[Skip to Navigation]
July 1932


Arch Ophthalmol. 1932;8(1):120-121. doi:10.1001/archopht.1932.00820140130014

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor.—May I express my thanks to Dr. Linn Emerson (Arch. Ophth.7:954 [June] 1932) for calling my attention to his article in the Medical Digest of October, 1904, and for the copy of the tabulated results? I am indeed sorry that I did not find any reference to it, though I went back as far as 1880 in my search through the literature.

I am sorry that I could not tabulate the individual findings in the 1,260 eyes, as they would reveal the comparison much more vividly. It would have made my article (Arch. Ophth7: 294 [Feb.] 1932) much longer than the editors would care to publish.

First, in reply to Dr. Emerson's criticism of the homatropine procedure, allow me to say : We have been using fresh solutions (never over ten days old) of Merck's homatropine hydrobromide (2 per cent). I have tried it

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Add or change institution