We must disagree strongly with the statement made by Dr. Fitzgerald in his paper on " Latah " that there is no connexion between Insanity, Hysteria, and Epilepsy. Insanity, of course, *is merely a legal term, and has no definite medical meaning, for a hysterical or an epileptic patient may easily require certification as insane if the disorder of conduct is sufficiently marked as to give rise to danger to others or to the patient himself. Hysteria and Epilepsy, on the other hand, are the names applied to certain groups of mental disorders in both of which the fundamental diagnosis rests on there being a disturbance in regard to the relation between consciousness and the performance of motor reactions. The major fits in both disorders may be indistinguishable, in both there may be outbursts of conduct which appear quite purposive in nature, but which are unaccompanied, or at any rate only partially accompanied, by conscious awareness and control on the part of the subject, hysterical manifestations and epileptic fits may occur in one and the same individual, and in both disorders certain secondary reactions or extensions of the mischief may arise which lead to more severe mental disturbance and " insanity." The great difference between them lies in the fact that the hysterical reaction depends to a great extent on the social surroundings, whereas the epileptic is more personal to the patient and relatively independent of environmental influence; both are manifestations of a weakness of the individuality in that there is a tendency to a splitting up, or a dissociation, within the mental function in the presence of subjective stress.

Now these two disorders of Latah and Amok seem to bear a striking resemblance in many ways to the European Hysteria and Epilepsy in many, of their symptoms. Latah would appear to be a condition typically arising in individuals of strong affective tendencies, highly emotional, highly sensitive as regards sensory perceptions, and with a marked failure of the self-assertive tendency in regard to their relations with other individuals. Van Loon points out that the incidence is much higher amongst women, and particularly where the patient has worked in association with European households, such situations naturally bringing about an intensification of the submissive attitude in the personality. The main differences between the actual symptomatology of the Asiatic and European disorders would seem to be explicable, partly on the more primitive mental development of the Malay race which Van Loon notes, and also on the more primitive relationships within the social order which we think he has failed sufficiently to take into account.

Of the two writers whose papers on this subject are here considered, Dr. Fitzgerald discusses the condition from the point of the objective manifestation and the practical outcome of the disorder. He classifies his cases into five groups, which are as follow: (a) subjects of high nervous sensibility; (b) emotional subjects; (c) suggestible individuals; (d) individuals with weak intellectual capacity; (e) women; and it is hardly necessary to point out that the total picture called up by these five terms gives a very good representation of the typical hysterical mentality in European countries. In addition, the author touches upon the medico-legal aspect which these cases may present in the event of injury to other individuals or to property as a result of the conduct of the patient during an attack of the malady.

Dr. Van Loon's paper is more comprehensive in that he deals with a wider field, the results of his questionnaire which he sent to a large number of medical men being of great importance and interest, and also he sets himself the …