( dv) 
forward, and more or less abandoned ; but I must rapidly say 
a few inadequate words about one or two of them. 
Gottsche stated that an insect’s eye does not make a 
mosaic picture, but that it actually makes a large number of 
pictures of the same object, or, as Graber puts it, that when 
an insect looks out of its eye at a man (or something that to 
it is of equivalent value), it sees not a man, but a whole 
army of men. This does not appear encouraging, and sti! 
less does it do so when it is further suggested that the men 
composing this Falstaffian* army would appear to be standing 
on their heads. But recollect that our retine see two men 
instead of one, and yet we only see one man,—nay, that we 
see that one man more correctly than we should do if the 
retinee only saw one man; the duplicity of the two figures is, 
in fact, one mode by which we see correctly: the difference 
between the two pictures being of great value. Is it not, 
then, within the bounds of possibility that if two pictures can 
be made to give a better result than one, one hundred 
pictures (or something-elses) may be made to give a better 
result than two? I do not think the theory of compound 
vision should be altogether lost sight of. 
Of late years Exner has made what I consider to be some 
very valuable suggestions as to insect-vision; he thinks it 
probable that the insect-eye is specially adapted for the per- 
ception of movement, that in this capacity it is superior to 
the vertebrate eye, but inferior to it in definition of objects 
and in capacity for distinguishing the environment generally : 
he still, however, maintains the mosaic theory with certain 
modifications. EZxner’s views, as I have said above, I con- 
sider very valuable, and I think it probable that further 
investigations on his lines may have important results, 
especially if the idea of picture-seeing be abandoned more 
completely than it has been by him. He and Grenacher 
refer to a paper by Schmidt which I have not had an oppor- 
tnnity of consulting, but it appears that it also expresses 
dissent from the camera obscura theory. 
Notthaft, too, has published some suggestions that I think 
certainly of value; he considers the sight of the insect 
* Referring to the multiplied men in Kendal-green, not the ragged 
array. 
