It has occurred to me during the past year to be consulted in five cases of doubtful pregnancy. In _two_ of them, circumstances forbade the probability of its occurrence; but in both the true areola was distinctly and fully developed. It decided my opinion; and the result proved its correctness: both became mothers. _Two others_ had made themselves patients of the Lying-in-Institution, having obtained letters for attendance from governors of the charity, and upon which was marked, by their own calculation, the month of their expected confinement. But I was led to believe, from observing two or three symptoms, that pregnancy did not exist. Their cases were examined, and at last the breast; in both the true areola was wanting: the review of symptoms decided all doubts. Had, however, the true areola been present in either, it would at once have reversed, instead of confirming my first suspicions. The _fifth_ was pregnant, but the true areola was wanting; and I was obliged to refer to those signs which can alone be recognised by a medical man. The absence, then, of this sign, except in combination with other circumstances, proves nothing, but, if present, I believe it conclusive. _The Presence of Milk._—With regard to the presence of milk in the breasts, as this is a symptom which may arise, and does very generally, in the latter months of gestation alone, when the existence of pregnancy has been long determined, it is only mentioned here to refute the popular error, that “the presence of milk in the breasts is an infallible proof of pregnancy.” It is no such thing; and many well-recorded instances could be brought forward to prove the possibility of its formation under circumstances totally independent of pregnancy. Belloc speaks of a servant girl, who being obliged to have sleeping with her an infant who was being weaned, and which by its crying disturbed her rest, bethought her of giving it her breast to appease its clamour; and the result was, that in a short time she had milk enough to satisfy the child.[15]