1923. Xo. 23. A CASE OF CONGENITAL MIOSIS. 



from the muscle. Forsmark is of the same opinion. He has seen in 

 4 foetus of 5 and 6 months that there were foldings of the front 

 epithelial layer between the ciliary processes, and that thev could be 

 followed a short distance in a radial direction. A few of them were con- 

 stricted off outwards in the form of a tube, which did not, however, leave 

 the epithelial layer. In the 8th foetal month, myoglia fibres began to deve- 

 lope round them. 



In my various series from Axel B.'s eyes I have often found, in the 

 peripheral part of the iris, small masses of epithelium just in front of the 

 epithelium-layer. On one occasion I found in one of these lumps a fine 

 fissure between the cells, as if the lump of epithelium had been formed bv 

 a duplicature from the front layer; but unfortunately the matter could not 

 be decided, as the iridian epithelium was injured just at that particular 

 place in the series. The series gave me most frequently the impression 

 that the small lumps of epithelium that I found in the stroma immediately 

 in front of the layer of epithelium were produced by the growing forwards 

 and outwards from the front layer, but without its having bent in the form 

 of a duplicature. I have reproduced one of these in fig. 18. The pigmented 

 epithelium is seen like a long, fine thread, making its way out through 

 the stroma and connected with the front layer of iridian epithelium, but 

 there is no crack in it indicating a duplicature. On the other hand there 

 is a distinct, fine crack between the two layers of the epithelium ; but even 

 when highly magnified there was no sign that the formation was due to 

 a duplicature. I suppose that if my series had been depigmented, I should 

 have brought out the picture of an ordinary epithelial process which had 

 not developed mvo-fibrils round it. and consequently the appearance is best 

 explained by assuming a growth from the front layer of epithelium. A fact 

 that seems to me to accord well with this is that the epithelial process in 

 fig. 18 was found attached to the front folium of the iridian epithelium in 

 only 2 sections. If it had been produced by a duplicature, I think one 

 would reasonably have expected to be able to follow it over a larger field. 

 I have reproduced the circumstances in fig. 18, because unfortunately neither 

 vox SziLV nor Forsmark, who, as far as I can see, are the only writers 

 who have investigated these embryonal conditions, has given illustrations of 

 the duplicatures they have seen'. Considering that Forsmark's view of 

 these things is that they are chance occurrences, there would seem to be 

 a necessity for a systematic embryological investigation-. 



The correct view of the conditions may perhaps be that the "projec- 

 tions" and the "epithelial processes" are rudiments of the normally occur- 

 ring anchoring and strengthening bands, but that the rudiments have come 

 in the WTong place, and that some of them have also been left in an em- 



: found similar conditions illustrated in Speciale Circiicione's paper (Bibl. 1 1 •. 

 - Vide foot-note, p. ig. 



