2. The “blind spot” is full of fibres of the optic nerve, but is absolutely insensible to light, and is without rods or cones.
3. We can distinguish an image on the fovea, having only 1
6000th of an inch diameter; but on the other parts of the retina the images must have larger dimensions. It is found that the size of the smallest distinguishable images agrees nearly with the diameters of the cones at the respective parts.
To some readers the fact will doubtless be new, that a considerable portion of the eye is quite insensible to light, namely, that portion already designated as the “blind spot.” A simple experiment, made by help of Fig. [238], will prove this. Place the book so that the length of the figure may be parallel to the line joining the eyes, and let the right eye be exactly opposite the white cross, and at a distance from it of about 11 in. If the left eye be now closed, while with the right the cross is steadily viewed so that it is always clear and distinct, the white circle will completely disappear, and the ground will appear of a uniform black colour. In order to insure success, the observer must be careful not to look at the white circle, but at the cross, and some persons find this more difficult than others. The position of the blind spot in the eye has been already mentioned, and its significance in showing the insensibility to light of the fibres of the optic nerve has been pointed out. In the table of the dimensions of some parts of the eye, which, for convenience of reference, is given together below, it will be seen that the diameter of the blind spot is considerable compared with the size of the retina, its greatest diameter being about 8
100 in. The length on the retina of the image of a man at a distance of 6 ft. or 7 ft. is not greater than this, so that in a certain position with regard to the eye a person would, like the white circle, be quite invisible. In like manner, by looking steadily in a certain direction with one eye, the image of the full moon may be made to fall upon the blind spot, and the luminary then becomes invisible, and would be so even if its apparent diameter were eleven times greater; so that if we suppose eleven full moons ranged in a line, the whole would be quite invisible to a person looking towards a certain point of the sky at no great angular distance from them.
The following are the dimensions in English inches of some parts of the eye:
| In. | |
|---|---|
| Diameter of the entrance of the optic nerve | 0·08 |
| Distance of centre of optic nerve from centre of yellow spot | 0·138 |
| Diameter of fovea centralis | 0·008 |
| Diameter of the nerve-cells of the retina | 0·0005 |
| Diameter of the nuclei | 0·00003 |
| Diameter of the rods | 0·00004 |
| Diameter of the cones in yellow spot | 0·00018 |
| Length of rods | 0·0016 |
| Length of cones in yellow spot | 0·0008 |
| Thickness of retina at the back of the eye | 0·0058 |
By means of an instrument to be presently described, the ophthalmoscope, it is possible to view directly the whole surface of the retina, and to observe the inverted images of the objects there depicted. It is thus observed that it is only on the parts near the yellow spot that the images are formed with clear and sharp definition. Away from this the definition is less perfect; and besides the diminished sensitiveness of the retina, this circumstance contributes to the vagueness of the visual picture, although the falling off in clearness of vision at a very little distance from the yellow spot is far more marked than the loss of definition in the image there formed.
Until within the last few years it has been most confidently asserted by many authors that the eye, considered as an optical instrument, is absolutely perfect, and entirely free from certain defects to which artificial instruments are liable. Thus Dr. W. B. Carpenter states, in his “Animal Physiology” (1859): “The eye is much more remarkable for its perfection as an optical instrument than we might be led to suppose from the cursory view we have hitherto taken of its functions; for, by the peculiarities of its construction, certain faults and defects are avoided, to which all ordinary optical instruments are liable.” Among the imperfections which are completely corrected in the eye, he names “spherical aberration” and “chromatic aberration”—both of which give rise to certain defects in optical instruments. But by recent careful investigations it has been conclusively shown that the eye is not free from chromatic aberration; that it has defects analogous to spherical aberration; and that there are, besides, certain optical imperfections in its structure, which are avoided in the artificial instruments. Professor Helmholtz, one of the most distinguished of German mathematicians, physicists, and physiologists, whose great work on “Physiological Optics” is the most complete treatise on the subject which has ever appeared, is so far from considering the eye as possessed of all optical perfections that he remarks that, should an optician send him an instrument having like optical defects, he would feel justified in sending it back. The defects which may be traced in the eye, considered as an optical instrument, do not, however, he admits, detract from the excellence of the eye considered as the organ of vision.
When we find that Sir Isaac Newton pointed out the chromatic aberration of the eye two centuries ago—when we find that D’Alembert, in 1767, proved that the lenses of the eye might have as great a dispersive power as glass without the want of achromatism necessarily becoming noticeable—when we find that the celebrated optician Dolland, the inventor of the achromatic lens, showed that the refractions which take place in the eye all tend to bring the violet rays towards the axis more than the red—when we find that Maskelyne the astronomer, Wollaston the physicist, Fraunhofer the optician, and other scarcely less distinguished men of science, have made actual measurements of the distances of the foci in the human eye for the different rays of the spectrum—when we find how these defects have so long ago been observed, examined, and measured as to their amount—the persistence with which writer after writer has asserted the achromatism of the human eye appears so extraordinary, that it can only be accounted for by the prevalence of the preconceived notion that the eye is absolutely perfect—a notion not without its reason and grounds, in the fact of the exquisite adaptation of the organ of sight to the needs of humanity.
Although the want of achromatism in the eye thus escapes ordinary notice, it is, on the other hand, easy to render it evident by simple experiments. If, for example, we view from a certain distance the solar spectrum projected on a white screen, it will be found that, when we see the red end quite distinctly, the violet end will, at the same time, appear vague and confused, and vice versâ. The author believes that the following very simple experiment will at once convince any person that the fact is as stated. Procure a small piece of blue or violet stained glass, and another piece of red glass, and, having cut out of an opaque screen a rectangular opening, say ½ in. long and ¼ in. wide, place the glasses close to it, so that one-half the opening is covered by the red glass and the other half by the violet glass, the two being placed so that, on looking through the screen, a violet square and a red square are visible. The opaque screen may be made of black paper, cardboard, or tinfoil, and the edges of the opening must be cut perfectly even. On looking through this arrangement, held at a distance of about two feet from the eye, both squares may be seen distinctly by a person of ordinary vision; but, at a distance of five inches from the eye, he will find it impossible to see the squares otherwise than with vague and ill-defined edges. This is because the crystalline lens cannot adapt its curvature so as to bring the rays from the object to a focus on the retina. Now, by trial, the nearest distance at which each of the coloured squares becomes visible may be found, and it will be observed, that the violet square is first sharply defined at a less distance than the red, whereas, if the eye brought the red and violet rays to a focus at the same point, the smallest distance of distinct vision would coincide in both cases.
The reader may observe the same fact for himself, in even a still simpler manner, by turning to Fig. [238], page [461]. When the white circle is viewed by one eye, at a distance of about a foot, and an opaque screen, such as a coin, is held close to the eye, so that the pupil is half covered by it, the one side of the white circle will appear bordered by a narrow fringe of blue, and the other side by a narrow fringe of orange. If the opaque screen be shifted from one side of the pupil to the other, the colours will change places, the orange appearing always on the same side of the white circle as the screen is held before the eye. The same appearances are presented in a still more marked degree when the full moon is made the subject of the experiment.