- Email: [email protected]
Au Revoir, Katherine Chalkley
VOL. 65, NO. 2
EDITORIALS
259
pages have flowed across her desk in her charming hillside farm house near Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. She has been the teacher who has led hundreds of ophthalmologists through the labor of their first publication and has worked valiantly that their printed words reflect what they mean to say. Mrs. Chalkley has been manuscript editor during a period of vigorous growth and ex pansion of T H E JOURNAL. In addition to the some 260 regular issues that she helped prepare for publication, she was responsible for the manuscript work on some 25 special supplements and for the preparation of the Ten-Year Index in 1952 and 1962. While readers are seldom aware of the activities of the manuscript editor, each con tributor recognizes the handiwork in the transposition from typescript to printed page, although often without realizing that his was not the sole paper in a particular issue. But the editor of a periodical is con stantly aware of the tremendous amount of detail involved in preparing some 400 manu script pages for publication each month. With Derrick Vail's inspired leadership and, more recently, with my own more homely editorial direction, Mrs. Chalkley has been a tower of strength, constantly reliable and hardwork ing. T H E JOURNAL will miss her, particu larly those who have worked day by day in AU REVOIR, its preparation. KATHERINE CHALKLEY Fortunately, Mrs. Chalkley does not want After twenty-two years as manuscript edi to be cut off too abruptly from all editorial tor of T H E JOURNAL, Katherine Ferguson work. She will continue as a consultant to Chalkley retired as of January 31, 1968. She Mrs. Mary Conn, the new manuscript edi began her duties with T H E JOURNAL in 1946 tor, and also she will be available to authors when Emma Buss was manuscript editor of articles and books who wish the services and then was suddenly plunged into the full that only a skilled manuscript editor can pro responsibility with the sudden death of Miss vide. And the name will not be lost from the Buss. Since then she has carried out the Editorial Board of T H E JOURNAL, for her functions not only of a manuscript editor, son, Thomas F. Chalkley, will continue as but also copy editor, make-up man, indexer editor for News Items and the Meetings, and editorial correspondent. In fact, for more Conferences, Symposia section. than two decades, every article appearing The entire Editorial Board and our con in T H E JOURNAL has borne her stamp, and tributors bid a fond au revoir to Mrs. Chalk literally tens of thousands of manuscript ley with a deep sense of loss and indebted-
in the whole world. From that time on the task of the editing of this fine JOURNAL became easier and easier for me. Her remarkable command of En glish, her acute grasp of ophthalmology, her meticulous regard for detailed accuracy, her devotion to the welfare of all the contribu tors, particularly the younger ones; all of these and many other remarkable qualities that she possesses are entirely responsible for the success that accrued during the happy years of my tenure. For these were "fun" years for me because of her. In rare mo ments of crisis she was always there at hand and her advice was always sound and ever helpful. All of these crises were satisfac torily resolved with deceptive ease because of her. Without her at my right hand, I would not have lasted very long as editor; that I know. Present and would-be contributors to oph thalmic literature are fortunate to learn that, in her retirement, she is still competent and available to assist them in the preparation of their manuscripts. I share with Editor Newell and all of our loyal readers and contributors, best wishes for many happy years in her retirement, and our heartfelt thanks for the arduous job she did so very well for all of us. Derrick Vail
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
260
ness. We all thank her for her loyalty, in telligence, and incredible industry. Frank W. Newell
CORRESPONDENCE INFLUENCE OF CONTACT LENSES ON ACCOMMODATION: THEORETIC CONSIDERATIONS AND CLINICAL STUDY
Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology: In their study on the influence of contact lenses on accommodation (Am. J. Ophth. 64:860, 1967), D. M. Robertson and asso ciates found some discrepancy between the empirically found accommodative need and their theoretically calculated one. One might thus perhaps be justified in taking a differ ent approach in an attempt to explain the lower accommodative effort of myopes cor rected with spectacles. Accommodation is a rather complex event involving such variable parameters as spatial orientation1 or lens aperture (accommoda tive miosis). Basically it denotes in man a change in the refraction of the lens (L in Figure 1). When in focus, refracted rays from the anterior surface of the eye strike the lens at a certain angle to meet on the retina. The greater the deviation of incident rays from this angle the greater will be the
K > /
Fig. 1 (Mark). Angles of incidence on the accommodating planes.
