The arbitrary distinctions that Smith here sets up do not seem to me to contribute anything to the situation, and in fact in the end it amounts to practically the same thing whether the hormone acts directly on some specific part of the body or whether in doing so it acts on other parts as well. While it is more or less customary to limit the term “hormone” to substances that do produce specific effects in a particular organ, no one would, I suppose, deny that a substance was acting as a hormone if at the same time it acted on other parts of the body also, or even if its immediate action were on some part and its ultimate action on another part of the animal. Moreover, there is nothing in the evidence appealed to by Smith that supports one rather than the other contention. It is not apparent that the simpler idea of hormone action may not still apply. Failure to implant the testes in castrated male or female, and failure of injections to produce the results sought for, may mean no more than that the experimenter failed to fulfill some one of the conditions present in the normal frog at the breeding-season. Granting that the results recorded by Nussbaum and Meisenheimer are open to the serious objections, pointed out by Smith and Schuster, the facts recorded by all three writers indicate that the maximum development of the pad takes place when the testes are at their greatest development and that the pad suddenly decreases if at this time the testes are removed. It would seem to follow that since the swelling is connected with the presence of a certain condition of the testes, its enlargement is to be referred directly to the latter, and the case comes under the general category of “secondary sexual differences,” depending on the gonad.