Any strong feeling or emotion (which of course is perceived and interpreted by the brain cortex) will cause a dilatation of the pupil of the eye. The cervical sympathetic being cut, dilatation does not take place. The rami of the cervical, first and second dorsal cut, the phenomenon stops. It is evident the ciliospinal center is under the influence of a center or centers in the brain. Bing says “There is even an idiomotor mydriasis, which may be brought about by a very vivid mental conception of darkness.” It has been noted that paralyzing lesions of the cervical sympathetic, of the last cervical and two upper dorsal segments of the cord, and of the anterior roots and rami communicantes of the same, will result in myosis. The efferent rami are also vasomotor, secretory and trophic. It must necessarily follow that congestive and inflammatory conditions, secretory perversion of the lachrymal, Meibomian, Zeissian and perspiratory glands, and disturbance of the normal nutrition of any of the orbital tissues may result from lesions of the lower cervical and upper dorsal vertebræ. Osteopathically we know that such a lesion may not be sufficient to be paralytic in its effect, but stimulatory. In this case we may note a pupil habitually too wide and more or less photophobia from a superabundance of light. The unstriped muscle fibers in the levator palpebræ superioris may be unduly contracted making an appearance of a slightly bulging eyeball when it is only a wide open eye. One who has eye strain from a refractive error, overuse of the eyes, or unbalanced muscles will as a rule have tenderness at some spot in the region of the =ciliospinal= center. A mechanical lesion at that part of the spine may or may not exist in such conditions, but I believe the soreness is there every time. This is one of the diagnostic points in differentiating =headache= of eye strain from other conditions. White rami are only in the dorsal region and to the second lumbar and from the second, third and fourth sacral. It has been noted that lesions of the cervical vertebræ do not have as profound an effect upon the eyes as do lesions of the first three dorsal vertebræ. The plausible explanation of that is that the cervical vertebræ have no white rami from their corresponding nerves in the bulbo-spino-sympathetic-ciliary arc as have the upper dorsal. From all the foregoing statements one can readily contemplate the intricate complexity of our osteopathic problems in relation to the eye. Combine this logic of the lesions outlined and the ramifications of the structures with their normal and perverted functions and combine it with contributing causes, such as infection, exposure, irritants, etc., and amidst the great diversity we reduce much miscellaneous, unclassified material to a degree of simplicity. Many otherwise unexplainable conditions become reasonably clear. Dr. Louisa Burns under “The Experimental Demonstration of Osteopathic Centers” has this to say: