The statements are contradictory.  But there is no doubt as to which is the wrong one—­it is the first.  What these authors have called ‘distance between the bands’ has here been shown to be itself a band.  Now, no point about this illusion can be more readily observed than that the widths of both kinds of band vary directly with the speed of the rod, inversely, however (as Jastrow and Moorehouse have noted), with the speed of the disc.

Perhaps least satisfactory of all is their statement (ibid., p. 206) that “A brief acquaintance with the illusion sufficed to convince us that its appearance was due to contrast of some form, though the precise nature of this contrast is the most difficult point of all.”  The present discussion undertakes to explain with considerable minuteness every factor of the illusion, yet the writer does not see how in any essential sense contrast could be said to be involved.

With the other observations of these authors, as that the general effect of an increase in the width of the interrupting rod was to render the illusion less distinct and the bands wider, etc., the observations of the present writer fully coincide.  These will systematically be given later, and we may now drop the discussion of this paper.

The only other mention to be found of these resolution-bands is one by Sanford,[2] who says, apparently merely reiterating the results of Jastrow and Moorehouse, that the illusion is probably produced by the sudden appearance, by contrast, of the rod as the lighter sector passes behind it, and by its relative disappearance as the dark sector comes behind.  He thus compares the appearance of several rods to the appearance of several dots in intermittent illumination of the strobic wheel.  If this were the correct explanation, the bands could not be seen when both sectors were equal in luminosity; for if both were dark, the rod could never appear, and if both were light, it could never disappear.  The bands can, however, be seen, as was stated above, when both the sectors are light or both are dark.  Furthermore, this explanation would make the bands to be of the same color as the rod.  But they are of other colors.  Therefore Sanford’s explanation cannot be admitted.

   [2] Sanford, E.C.:  ‘A Course in Experimental Psychology,’
   Boston, 1898, Part I., p. 167.

And finally, the suggestions toward explanation, whether of Sanford, or of Jastrow and Moorehouse, are once for all disproved by the observation that if the moving rod is fairly broad (say three quarters of an inch) and moves slowly, the bands are seen nowhere so well as on the rod itself.  One sees the rod vaguely through the bands, as could scarcely happen if the bands were images of the rod, or contrast-effects of the rod against the sectors.

The case when the rod is broad and moves slowly is to be accounted a special case.  The following observations, up to No. 8, were made with a narrow rod about five degrees in width (narrower will do), moved by a metronome at less than sixty beats per minute.