FEBRUARY, 1968
accommodative effort to refocus on the retina. As the distance before the eye changes (from A to B) so does the angle of inci dence on the accommodating plane ( L ) . For equal distances in front of the eye (A, B) this change in the angle of incidence on the lens is least for myopes corrected with spec tacles (alpha greater than beta). In other words, whereas the linear distance from A to B remains constant, the angular distance varies with the optical system. It varies least in myopes corrected with spectacles, and hence they need the least effort of accommodation. Harry H. Mark, M.D. New Haven, Connecticut REFERENCE
1. Mark, H. H.: On the accuracy of accommo dation, Brit. J. Ophth. 46:742, 1962. * * * * DR. ROBERTSON'S REPLY
Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology: Thank you for the opportunity of reply ing to Dr. Mark's interesting comments. Dr. Mark's approach is essentially an attempt to illustrate the difference in the vergence of light rays incident to a myopic eye and an emmetropic eye when each are accommodating the same near-object. One must be cautioned, however, not to over simplify the accommodative requirements of an eye by considering the change in the angle of incident light without considering the change in vergence. For example, in Dr. Mark's illustrations, though angle a is greater than angle fi, the change in vergence per unit angle is much greater in the second illustra tion (represented by angle $) than it is in the first illustration (represented by angle a). In other words, a small change in the angle (S represents a greater vergence change (therefore, a greater change in accommoda tive requirement) than does a similar change in angle a. The important fact that the practitioner
EDITORIALS
259
pages have flowed across her desk in her charming hillside farm house near Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. She has been the teacher who has led hundreds of ophthalmologists through the labor of their first publication and has worked valiantly that their printed words reflect what they mean to say. Mrs. Chalkley has been manuscript editor during a period of vigorous growth and ex pansion of T H E JOURNAL. In addition to the some 260 regular issues that she helped prepare for publication, she was responsible for the manuscript work on some 25 special supplements and for the preparation of the Ten-Year Index in 1952 and 1962. While readers are seldom aware of the activities of the manuscript editor, each con tributor recognizes the handiwork in the transposition from typescript to printed page, although often without realizing that his was not the sole paper in a particular issue. But the editor of a periodical is con stantly aware of the tremendous amount of detail involved in preparing some 400 manu script pages for publication each month. With Derrick Vail's inspired leadership and, more recently, with my own more homely editorial direction, Mrs. Chalkley has been a tower of strength, constantly reliable and hardwork ing. T H E JOURNAL will miss her, particu larly those who have worked day by day in AU REVOIR, its preparation. KATHERINE CHALKLEY Fortunately, Mrs. Chalkley does not want After twenty-two years as manuscript edi to be cut off too abruptly from all editorial tor of T H E JOURNAL, Katherine Ferguson work. She will continue as a consultant to Chalkley retired as of January 31, 1968. She Mrs. Mary Conn, the new manuscript edi began her duties with T H E JOURNAL in 1946 tor, and also she will be available to authors when Emma Buss was manuscript editor of articles and books who wish the services and then was suddenly plunged into the full that only a skilled manuscript editor can pro responsibility with the sudden death of Miss vide. And the name will not be lost from the Buss. Since then she has carried out the Editorial Board of T H E JOURNAL, for her functions not only of a manuscript editor, son, Thomas F. Chalkley, will continue as but also copy editor, make-up man, indexer editor for News Items and the Meetings, and editorial correspondent. In fact, for more Conferences, Symposia section. than two decades, every article appearing The entire Editorial Board and our con in T H E JOURNAL has borne her stamp, and tributors bid a fond au revoir to Mrs. Chalk literally tens of thousands of manuscript ley with a deep sense of loss and indebted-
in the whole world. From that time on the task of the editing of this fine JOURNAL became easier and easier for me. Her remarkable command of En glish, her acute grasp of ophthalmology, her meticulous regard for detailed accuracy, her devotion to the welfare of all the contribu tors, particularly the younger ones; all of these and many other remarkable qualities that she possesses are entirely responsible for the success that accrued during the happy years of my tenure. For these were "fun" years for me because of her. In rare mo ments of crisis she was always there at hand and her advice was always sound and ever helpful. All of these crises were satisfac torily resolved with deceptive ease because of her. Without her at my right hand, I would not have lasted very long as editor; that I know. Present and would-be contributors to oph thalmic literature are fortunate to learn that, in her retirement, she is still competent and available to assist them in the preparation of their manuscripts. I share with Editor Newell and all of our loyal readers and contributors, best wishes for many happy years in her retirement, and our heartfelt thanks for the arduous job she did so very well for all of us. Derrick Vail
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
260
ness. We all thank her for her loyalty, in telligence, and incredible industry. Frank W. Newell
CORRESPONDENCE INFLUENCE OF CONTACT LENSES ON ACCOMMODATION: THEORETIC CONSIDERATIONS AND CLINICAL STUDY
Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology: In their study on the influence of contact lenses on accommodation (Am. J. Ophth. 64:860, 1967), D. M. Robertson and asso ciates found some discrepancy between the empirically found accommodative need and their theoretically calculated one. One might thus perhaps be justified in taking a differ ent approach in an attempt to explain the lower accommodative effort of myopes cor rected with spectacles. Accommodation is a rather complex event involving such variable parameters as spatial orientation1 or lens aperture (accommoda tive miosis). Basically it denotes in man a change in the refraction of the lens (L in Figure 1). When in focus, refracted rays from the anterior surface of the eye strike the lens at a certain angle to meet on the retina. The greater the deviation of incident rays from this angle the greater will be the
K > /
Fig. 1 (Mark). Angles of incidence on the accommodating planes.
FEBRUARY, 1968
accommodative effort to refocus on the retina. As the distance before the eye changes (from A to B) so does the angle of inci dence on the accommodating plane ( L ) . For equal distances in front of the eye (A, B) this change in the angle of incidence on the lens is least for myopes corrected with spec tacles (alpha greater than beta). In other words, whereas the linear distance from A to B remains constant, the angular distance varies with the optical system. It varies least in myopes corrected with spectacles, and hence they need the least effort of accommodation. Harry H. Mark, M.D. New Haven, Connecticut REFERENCE
1. Mark, H. H.: On the accuracy of accommo dation, Brit. J. Ophth. 46:742, 1962. * * * * DR. ROBERTSON'S REPLY
Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology: Thank you for the opportunity of reply ing to Dr. Mark's interesting comments. Dr. Mark's approach is essentially an attempt to illustrate the difference in the vergence of light rays incident to a myopic eye and an emmetropic eye when each are accommodating the same near-object. One must be cautioned, however, not to over simplify the accommodative requirements of an eye by considering the change in the angle of incident light without considering the change in vergence. For example, in Dr. Mark's illustrations, though angle a is greater than angle fi, the change in vergence per unit angle is much greater in the second illustra tion (represented by angle $) than it is in the first illustration (represented by angle a). In other words, a small change in the angle (S represents a greater vergence change (therefore, a greater change in accommoda tive requirement) than does a similar change in angle a. The important fact that the practitioner