March 14. 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



433 



of tlie station from doing some teaching in 

 soil chemistry for example, or the professor 

 of botany of the college from taking advan- 

 tage of the work and, so far as possible, shar- 

 ing the interests of the botanist of the experi- 

 ment 'station. 



The main necessities then for the increased 

 efficiency of our agricultural experiment sta- 

 tions would seem to be: 



1. A centralized management, with the di- 

 rection and distribution of all experimental 

 work left to a single board of control, prefer- 

 ably to be connected with the United States 

 Department of Agriculture. 



2. A system of civil service appointments to 

 positions in all Federal stations, and an elas- 

 ticity in the organization of the different 

 staffs, making possible the transfer of scien- 

 tific workers from one station to another ac- 

 cording to the judgment of the governing 

 board. 



3. The complete separation of the experi- 

 mental research work^ of the station investi- 

 gators and the pedagogical work of the college 

 teachers of science in localities where the ex- 

 periment station is located on the grounds of 

 a state institution. This would necessitate 

 an increased salary roll in both the college 

 and station, but would increase the working 

 efficiency of both in a far greater ratio. 



IjT. F. Egberts. 

 Kansas State AGRicuMmiAi, College. 



INJURIES TO THE EYE, CAUSED BY INTENSE 

 LIGHT. 



Me. Frank Allen's observations in these 

 columns (January 17, 1902, p. 109) suggests 

 an experience of my own which is worth 

 recording in some detail. 



Last April I ran the projection lantern one 

 evening for a friend, the exercise lasting 

 nearly two hours. The lantern is an arc lamp, 

 hand feed, and the current was giving some 

 trouble. The arc had to be kept rather short, 

 and it was necessary to look in at the arc very 

 often. To guard my eyes from the glare, I had 

 three thicknesses of blue glass in front of the 

 arc. Yet I noticed that my eyes were being 

 injured. At the close of the lecture there was 

 a distinct dimness in the center of my field 



of vision. This has often happened after look- 

 ing at a bright light, and I thought nothing 

 of it. Next morning, however, my neighbor 

 at breakfast wore a bright yellow rose, and I 

 noticed a distinct spot of pink on it, yet on 

 examining it closely there was no pink, or at 

 least only a trace of pink in the center of 

 vision. At a distance of six feet the whole 

 rose was pink. 



On the street that morning, an orange peel 

 on the walk at a distance of twelve feet was. 

 bright red; on a nearer view only a central 

 spot was red. And every yellow house had a 

 pink spot, and every orange surface a red one- 

 from that time on. Then I saw that in read- 

 ing there was a gray area on the page in the- 

 center of vision. 



It was plain that focusing so long on the- 

 arc through the blue glass had paralyzed or 

 killed the cones in the fovea centralis and its. 

 immediate vicinity — that is, such cones as nor- 

 mally respond to the short waves at the blue 

 end of the spectrum. So my eyes in that area 

 of the retina responded only to the longer or 

 red waves from the rose or the orange, and in 

 ordinary vision I was deprived of just that 

 much illumination. 



This condition persisted in a very striking 

 way all sununer, but gradually disappeared in 

 the autumn, and now, at the end of ten 

 months, T can discover no trace of the dim- 

 ness in the center of vision, nor can I see 

 any trace of pink in a yellow surface. So 

 whatever the disability was, it has been over- 

 come. If the cones were destroyed, they have- 

 been replaced; and if only paralyzed, they 

 have resumed their normal function. 



J. Paul Goode. 



The Univeesitt .of Pennsylvania. 



A geographical SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA. 



To THE Editor of Science: Eeferring to- 

 the very interesting letter from Professor W. 

 M. Davis (Science, XV., ISTo. 373, p. 313, Feb- 

 ruary 21, 1902), there seems to be no reason 

 why the aims of the professional geographer 

 should exclude any non-professional who is 

 anxious to keep in touch with the latest 

 advances in geographical knowledge. 



Their need is apparently mutual. The pro- 



