You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 54 No. 5, November 1955 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLES
 This Article
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Modern Trends in Ophthlamology.

Third Series. Edited by Arnold Sorsby. Price, $12.50. Pp. 346, including index, with 11 illustrations. Paul B. Hoeber, Inc., 49 E. 33d St., New York 16, 1955.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1955;54(5):795.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The third edition of this well-known and useful book suffers from several serious faults. While some of the articles are excellent, others are extremely poor, so that the book is very spotty in caliber; and the editing of several of the manuscripts has evidently been done by someone with no knowledge of the field, so that absurd mistakes have been allowed to appear. That this is the fault of the manuscript editor is attested to by those authors who have been queried by this reviewer, since it seemed obvious that they could not have made such mistakes in their own manuscripts. In Burian and Boeder's article on "Some Newer Aspects of Binocular Vision," for example, the sentence appears as follows: "Attempts to find the distribution of corresponding retinal points by diopter determinations are valueless." The word "horopter" was taken out of their original manuscript and "diopter" substituted, probably because the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1955 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.