suppositious to think that many of these variant individuals are really atavistic in makeup and have continued from one generation to another special defective traits of emotional makeup which are fortunately denied the average individual." The writer cannot understand how the theory which he has taken the trouble to so fully present in the above quotations can be maintained. Jones and Clark both assert that the tics or habit spasms as probably of the same nature as the obsessions in general. Moreover, Jones agrees that "familiar examples of compulsion in a slight degree are the obsessive impulses to touch every other rail of an iron fence as one walks past, to step on the cracks between the flagstones of the pavement, or not to step on them, and so on." A little reflection will show us the impossibility and illogicality of viewing all these conditions as being fundamentally of sexual origin. Let us follow the argument. If tics are of sexual derivation, as the Freudians here openly maintain, then it must follow that those familiar examples of compulsion, such as the obsessive impulse to touch every other post, etc., are likewise of sexual origin. This conclusion is forced upon us, since, even according to Jones, the only difference between the marked tics and the lesser manifestations is one of degree.[*] Now, these slighter impulsive tendencies to which we have here referred are very frequent in all children and by no means infrequent in grown-ups. They are habitual movements, which may be of transient duration only or may, by repeated performance, develop into more or less fixed habits. If, then, these habits are of sexual significance, it must follow that all other habits, especially if associated with a certain degree of consciousness or awareness, are in like manner symbolical of the past infantile and early childhood sexual activities and tendencies. This conclusion is, as is seen, inevitable, if we believe in the Freudian theory of the pathogenesis of the tics. However, since this leads us to a reductio ad absurdum, we must, of course, reject the explanation which has been offered by the Freudian school. [*] The accompanying mental state characteristic of ticquers is absent in habits. We can stop doing the latter when our attention is directed to them; not so in tics Meige and Feindel have discussed these and other differences.