Lymphography is currently much in the eye of the radiologist. Like other radiodiagnostic technics which first attract attention by their newness, lymphography if found worthy will be incorporated into sound clinical usage; if not, it will be relegated to less practical categories. Interest has now progressed to the point that at the last two major radiological meetings in the United States, six papers, two post-graduate courses, and five scientific exhibits on this subject have been presented, and a number of articles have appeared in recent medical journals. The measure of acceptance attained thus far suggests the appropriateness of an appraisal. We have come far enough to see that lymphography is established as worthwhile for some uses and for others is subject to reservation. Certain courses of investigation which are beneficial, if not crucial, to future progress can be outlined. The technic itself of direct injection into a lymph trunk needs little comment. The oily material Ethiodol is used for node visualization, while the water-soluble organic iodides suffice for investigation of the chronically edematous leg. Still, a contrast material has not yet been developed specifically for lymphography, one which fills completely the lymph trunks and nodes of a region and is then excreted or metabolized without difficulty or damage to the patient. In addition to possessing good radiopacity and lacking toxicity, a lymphographic agent should be of low viscosity and should not form pulmonary emboli. As useful as Ethiodol may be, we would prefer to see a modification of Ethiodol or the development of some other new compound which would not risk the possibility of pulmonary embolism of contrast material and which would shorten the now rather lengthy injection time. Meanwhile, a better understanding of the distribution, excretion, and the apparently benign tissue response to Ethiodol is being obtained. In the swollen leg radiographic visualization of the lymph trunks is capable of demonstrating a paucity or absence of trunks or dilated, tortuous trunks, collateral channels, and dermal backflow. With concomitant venography, venous and lymphatic obstruction can be differentiated. That lymphography has not led to great improvements in handling of the patient's problem is due not so much to the fault of the diagnostic technic as to a lack of satisfactory medical or surgical treatment of lymphedema. Lymphography is clearly of value in diagnosing the nature of primary lymph node enlargement. Since in most instances of lymphoma, the diagnosis is made by clinical evaluation and biopsy of a superficial node, lymphography is useful only when tissue is not available for histologic study or when its means of procurement are traumatic and risky to the patient, as when laparotomy must be employed. Also, when the nature of the lymphadenopathy is known but its extent is uncertain, lymphography is applicable.