436 OPHTHALMOLOGY 



clinicians of the best character and professional standing, and it is 

 astonishingly convincing and cogent. It is unfortunately scattered, 

 and hence in part ignored by too many physicians. The last weighty 

 utterances are Dr. Zimmerman's study, 1 and, especially since they 

 are from England, the excellent papers of Dr. Snell, 2 and Dr. Pronger. 3 

 Hundreds of others might be cited, the testimonies, e. g., of such 

 good professional journals as The Cleveland Medical Journal, The 

 St. Paul Medical Journal, The Lancet, The Pacific Medical Journal, 

 American Medicine, The Maryland Medical Journal, Colorado 

 Medicine, Science, Mind, The Harvard Graduates' Magazine, Bulletin 

 of American Academy of Medicine, Canadian Journal of Medicine and 

 Surgery, Dublin Medical Journal, Medical Press and Circular, 

 Bulletin of Chicago Health Department, The Practitioner, The Nation, 

 Wisconsin Medical Recorder, Quarterly Medical Journal, Treatment, 

 California Medical Journal, Medical Bulletin, Medical Council, The 

 General Practitioner, etc. 



Of individual opinions a page of names could be easily cited, 

 of men with good professional reputations acquired and to be pre- 

 served, such as, for instance, Drs. Jackson and Bates of Denver, 

 Edes of Boston, Southard of San Francisco, Hurd, Reik, Welch, 

 Murdock, and Halsted of Baltimore, Senn, Walker (J. W.), and 

 Westcott of Chicago, Baker and Sherman of Cleveland, Cheney of 

 Boston, Alleman and Prout of Brooklyn, Carmalt and Swain of 

 New Haven, Coggin of Salem, Mass., Bennett, Starr, Pohlmann, 

 and Phillips of Buffalo, Risley, Pyle, Thorington, Hansell, Reber, 

 Zimmerman, Solis-Cohen (S.), Thomson, Fenton, Murphy, Talcott 

 Williams, Hollopeter, etc., of Philadelphia, Callan, Ranny, Car- 

 hart, etc., of New York, Van Duyn and Marlow of Syracuse, Taylor 

 of Wilkes-Barre, Wurdemann and Black of Milwaukee, Roberts 

 of Pasadena, Ellis and McBride of Los Angeles, Hale of Nashville, 

 Matas and Souchon of New Orleans, and especially the dean of 

 American ophthalmologists, Dr. Green of St. Louis, who for nearly 

 fifty years has been refracting patients and observing the results. 

 I append in a footnote 4 extracts from a personal letter written 

 by Dr. Green, because of its peculiar appositeness. 



1 New York Medical Journal, Nov. 21, 28, 1903. 



2 The Lancet. 



3 Slight Errors of Refraction and their Influence on the Nervous System, Harro- 

 gate: R. Ackrill, 1903. 



4 DEAR DR. GOULD : I have read your two volumes of Biographic Clinics with 

 great interest, and have gained much instruction from them. I regard them as a 

 very important contribution to a just appreciation of the distinguished men and 

 women whose lives you have so sympathetically studied. 



The fact that the commonest ocular defects may give rise to morbid states 

 such as you have depicted has impressed itself upon ophthalmic specialists before 

 it was recognized and urged upon the medical profession in the classical essay of 

 Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, American Journal of the Medical Sciences, April, 1876. In 

 the nine illustrative cases reported in that paper, the trains of distressing and dis- 

 abling reflex symptoms clearly parallel those analyzed by you in the fourteen 



