The explanations of correlation still center around the question whether a common "general" factor or "specific" factors common to various processes are most to be emphasized. Spearman and Hart (24) add another fundamental paper toward their demonstration of the importance of the general factor, the efficiency of the entire cortex. New and decidedly original methods for testing their hypothesis are devised. These involve a "coefficient of depreciation," which measures the difference between the average record of groups of abnormal and normal individuals for the same test. According to their theory this depreciation is generally due to a decrease in the general factor, so that the order of merit of a series of different tests as to their efficiency in showing this depreciation should give a correlation of 1.00 with their rank as measures of the general factor (shown by the size of new "coefficients of saturation*'). With certain allowances the correspondence between these two orders of merit for 19 tests is found to be .87. Moreover, the ranking of the tests in the order which they show the general factor with a group of insane cases should correlate closely with the same ranking for a group of the sane. This correlation is found to be .73.Accepting de Sanctis's suggestion Spearman (43) prefers to call his explanation of correlation the "theory of two factors," general and special. Simpson's coefficients of correlation between mental abilities are tested by the criterion which he and Hart previously set forth in their paper on "General Ability." This demands a correlation of 1.00 between any pair of columns of coefficients, provided that the correlations are to be explained entirely by the general factor. With 23 pairs of columns he finds a corrected correlation of .86. In showing this, however, it must be remembered that he rejects 55 other possible pairs of columns as being too much affected by sampling errors. New coefficients provided by the work of Wyatt, Abelson and Webb are also found to conform to this same criterion. One of Simpson's 91 coefficients, that between two cancellation tests, he finds to be too large to be explained by the general factor alone, and four others between the three memory tests and the two discrimination tests are probably explained in part by the specific factors common to these tests. His earlier criterion