From these cases we pass on to consider =those in which the lens cannot be seen at all, owing to the occlusion of the pupil=. Here our difficulties are greater still, and, if the history fails us, we must fall back on a careful search for signs of wound scars in the cornea or sclera, or of tears in the iris. A point which is always suggestive is the existence of a cataract in the opposite eye. In such cases as these, the contents of the chamber may be found to consist of pus or of blood. Our next group is a still more difficult one, for in it =no fundus reflex can be obtained=. It embraces a number of conditions which may be shortly dealt with in turn: (1) Those in which the vitreous body has been converted into a more or less highly organised inflammatory exudate, which is impenetrable to the light of the ophthalmoscope. (2) Those in which this vitreous exudate has contracted inflammatory adhesions to the retina, and by its shrinkage has determined the total detachment of that membrane. (3) Those in which the vitreous chamber has become filled with blood. It is obvious that in all such cases our main dependence must be upon the history, though the other indications already outlined may help us in some of them. Lastly there are the cases =in which the eye is undergoing shrinkage=, and those in which =phthisis bulbi= is following panophthalmitis. The history of the signs and symptoms of severe iridocyclitis or of suppuration will, in India at least, always excite a suspicion of couching having been performed, unless the patient has a definite story to tell of some other form of injury. Strangely enough, the inventive faculty of the Indian patient does not rise to the height of vamping a narrative of the kind. If he has had an injury, he tells of it readily. If he has been couched, he stolidly denies that anything occurred to cause his trouble, which he states “simply came of itself.”