First paragraph: This is a commentary on "Archetypes and memes: Their structure, relationships and behaviours," by C.M.H. Nunn (1998) and (more briefly) on the commentary upon it by Harald Atmanspacher (1998). Page numbers in this article refer to these two papers. Let us start with faint praise. Nunn writes well and engages themes that are sure to interest many readers. He is well informed, shows sensitivity to the evolution and elusiveness of Jung's thought, as well as to the history of medicine, and he (almost) has one good idea. Atmanspacher plays upon the same themes, also seems well informed, and (also almost) has a good idea, though he writes more awkwardly. In brief, Nunn relates Jung's archetypes to (Dennett's version of) Dawkins' memes and suggests an epidemiological angle, Atmanspacher suggests a hierarchical arrangement of memes, and I suggest they are talking dangerous jabberwocky.