The consistency of the Axiom of Determinateness (AD) poses a somewhat problematic question for set theorists. On the one hand, many mathematicians have studied AD, and none has yet derived a contradiction. Moreover, the consequences of AD which have been proven form an extensive and beautiful theory. (See [5] and [6], for example.) On the other hand, many extremely weird propositions follow from AD; these results indicate that AD is not an axiom which we can justify as intuitively true, a priori or by reason of its consequences, and we thus cannot add it to our set theory (as an accepted axiom, evidently true in the cumulative hierarchy of sets). Moreover, these results place doubt on the very consistency of AD. The failure of set theorists to show AD inconsistent over as short a time period as fifteen years can only be regarded as inconclusive, although encouraging, evidence.On the contrary, there is a great deal of rather convincing evidence that the existence of various large cardinals is not only consistent but actually true in the universe of all sets. Thus it becomes of interest to see which consequences of AD can be proven consistent relative to the consistency of ZFC + the existence of some large cardinal. Earlier theorems with this motivation are those of Bull and Kleinberg [2] and Spector ([14]; see also [12], [13]).