This behavior is called _double refraction_. It may be used to distinguish those stones which are doubly refracting from those which are not. For example, in the case of a stone which is doubly refracting to a strong degree, such as a peridot (the lighter yellowish-green chrysolite is the same material and behaves similarly toward light), the separation of the light is so marked that the edges of the rear facets, as seen through the table, appear _double_ when viewed through a lens. A zircon will also similarly separate light and its rear facets also appear double-lined as seen with a lens from the table of the stone. The rarer stones, sphene and epidote, likewise exhibit this property markedly. Some colorless zircons, when well cut, so closely resemble diamonds that even an expert might be deceived, if caught off his guard, but this simple test of looking for the doubled lines at the back of the stone would alone serve to distinguish the two stones. [Illustration: FIG. 2.] A SIMPLE BUT VERY VALUABLE TEST FOR THE KIND OF REFRACTION OF A CUT STONE. In the case of most of the other doubly refracting stones the degree of separation is much less than in peridot and zircon, and it takes a well-trained and careful eye to detect the doubling of the lines. Here a very simple device will serve to assist the eye in determining whether a cut stone is singly or doubly refracting. Expose the stone to direct sunlight and hold an opaque white card a few inches from the stone, in the direction of the sun, so as to get the bright reflections _from within the stone_ reflected onto the card. If the material is singly refractive (as in the case of diamond, garnet, spinel, and glass), _single images_ of each of the reflecting facets will appear on the card, but if doubly refracting--even if slightly so--_double images_ will appear. When the stone is slightly moved, these pairs of reflections will travel _together as pairs_ and not tend to separate. The space between the two members of each pair of reflections serves to give a rough idea of the degree of the double refraction of the material if compared with the space between members in the case of some other kind of stone held at the same distance from the card. Thus zircon separates the reflections widely. Aquamarine, which is feebly doubly refracting, separates them but slightly. It will be seen at once that we have here a very easily applied test and one that requires no costly apparatus. It is, furthermore, a sure test, after a little practice. For example, if one has something that looks like a fine emerald, but that may be glass, all one need to do is to expose it in the sun, as above indicated. If real emerald, double images will be had (very close together, because emerald is but feebly doubly refracting). If glass, the images on the card will be single.