Voth makes an essentially simple point: dreams may serve 'purposes other than sleep preservation'; in this instance, the purpose of arousal. His evidence consists of brief reports of two dreams which appear manifestly to be connected with patients' awakening. The theoretical discussion falls into a possible error of confusing the biological function of dreaming and the psychological meanings of dreams. It is clear that a dream is, among other things, a compromise formation, that the ego has contributed greatly to the manifest content of the dream, and that the individual may wish to awaken, but these are not decisive evidences that arousal may be a function of the dream. While the content and superficial associations seem to make of the dream a story leading to awakening, it is entirely feasible to think of a dream as the end-product of a complicated psychological process which serves the biological need of preserving sleep while expressing the psychological wish to awaken.