Mkwild4.txt "Visual Refractive Errors of Wild and Laboratory Monkeys" Francis A. Young Ph.D. Pullman, Washington. E.E.N.T. Digest, Volume 27, Pages 55-71 August, 1965 Measurements: 1. Wild Monkeys (The control group) N = 286 eyes (of wild monkeys) had their refractive state measured. The refractive state (average) was +0.68. The standard deviation was 0.73 diopters. These wild rhesus monkeys were in captivity less than 10 weeks with the average being 6 weeks. =================================== In order to understand the nature of "man" living in the open (which is very rare today) we must sample from a large population of natural eyes in the wild. To get the true refractive profile, it is necessary to use the primate eye. For sake of SLIGHT simplification of this Rhesus living it the wild, let us choose: Mean or average = 0.7 diopters Standard Deviation = 0.7 diopters. What does this mean? If you drew this from 10,000 monkeys in the wild, this would be their distribution of young, adolescent primates (and man - if he lived in the "wild"). Let us call this new picture of the living eye as a "dynamic eye" paradigm. These measurements were made by "classic" induced paralysis, and measurement with a retinascope. Considered to be the exclusive OBJECTIVE, or accepted measurement. From standard statistics, then, 68 percent of the monkey's refractive states will fall between zero and +1.4 diopters. 96 percent will fall between -0.7 to +2.1 diopters. But let us be clear. 1. An eye paralyzed with atropine or cyclogel, can have 20/20 on the Snellen. 2. A NORMAL difference in refractive STATE between the two eyes can be from +1/2 to +3/4 diopters. You will "see" with the better of two eyes. Thus, we can say that 95.5 percent of all individuals living IN THE OPEN, will have vision that will pass almost all DMV tests. That must be the starting point -- for evaluating the natural eye's ability to change its refractive STATE when placed in a "confined" environment. Currently Hong Kong high school students are 85 percent myopic. This can be an a natural process. When the ability of the eye to adapt its refractive state to a "nearer" environment, the verification exceeds a "Z" of 3.9, where anything above is virtual certainty -- that the living eye is dynamic system, and not the ray-trace Donders-Helmholtz "picture" of the eye. It is hard to escape the reality that we are dealing with a natural eye behaving as you would expect a well-designed auto-focused camera to behave. But then, we must not denigrate the behavior of the natural eye because it can have a positive refractive STATE, as well as a negative refractive STATE -- as a natural and essential process of its design. That is the source of the concept of the SCIENTIFIC second-opinion. Best, Otis