tl6 GENERAL CORRELATIONS 



The comparison made above seems to indicate that the dis- 

 tribution of cases, which had been selected primarily or exclu- 

 sively for endocrine conditions, does not correspond with the 

 distribution of cases of functional or so-called functional char- 

 acter in the admissions into the New York state hospitals. 



The most striking difference is that half of our patients 

 would be called hebephrenic or catatonic dementia precox, while 

 only 19 per cent, of the New York state hospital patients are 

 included in that group. 



On the other hand the New York paranoid precox group is 

 27 per cent, of the the total while ours is only 14 per cent. 



Even were it true that in New York some of our hebephrenics 

 and catatonics might be called paranoids, still they would largely 

 exceed the percentage in New York. Our total percentage of 

 schizophrenia is greater than their percentage of dementia pre- 

 cox and paranoia combined. 



It is particularly interesting that we did not have one single 

 case of pure manic depressive insanity although nearly 23 per 

 cent, of our patients suffered from hyperthyroidism. We had 14 

 per cent., however, which had some manic depressive symptoms, 

 while in New York there are only 6 per cent, in this classification. 

 But if we add together New York's manic depressive, allied to 

 manic depressive, and symptomatic depressions, they outnumber 

 ours 25 per cent, to 14 per cent. 



We had no case of pure manic depressive, paranoia or symp- 

 tomatic depression. In simple dementia precox, epileptic psycho- 

 ses, and psychoses with mental deficiency our percentages are 

 approximately those of New York. 



Of course I realize that one case more or less in our group 

 would change the percentages considerably, so that they cannot be 

 taken as fully characteristic, with the exception of our schizo- 

 phrenia with projection. They form a surprisingly large per- 

 centage, nearly three times as great as the corresponding group 

 in New York. 



It may be objected that a comparison with the New York 

 state hospitals alone is not enough but I wish to call attention to 

 the fact that the reports of various states in other years have 

 shown very striking similarity in the percentages of distribution 



