diff --git a/lib/Trait.js b/lib/Trait.js
index eeb340b..eb48ad7 100644
--- a/lib/Trait.js
+++ b/lib/Trait.js
@@ -41,6 +41,9 @@ Trait.extend = function( dfn )
     // just in case DFN does not contain any abstract members itself
     dfn[ 'abstract protected ___$$trait$$' ] = [];
 
+    // give the abstract trait class a distinctive name for debugging
+    dfn.__name = '#AbstractTrait#';
+
     function TraitType()
     {
         throw Error( "Cannot instantiate trait" );
@@ -118,7 +121,15 @@ function createConcrete( acls )
             continue;
         }
 
-        dfn[ 'public proxy ' + f ] = '___$$pmo$$';
+        // we know that if it's not public, then it must be protected
+        var vis = ( acls.___$$methods$$['public'][ f ] !== undefined )
+            ? 'public'
+            : 'protected';
+
+        // setting the correct visibility modified is important to prevent
+        // visibility de-escalation errors if a protected concrete method is
+        // provided
+        dfn[ vis + ' proxy ' + f ] = '___$$pmo$$';
     }
 
     return acls.extend( dfn );
@@ -178,13 +189,18 @@ function mixMethods( src, dest, vis, iname )
             continue;
         }
 
+        var keywords = src[ f ].___$$keywords$$;
+
         // if abstract, then we are expected to provide the implementation;
         // otherwise, we proxy to the trait's implementation
-        if ( src[ f ].___$$keywords$$['abstract'] )
+        if ( keywords['abstract'] )
         {
             // copy the abstract definition (N.B. this does not copy the
-            // param names, since that is not [yet] important)
-            dest[ 'weak abstract ' + f ] = src[ f ].definition;
+            // param names, since that is not [yet] important); the
+            // visibility modified is important to prevent de-escalation
+            // errors on override
+            var vis = keywords['protected'] ? 'protected' : 'public';
+            dest[ vis + ' weak abstract ' + f ] = src[ f ].definition;
         }
         else
         {
diff --git a/test/Trait/AbstractTest.js b/test/Trait/AbstractTest.js
index 0859673..130d971 100644
--- a/test/Trait/AbstractTest.js
+++ b/test/Trait/AbstractTest.js
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /**
- * Tests basic trait definition
+ * Tests abstract trait definition and use
  *
  *  Copyright (C) 2014 Mike Gerwitz
  *
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ require( 'common' ).testCase(
      */
     'Concrete classes must be compatible with abstract traits': function()
     {
-        var T      = this.Sut( { 'abstract traitfoo': [ 'foo' ] } );
+        var T = this.Sut( { 'abstract traitfoo': [ 'foo' ] } );
 
         var _self = this;
         this.assertThrows( function()
@@ -96,8 +96,94 @@ require( 'common' ).testCase(
             C = _self.Class.use( T ).extend(
             {
                 // missing param in definition
-                traitfoo: function() { called = true; },
+                traitfoo: function() {},
             } );
         } );
     },
+
+
+    /**
+     * If a trait defines an abstract method, then it should be able to
+     * invoke a concrete method of the same name defined by a class.
+     */
+    'Traits can invoke concrete class implementation of abstract method':
+    function()
+    {
+        var expected = 'foobar';
+
+        var T = this.Sut(
+        {
+            'public getFoo': function()
+            {
+                return this.echo( expected );
+            },
+
+            'abstract protected echo': [ 'value' ],
+        } );
+
+        var result = this.Class.use( T ).extend(
+        {
+            // concrete implementation of abstract trait method
+            'protected echo': function( value )
+            {
+                return value;
+            },
+        } )().getFoo();
+
+        this.assertEqual( result, expected );
+    },
+
+
+    /**
+     * Even more kinky is when a trait provides a concrete implementation
+     * for an abstract method that is defined in another trait that is mixed
+     * into the same class. This makes sense, because that class acts as
+     * though the trait's abstract method is its own. This allows for
+     * message passing between two traits with the class as the mediator.
+     *
+     * This is otherwise pretty much the same as the above test. Note that
+     * we use a public `echo' method; this is to ensure that we do not break
+     * in the event that protected trait members break (that is: are not
+     * exposed to the class).
+     */
+    'Traits can invoke concrete trait implementation of abstract method':
+    function()
+    {
+        var expected = 'traitbar';
+
+        // same as the previous test
+        var Ta = this.Sut(
+        {
+            'public getFoo': function()
+            {
+                return this.echo( expected );
+            },
+
+            'abstract public echo': [ 'value' ],
+        } );
+
+        // but this is new
+        var Tc = this.Sut(
+        {
+            // concrete implementation of abstract trait method
+            'public echo': function( value )
+            {
+                return value;
+            },
+        } );
+
+        this.assertEqual(
+            this.Class.use( Ta, Tc ).extend( {} )().getFoo(),
+            expected
+        );
+
+        // order shouldn't matter (because that'd be confusing and
+        // frustrating to users, depending on how the traits are named), so
+        // let's do this again in reverse order
+        this.assertEqual(
+            this.Class.use( Tc, Ta ).extend( {} )().getFoo(),
+            expected,
+            "Crap; order matters?!"
+        );
+    },
 } );