BOOK NOTICES 151

taken is correct; it is merely to call attention to the existence of this group with representatives in many cities and to suggest that if you do believe in what they are trying to establish you ought to support them.

Realize that by their action these opticians have put their future in the hands of the medical profession and that they cannot make a success of this effort without the help of the ophthal­mologist. The initiative has been assumed by these opticians. They have thus undertaken the expense and trouble of convincing the public of the wisdom of a medical examination of the eyes; a task which properly be­longed to physicians but in which physicians have for the most part failed. Since the offensive has been assumed by these men, let those who believe with them give them support in their effort.

A suggestion by the Guild that the ophthalmologist should use the designa­tion "eye physician" to avoid confusion in the lay mind as between "oculist," "optometrist," and "optician" was dealt with in a former editorial in this Journal (vol. 10, no. 9, p. 705), but the idea seems so valuable that attention is again called to it. L. T. P.

SHALL WE USE CYCLOPLEGICS? The paper by Dr. Wells, read before

the Section on Ophthalmology of the American Medical Association, is pub­lished in this journal because it has not been afforded the wider circulation commonly given to Section papers by publication in the Journal of the Ameri­can Medical Association.

While the author's contentions as to principle are unquestionably in agree­ment with the views and practice of most ophthalmologists, yet, since the basis of the paper is a discussion of the subject which occurred at the London Conference in 1925, it seems proper to call attention to certain details in re­gard to which Dr. Wells may have mis­apprehended the trend of that dis­cussion.

Dr. Wells says that Herbert, Brailey, and Traquair agreed with Burdon-Cooper as to omitting cycloplegia. In the discussion as recorded in the Tran­sactions of the Ophthalmological So­

ciety of the United Kingdom, Herbert is not shown as saying anything about atropin or homatropin; Brailey is re­ported as agreeing that atropin is seldom necessary, but says nothing about homatropin; and Traquair is not reported as agreeing in omitting cycloplegia, but as agreeing in the on­slaught on the indiscriminate use of atropin. The present writer, although quoted by Dr. Wells as agreeing with Burdon-Cooper that cycloplegia could be omitted entirely, actually said (ac­cording to the Transactions) that he had not frequently obtained a higher error without atropin than with, but did quite frequently obtain just as large a hyperopic error without as with atropin, if the test was completed by bilateral fogging. W. H. C.

Errata On page 743, vol. 10, the legend at the

bottom of the page, -under figure 7, should read "Small necrotic area in the spleen in microscopic section".

In Dr. H. Gifford's contribution in the issue for December, 1927, the third and fourth lines of the second column of page 923 should read: "one-sided irritability of the'gland"; and in the ninth line from the end of the same article the word "ones" should be "one".

BOOK NOTICES Bericht der Versammlung der deut-

schen ophthalmologischen Gesell-schaft in Heidelberg, 1927. Edited by A. Wagenmann. Paper, octavo 522 pages, 144 illustrations, ten in colors. Munich: J. F. Berg-mann, 1927.

The reports of the Heidelberg Con­gress give a better resume of what has recently claimed the attention of Ger­man ophthalmologists than do any other one publication. The German investigator who has written an elabor­ate account of his studies occupying one hundred pages or more in a monograph, or in the Archiv, comes to the Congress, presents the practical aspect of his ob­servations, or a summary of them, in five or ten pages, and has them dis­cussed by colleagues who confirm or criticize his conclusions. Or the clinical worker brings to this gathering, of the

152 BOOK NOTICES

ophthalmologists whom he esteems most highly, the important case or feature, which he thinks will most likely bring him credit, or link his name to some permanent advance in clinical ophthalmology. And the demonstration session gives opportunity to place be­fore the eyes he wishes to see it the specimen, or microscopic section, the case or new instrument, the pathologic curiosity or improved technic, to which he would direct attention.

In this volume are printed 58 papers, discussed by 79 speakers, and averaging only six and one-half pages for each paper and discussion. The account of the 25 demonstrations is given in 85 pages. When it is considered that among the more than two hundred members in attendance were some of the most active and productive students of ophthalmic science, it becomes clear that this volume is extremely valuable to any library that undertakes to keep up with the expansion of medical thought and medical literature.

The stock subjects of cataract and glaucoma are of course represented; and not merely by suggestions of operative technique. Kronfeld discusses lens nutrition and oxidation; Birch-Hirsch-feld the relation of light to the causation of senile cataract, Erggelet and Bruno-Fleischer glass-blowers' cataract, and Siegrist the pathogenesis and medical treatment of senile caatract. With reference to glaucoma, Hertel discusses intraocular pressure and the external coat of the eye. Vogelsang gives a method of measuring the elasticity of the eye; Schmidt deals with the control of pressure in the glaucomatous eye; Romer, experimental hypotony; Elsch-nig, the origin of glaucomatous excava­tion; Seidel the method of clinical investigation of glaucoma, and Ham­burger the prevention of acute attacks by "glaucosan" treatment. Operative technique is not neglected: Pillat writes of iridencleisis, Kubik on ex­traction of the lens in its capsule, Meyer on cataract operation with the lance knife, and Paul on the technique for buried sutures.

There are some highly original sug­gestions in this volume. Paul's buried suture is one of them. Another is that of Lauber, for the ophthalmoscopic

diagnosis of hemianopsia. Germany turns with enthusiasm to the task of leading the world in peaceful contribu­tions to the advancement of ophthalmic science. jg, j

Chirurgie de l'oeil et de ses annexes. F. Terrien. Third edition, paper, octavo, 654 pages, 565 illustrations. Paris: Masson et Cie, 1927.

This book has been previously no­ticed (vol. 10, p. 710) but seems worthy of a second mention for its practical value and some special features. In the main the operations here described are those which have an established position in ophthalmic operative sur­gery. The newer methods of removing the crystalline lens in its capsule, as done by Smith and Barraquer, are fully described, as well as some other recent operations that have found favor in France. Methods of opening the nasal sinuses, lumbar puncture, and the treatment of diseases of the hypophysis are also described.

In certain directions, as the opera­tions on the ocular muscles and the more recent plastic operations done on the lids, there have been important advances in ocular surgery that are not noticed. In these respects the work is not fully up to date. The clearness of the descriptions and the completeness of the illustrations make it a book that the oculist may well study to improve his knowledge of French while he is getting the French point of view regard­ing many operations that he has hereto­fore considered from only his single standpoint. E. J.

Die Mikroscopie des lebenden Auges an der Gullstrandschen Spaltlampe mit Atlas typischer Befunde. Privatdozent Dr. A. Meesmann, Oberarzt der Universitatsaugen-klinik in der Charite, Berlin. Buck­ram cloth, large octavo, 178 pages, 35 illustrations in the text, and 64 color plates with 210 pictures. Berlin and Vienna, Urban and Schwarzenberg, 1927.

The atlas of colored plates, with explanatory text facing each of the 210 pictures, occupies more than half of this volume. The general under­standing of ophthalmoscopy and of the