As I have already pointed out, the study of languages and generalizations drawn by the students of linguistics bring the facts into conflict with the prevailing theories, and especially with what may be called the spirit of epoch or the present ethnographical European complex. This conflict, as reflected by the reactions of investigators, may resuit (1) in the rejection of facts and their artificial adaptation to the theories; (2) in the discredit of old theories, particularly the theory of evolution; and even (3) in the total rejection of the pressure of the given ethnographical complex. All these reactions are commonly observed but not with the same frequency. First of all, the reaction of investigators depends upon complex conditions; namely, an accumulation, of facts contradictory to the existing theories and contradictory to the given ethnographical complex; an individual susceptibility to the reactions; and lastly, an individual way of solving the problems. The fact of the quantitative increase of contradictory facts is naturally a function of knowledge quantitatively considered, so that it does not require a special interpretation, but the individual susceptibility to the reactions and individual ways of solution ought to be treated in a more detailed manner. There is no doubt that amongst investigators types of behaviour are very distinct. Roughly speaking, one may distinguish types of slow and prompt reactions; types inclined to adoption of new ideas, possessing a certain degree of flexibility, and types sticking to the existing ideas, showing a rigidity of the individual complex; types of aggressive complex and types of recessive complex; types of organizers and systematizers and types of critics and destructors; types blindly following the leaders and types with a strong critical spirit; types giving themselves over to the studies under the spirit of simple inquisitiveness and types giving themselves in view of certain benefits resulting from their profession; types of great vanity and types indifferent to it. One may distinguish some other types, but the above-outlined types will suffice to show how variable the reactions may be. In addition to this, it ought to be pointed out that the conditions of social organization in which the investigators are living and the degree of interethnical pressure ought also to be taken into account. In some cases the individual reaction is checked up by the milieu in such a degree that it cannot be manifested at all. Here the degree of individual independence has the greatest importance. However, this side of the problem, owing to its great delicacy, cannot be discussed now, although in many a case it suffices for understanding the individual reactions, especially in milieus of high pressure, both ethnical and interethnical.