representative drawing_, with their school marks and found an absence of relationship. “Ability in representative drawing is not correlated with achievement in school subjects, when it is isolated from the other factors of school drawing.” Ayer concludes that different kinds of drawing are differently correlated with general intelligence, and that it is necessary to isolate the various kinds in determining the relationship. Analytical drawing is a better indication of a pupil’s general grasp of subject matter than is representative drawing. He recommends “that the device of representative drawing shall be supplanted in laboratory teaching,” since it appears to be a highly specialized function.