I think that the foregoing statistics, and those which follow, together with the large number of cases which I quote, and which connect general paralysis with almost every form of neurotic manifestation, will prove conclusively that neurotic inheritance is a striking feature in the causation of general paralysis. I question whether a distinction between “the cerebral and the insane element” in general paralysis can be maintained. If general paralysis is not a degeneration of the mind-tissue, then the pathology of insanity has no existence, and I would say that the subtle influence for evil, which is transmitted from parents, whose brains are deteriorated by neurotic outbursts, or soaked in alcohol, or wrecked by physiological immorality, tends strongly towards such degeneration. If insanity is, as Dr. Savage says, a perversion of the ego, then a general paralytic is the in-sanest of the insane. We know that the children of a melancholic parent, for example, may develop any form of neurosis—in other words, it is not that melancholia or general paralysis, or any other definite disease, is transmitted, but that a certain tendency to deviate from normal development is transmitted. This tendency to deviate is the neurotic diathesis, and the form of its development is determined by collateral circumstances, and a certain series of collateral circumstances determine the development of general paralysis. Perhaps neurotic inheritance may mean in some cases a limited capital of nervous energy, and if this is wasted recklessly the individual breaks down suddenly and pathologically, as we all do slowly and physiologically. I would also point out that considering the number of histories of insanity which owing to ignorance or reticence we, do not receive, and considering that we never receive information as to the existence of the slighter neuroses, it is marvellous that we get so high a percentage as 51. Of the 145 general paralytics with a reliable history, 38 had a family history of insanity, 28 a family history of drink, 8 of both, 43 had a personal history of drink, 8 of a previous attack too remote to be considered, at least, according to our present ideas, as part of the disease, and the vast majority had a history of some physiological irregularity which must be considered as conducive to the creation of an acquired neurosis. We may now pass to some further statistics.