MY departure for New Zealand having been delayed for a month, perhaps I may be allowed a short reply to Sir Bryan Donkin's remarks in NATURE of Nov. 6. Sir Bryan and myself have come much closer in our views, apparently, but he still misunderstands some of the main points both in my original article and following letter. The term ‘supernormal phenomena’ certainly includes both ‘physical’ and mental phenomena of the type under discussion; on that we are agreed. But Sir Bryan goes on: “In the mental part, however, are included practically all the various ‘phenomena’ known generally under the term ‘spiritualistic,’” or, later in his letter, ghostly. It is here that I disagree. The genuine psychical researcher does not allow that these may be termed either, since both words connote a hypothetical explanation of the phenomena which we hold is not yet proven. Sir Bryan keeps trying to tie me down to an acceptance of the spiritistic hypothesis, whereas the whole of what I have written shows clearly that I am studying the evidence with an absolutely open mind. Another remark of his, “Seeing that the present discussion has been mainly concerned with these [i.e. the mental] phenomena,” suggests that he cannot really have read carefully what I have written. Throughout, I have emphasised the importance of the physical phenomena, not the mental, and it was Sir Bryan himself who, by his narrowing of the field to the mental phenomena, attempted to deprive me of my chief argument.