By using the expression pseudo-general paralysis I am quite aware that I lay myself open to criticism. It may be said that the term is not only useless, but even misleading. Some will say the diseases under question are either instances of general paralysis, or, if not of general paralysis, they are other forms of disease and ought to be named accordingly. In anticipation of such an objection I venture to remark that the term general paralysis, as at present used, tends to cover many cases which are not truly general paralyses, but rather cases of insanity associated with a form of paralysis which strictly speaking is only partial. Or, to put the matter conversely, are we not too apt to include under the term general paralysis cases which are really cases of special paralyses associated with insanity?