_Les tics et leur traitement_, of which an English translation is here presented to the medical profession, was published at the close of the year 1902. In it our knowledge of the vexed subject of tics and spasms has been summarised and reviewed, and its reception in France, together with the fact of its having been translated into German without delay, prove that it has been regarded as the standard work on a topic the importance of which is being daily emphasised. At all the recent Congresses on the Continent the tics in one or other of their aspects have provided fruitful matter for discussion, whereas in England they have hitherto been greatly neglected. In the brief space of time that has elapsed since the book was produced there have been many and varying contributions to the subject, as a reference to the Bibliography herewith appended will show. Without doubt the reawakening of interest is in considerable measure due to the stimulus provided by the labours of MM. Meige and Feindel, yet it cannot be maintained that they have said the last word. In order that English readers may have before them the latest available information on the tics, various paragraphs from Meige's monograph (1905) have been incorporated, as has already been remarked in the Prefatory Note. It is desirable, however, to indicate briefly certain points on which opinion is still divided, points on which the results of the most recent observations help to shed some light. Probably it has not escaped the reader's attention that the authors have with commendable wisdom refrained from dogmatising on some of these, although they are always able to give reasons for their adherence to one or other view. But in one respect at least the attitude which they have adopted has been unmistakable, and that is in regard to the fundamental importance of agreement in the matter of terminology. The amount of misconception that exists about what constitutes a tic is almost beyond credence; indeed, only those who have had occasion to examine the literature can have any adequate idea of it. Discussions at neurological and other societies not infrequently reveal how vague are the notions of many who must have more than a passing acquaintance with the disease clinically. Now, a great deal of this misconception would disappear if the distinction between a tic and a spasm elaborated by Brissaud were adhered to, as the authors so strenuously advocate. It is quite unnecessary to insist further on this point, but, on the other hand, it is only fair to state that even in France the views of Brissaud, Meige, and Feindel do not command universal acceptance.