The recent paper by Hueteret al.on ultrasonic lesions in the central nervous system, which appeared in a recent issue of this Journal (March, 1956), presents a rather limited view of this field and may lead to some misunderstandings.This note is a critical analysis of the Hueter paper. Some of the more important points discussed are: (1) The unique advantages of producing ultrasonic lesions in the brain by using dosages appropriate for selective action combined with focusing of the beam in contrast to the use of focusing alone. (2) The choice of an irradiation procedure in experiments designed for the elucidation of physical mechanisms of the action of ultrasound on tissue. (3) The specification of the acoustic variables required for a dosage description. (4) The inapplicability of Eyring's theory of viscosity, plasticity, and diffusion to the elucidation of observed dosage relations. (5) The clarification of the usage of the terminology, nontemperature effects. (6) The applicability of the reciprocity method for the calibration of thermo‐couple probes.