Those cases deserve particular mention, in which it remained doubtful whether hypermetropia of slight degree or emmetropia was present. Even in full visual acuteness it is not unusual that with weak convex glasses (of less than a dioptre) binocular vision is just as clear as with the naked eyes, while in monocular investigation convex glasses cause a slight indistinctness of vision. Are we to recognise hypermetropia here or not? Opposed to the objection that in covering one eye the hypermetropia is more easily neutralised by accommodation, stands the observation that binocular is, as a rule, clearer than monocular vision, wherefore, in the usual method for testing the sight, unless special precautions are taken, full binocular visual acuteness does not prove the presence of absolutely distinct retinal images. These doubts arise much oftener in lowered visual acuteness. All conclusions which we derive from visual acuteness become very inexact as soon as it is lowered. In such cases, in determining anomalies of refraction we are accustomed to consider the strongest convex--relatively, the weakest concave glass, with which the visual acuteness individually present is reached, as the most correct expression of the hypermetropia or myopia, and with good reason if it is a case of ordering spectacles, as all sources of error in the method of examination are then avoided as far as possible; but it is quite another question if in such cases an exact measurement of the amount of error is required solely for diagnostic purposes; investigation with the ophthalmoscope is then alone decisive and furnishes proof at the same time of how unreliable the determination of the error by testing the vision is, in cases of short sight. One can realise this most readily in cases of myopia with congenital amblyopia; one gets frequently with the most exact correction possible of the objectively determined myopia no better visual acuteness than with a very imperfect one. In one case, for instance, which I have repeatedly examined in the course of years, the degree of myopia determinable by means of the ophthalmoscope amounted to at least 6·5 D., while the weakest concave glass with which the full visual acuteness of 5/24 was attainable was 2·5 D. Under these circumstances, if one relies merely on the trial of vision, the degree of myopia appears too small, that of the hypermetropia, on the contrary, just as much too great. But even the ophthalmoscopic diagnosis of refraction has its limits of error. It is a question of determining the conditions under which the image of the fundus of the eye still appears distinct. We will except those circumstances which prevent our obtaining a clear erect image of the fundus of the eye, as, for example, high degrees of astigmatism, nebulæ, &c.--even under normal circumstances the fundus of the eye does not always present such sharply-defined lines, that one could form a perfectly safe opinion from the clearness of the image.