GEOGRAPHICAL zyxwvutsrqponm ANALYSIS. Vol. VIII (October zyxwvuts 1976). Submitted 10/74. Accepted 4/75. zyxwvu Gordon Mulligan * Properties zyxw of a General Hierarchial City-size Model zyxwv Abstract Beckmann and McPherson recent1 y outlined a general hierarchial model of city size. The authors argued that by imposing particular constraints upon this general model they would make it compatible both with the rank-size rule and a much simpler (basic progression component) model previous1 y outlined in the literature. The present paper challenges these two contentions. It is first demonstrated that the constraints proposed by Beckmann and McPherson do not lead to either form of compatibility. Then the author illustrates how such compatibility may in fact exist under somewhat different conditions. zyxwv City-size modeling has become an increasingly popular topic in recent years. Considerable attention has been directed toward evolving city systems through the use of varied hierarchial premises. The mainstream of thought, however, has focused on but two issues: firstly, the compati- bility of generated urban populations with a family of more familiar statistical size distributions, and, secondly, the rationalization of these same populations in the terms of elementary economic-base theory. This paper is entirely concerned with the former case. More specifically, the discussion is related to statements in [3] where a “generalized model” of city-size distribution was presented. The argument here disputes that due to “certain reasonable conditions” it may be contended that: (a) OThe author wishes to thank Kenneth Denike for his criticisms of an earlier draft Gordon Mulligan is visiting assistant professor of geography, University of of the article and to acknowledge CMHC for their financial support. Washington.