DR. TOM A. WILLIAMS, Washington, D. C: Dr. Hall has cited the cat-phobia in illustration that the belief that Dr. MacCurdy developed may be one in which there may be philogenetic reasons for the phenomena. It seems to me that before we use such data we need analyses more complete than has been given for any of them. His citation brought to my mind a case I am working with now, a cat-phobia. The cat does not represent sharp eyes and claws. The cat is a definite symbol of definite sexual occurrences in childhood. I should like to ask whether it would be here desired to draw philogenetic conclusions. I think not without the further analysis which would be necessary. I have a very strong distrust of the efforts which Jung and Abrahams have made, followed by some of us, to draw analogy between the morphological changes and the psychological experiences of the race as reproductions in the life history of the individual. DR. E. E. SOUTHARD: I should be inclined to feel that much of the disturbance in the constructive delusion group would be structurally founded upon normal or abnormal conditions in the parietal lobe. At any rate cases with hyperphantasia in my recent Dementia Praecox series (American Journal of Insanity, 1914-15) appear to be correlated with parietal lobe anomalies and atrophies. It is a curious thing that such subjects with hyperphantastic delusions are very often good institutional workers. Although a delusion of persecution by poison is an exceedingly simple delusion, it is in a sense far more harmful to the organism and may be often far more productive of motor results in a patient than an elaborate psuedo-scientific theory such as constructed by Dr. MacCurdy's patient. It is obvious that the degree of disease does not vary directly with the simplicity of the delusion. It seems to me that Dr. MacCurdy's work has not only theoretical interest but also practical importance from the standpoint of prognosis. DR. WALTER B. SWIFT, Boston: I often wonder if we are not a little inclined to go too far back for explanations. In football it is recognized that the men on the field have two sets of reflexes out of which they play under different circumstances. One is a set that they have learned in the lower schools; and the other is the reflex circle that they use after they have been trained differently in college. When these men get tired it is a psychological observation that they go back to those first learned reflex mechanisms. That is, when tired, they play the football of the secondary schools. Something similar occurs in stammering. When a case is trained to have a higher reflex vocalization, and they learn to vocalize spontaneously, it inhibits their stammering. But when they get tired they revert again. In the subject under discussion are we not reaching too far back for sources? Should we not go to infancy or early childhood (to the old reflex circle there) rather than to ones we suppose are inherited?