PART I. CLINICAL. 



BY 



S. HOLTR 



About the anatomical explanation of congenital miosis given by Bemer 

 and myself (Bibl. 6 and 7 1 is found the following remark in a report in 

 "The Lancet" (Sept. 22nd, 1923, p. 61 4I: "The anatomical explanation ot 

 the condition was pronounced to be the defective development of the dilatator 

 muscle fibres of the iris. As to this it might be objected that the dilatator 

 muscle of the iris is normally so slight in development that for many years 

 its existence was doubted". To this remark I answered in the same journal 

 (Bibl. 8» as follows: "This doubt might be justified before the good technical 

 methods for depigmentation of the iridial pigmentum epithelium were intro- 

 duced bv Alfieri in 1898; later came the hydrogenium dio.xyd method. To-day 

 anatomists would not agree with the quoted passage, finding the dilatator 

 muscle well developed from the pupillary" margin to the ciliare' border. 

 This was the experience of my collaborator. O. Berner, examining the iris 

 in 12 normal persons of different ages between 17 and 65. Only in some 

 small spots — few and far between — the front epithelium cells are not 

 transformed into muscular cells (v. SzilyK In our two cases of congenital 

 miosis, anatomically examined, the dilatator did not exist in the periphery of 

 the iris and was nearly absent in the intermediary part in one of them; 

 in other words, the dilatator had no peripheral anchorage. Thus the congeni- 

 tal miosis is well explained: the sphincter pupillae had no functional anta- 

 gonist". 



Since our demonstration in "Det norske medicinske selskap", 23rd 

 February, 1921. published in "Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter" 1922 I Bibl. 6), 

 we have had the opportunity of an anatomical examination of both irides 

 in another of the three patients mentioned there. The new microscopical 

 preparations were demonstrated in "Det norske medicinske selskap" the 

 2ist Februarv, 1923 ("Forhandlinger", 1923, p. 21L In this new case also 

 niv explanation agrees with Berner's microscopical find. It is true that the 

 dilatator muscle here is more developed in the intermediary part of the 

 iris than it was in the preceding case; but also in the new case there is 



