- Email: [email protected]
History of Ophthalmology in Spain
164
ERRATUM
Diagnostic significance of traumatic in carceration of the iris A recent issue of this Journal (v. 15, no. 8, p. 685) contained an exceedingly instructive paper by Dr. Verhoeff on penetration of the eye by foreign bodies. In the course of his interesting and com prehensive presentment, this author noted the fact that incarceration of the iris in a penetrating corneal wound, and especially if there were a prolapse through it, was almost proof positive that there was no foreign body retained in the eye. It was an "astute observer," he adds, who first called attention to this diagnostic and practically impor tant sign. I remember that this point was one of the first impressed upon me by my teacher and chief, the late Dr. Emil Gruening, many, many years ago when I was writing, with him, the arti cle on Injuries of the Eye which ap peared under his name in the Norris and Oliver "System." It was my first contribution to ophthalmological litera ture and when our work was published without mention of my name, I felt ag grieved. But that is, as Kipling says, another story. Dr. Gruening used to tell, very dramatically, how on the occasion of an early visit to "Moorfields"—it must have been in the early eighties as this was before I began the practice of medicine—he had saved an eye from be ing enucleated immediately after in jury by penetrating wound, on the strength of iris prolapse, alone ; and that his judgment has been confirmed by the subsequent course. As I wrote Dr. Ver hoeff, I do not know whether Gruening was the astute observer he had in mind, but he was certainly one of them and maybe the earliest. Dr. Verhoeff wrote back : " I regret very much that I cannot recall who the 'acute observer' was but I feel sure that he was an American. Possibly he was not original in his ob servation. It might be interesting for you to send a note about the matter to be published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology." Hence these lines. New York City
Percy Fridenberg.
History of Ophthalmology in Spain While correcting proof of my corre spondence "Notes on history of oph thalmology in Spain", I inserted the name of Dr. M. Menacho, the editor of •the Archivos, after "Mejia", but it was unfortunately left out when the article appeared in print. I thought nothing of the matter, but I have just received from Dr. Menacho, without further comment, his visiting card which reads : "Director y Redactor Jefe de Archivos de Oftalmologia Hispano Americanos Fundador de la Sdad. Oftalmologica Hisp. Amer." I had intended by my correction in the proof to repair my original over sight. Dr. Menacho's reaction is of course justified, and I would like to undo this sin of omission. Please insert in the next issue the following correc tion: "I regret that an unfortunate omis sion occurred in my correspondence 'Notes on history of ophthalmology in Spain', when referring to the establish-. ment of the 'Sociedad Hispano-Americana de Oftalmologia', the official name of which is 'Sociedad Oftalmologica Hispano-Americana'. Mention should have been made of its founder, Doctor M. Menacho of Barcelona, who, to gether with Dr. J. Santos-Fernandez, also founded the Archivos de Oftal mologia Hispano-Americanos in 1901, and who is now the director and editorin-chief of the Archivos." M. Davidson. New York City ERRATUM Through an error in printing the frontispiece in the January number of the Journal, after the editor had checked the proof of this plate in which the il lustrations were in correct position, the lower cut was reversed and placed up side down. W e deeply regret the mis take which was so obvious that we think that the text could be interpreted in the reversed representation.
ERRATUM
Diagnostic significance of traumatic in carceration of the iris A recent issue of this Journal (v. 15, no. 8, p. 685) contained an exceedingly instructive paper by Dr. Verhoeff on penetration of the eye by foreign bodies. In the course of his interesting and com prehensive presentment, this author noted the fact that incarceration of the iris in a penetrating corneal wound, and especially if there were a prolapse through it, was almost proof positive that there was no foreign body retained in the eye. It was an "astute observer," he adds, who first called attention to this diagnostic and practically impor tant sign. I remember that this point was one of the first impressed upon me by my teacher and chief, the late Dr. Emil Gruening, many, many years ago when I was writing, with him, the arti cle on Injuries of the Eye which ap peared under his name in the Norris and Oliver "System." It was my first contribution to ophthalmological litera ture and when our work was published without mention of my name, I felt ag grieved. But that is, as Kipling says, another story. Dr. Gruening used to tell, very dramatically, how on the occasion of an early visit to "Moorfields"—it must have been in the early eighties as this was before I began the practice of medicine—he had saved an eye from be ing enucleated immediately after in jury by penetrating wound, on the strength of iris prolapse, alone ; and that his judgment has been confirmed by the subsequent course. As I wrote Dr. Ver hoeff, I do not know whether Gruening was the astute observer he had in mind, but he was certainly one of them and maybe the earliest. Dr. Verhoeff wrote back : " I regret very much that I cannot recall who the 'acute observer' was but I feel sure that he was an American. Possibly he was not original in his ob servation. It might be interesting for you to send a note about the matter to be published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology." Hence these lines. New York City
Percy Fridenberg.
History of Ophthalmology in Spain While correcting proof of my corre spondence "Notes on history of oph thalmology in Spain", I inserted the name of Dr. M. Menacho, the editor of •the Archivos, after "Mejia", but it was unfortunately left out when the article appeared in print. I thought nothing of the matter, but I have just received from Dr. Menacho, without further comment, his visiting card which reads : "Director y Redactor Jefe de Archivos de Oftalmologia Hispano Americanos Fundador de la Sdad. Oftalmologica Hisp. Amer." I had intended by my correction in the proof to repair my original over sight. Dr. Menacho's reaction is of course justified, and I would like to undo this sin of omission. Please insert in the next issue the following correc tion: "I regret that an unfortunate omis sion occurred in my correspondence 'Notes on history of ophthalmology in Spain', when referring to the establish-. ment of the 'Sociedad Hispano-Americana de Oftalmologia', the official name of which is 'Sociedad Oftalmologica Hispano-Americana'. Mention should have been made of its founder, Doctor M. Menacho of Barcelona, who, to gether with Dr. J. Santos-Fernandez, also founded the Archivos de Oftal mologia Hispano-Americanos in 1901, and who is now the director and editorin-chief of the Archivos." M. Davidson. New York City ERRATUM Through an error in printing the frontispiece in the January number of the Journal, after the editor had checked the proof of this plate in which the il lustrations were in correct position, the lower cut was reversed and placed up side down. W e deeply regret the mis take which was so obvious that we think that the text could be interpreted in the reversed representation.