Imperfect dislocation of the lens accounted for failure in 8·94 per cent. of all cases operated on. In such cases the suspensory ligament appeared to have been incompletely torn, with the result that the lens swung, as it were, on a hinge. Sometimes this hinge lies above, and the cataract falls quite out of the line of sight when the patient is recumbent, but flaps back to block the pupil when the erect attitude is assumed. In other cases, even when the hinge is laterally placed, the same thing may happen, but much more rarely. From a clinical point of view, detachment of the retina figures in only 3·53 per cent. of the total cases; but it is unlikely that this represents the true figure. In a number of instances an ophthalmoscopic examination was quite impossible, either because the pupil was blocked, or because no fundus reflex could be obtained. Our pathological material has shown that in many such cases the retina was totally detached, whereas, in arriving at the figure above given, we were dealing only with those instances in which the diagnosis was established by the aid of the ophthalmoscope. Ten of the cases in which failure was ascribed to optic atrophy showed no improvement in vision after operation. Their histories indicate that the atrophic condition was present before operation, and there seems to be a fair presumption that the coucher mistook the condition for cataract, or at least failed to recognise its true nature. In one case acute optic neuritis appears to have supervened as a septic complication of the operation. This throws an interesting light on those pathological specimens in which a cone of exudate is to be seen passing from an inflamed optic nerve to the ciliary body. In six cases there was evidence of choroido-retinitis with secondary optic atrophy. Four of them showed no improvement after operation, whilst two were improved thereby; subsequently even these two lost their vision by the progress of the retinitis. In the four cases the retinitic condition was evidently antecedent to the operation, and was either mistaken for cataract or at least was not recognised. It is impossible to say positively, from the history of the other two, whether it existed prior to operation, but it possibly did. In one case of retinitis pigmentosa, in one of retinitis punctata albescens, and in eleven of glaucoma, the vaidyan appears to have mistaken the condition present for cataract. At least, the vision was not bettered even temporarily by the operation in any of these patients.