Some two years ago, in the Psychiatric Quarterly, Ellis first published a critique of the then recent publications by Eisenbud and others on telepathy and its relationship to psychoanalysis. Last year Eisenbud retorted with a presumptively telepathic dream of one of his patients, with which he tried to meet Ellis's criticism by showing a coincidence between the affairs of the analyst and the dream material of the analysand. In the present rebuttal Ellis attempts to prove that he could apply telepathic significance to Eisenbud's dream by referring it to events in 1, Ellis's own life; 2, the life of a patient known to him, undergoing analysis; and 3, the life of a character in fiction. In spite of this reductio ad absurdum, Ellis obviously fails to prove that the dream was not telepathic.

In an editor's note Eisenbud states that without having seen the above paper he declines to reply. Since Ellis also writes 'enough is enough!', this may well mark the end of an enlivening series.