196 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



" for a highly finished painting . . . such a method 

 of fixing positions cannot be employed, the pencilled 

 'squares' on the paper are difficult to erase, and 

 you can never permit any ' rubbing out ' on paper 

 designed for tender drawing and delicate colouring." 

 No doubt true ; but neither Mr. Suffolk nor Mr. 

 Draper seem to be acquainted with the ' ' Sectional 

 Papers " of Messrs. Letts, Limited, London Bridge. 

 These papers are ready ruled in very faint squares of 

 • ' ' 11311111537 anc i one inch. 



and although for "fine art" drawings, the lines 

 might be objectionable, for scientific purposes they 

 would be advantageous, if each square were arranged 

 to represent ^ or ^ of an inch. Tracing-paper 

 ruled in the same way may be had, and by placing it 

 over a finished drawing, the latter can be copied on 

 sectional paper, without disfiguring the original. In 

 May, on page 98, Mr. Draper says : "Favourite sub- 

 jects are the various parts of insects. How best to 

 see them ? Certainly not distorted between flattened 

 glasses." There is an article on this subject (entitled 

 " Unpressed Mounting for the Microscope ") in the 

 Journal of the Postal Microscopical Society, for 

 September 1882. (is. ; W. P. Collins, pub.) In 

 April 1882, page 89, T. R. J. makes an astounding 

 assertion : " An object drawn by means of a camera 

 or tinted reflector at ten inches from the eye-piece, 

 would be twice as large as if drawn at five inches, 

 but both pictures would represent the same magnify- 

 ing power." I do not see how this can be true in 

 any sense of the words "magnifying power," 

 evidently not in the sense of mere amplification, and 

 certainly not as regards the amount of detail observ- 

 able. 



The object as seen at ten inches will be as truly 

 magnified as if it had been examined with an objec- 

 tive of higher power at five inches, although the light 

 may not be so good. 



T. R. J. is quite right in saying that, as usually 

 understood among microscopists, a drawing of an 

 object said to be magnified 500 diameters, should 

 represent the details of structure visible under the 

 microscope to the draftsman. If one of the statues 

 of the apostles, which I have seen at St. Peter's, at 

 Rome, and which is 16 feet in height, shows no 

 details of structure that would not be visible in a 

 man 5 feet 4 inches high, no microscopist, in his 

 senses, would maintain that it was a correct represen- 

 tation of a man, magnified 3 diameters. Magnified 

 representations of objects would be of very little use 

 if they meant absolutely nothing more than an en- 

 larged diagram of what was visible to the naked eye. 

 I am sure that if Mr. E. Holmes (see page 114) had 

 a drawing of a flea said to be magnified 500 diameters, 

 in which nothing was delineated except what was 

 visible to the naked eye, he would consider that Dr. 

 Carpenter, or whoever the author of the book might 

 be, was misleading him. 

 Tapton Elms, Sheffield. 



NOTES ON FASCIATED STEMS. 

 By H. W. Kidd. 



AS not a few of these curious malformed stems 

 have come under my notice from time to time, 

 I think some remarks thereon may not be unacceptable 

 to your readers. Through the kindness of my friend 

 Mr A. H. Swinton, I am enabled to forward you 

 sketches of some examples. With regard to the term 

 " fasciated," I think there is no doubt that this term 

 was originally and correctly applied to these stems in 

 its radical sense, of a long narrow strip of cloth or 

 bandage, and that Dr. M. C. Cooke correctly defines 

 them as stems flattened out. From the Latin noun 

 fascia, we get fasciatum 'in bundles,' that is, bound by 

 a fascia. It unfortunately happens that these stems 

 have at first sight very much the appearance of being 

 formed by the union of several shoots. In Ogilvie's 

 Comprehensive Dictionary, " fasciated" is said to be 

 in botany applied to certain flattened stems of trees 

 which appear to be formed by the union of several. 

 The word "appear" must be taken for what it is 

 worth. Even if these stems were formed by the con- 

 fluence of shoots, "bundle" would not be a happy 

 designation ; one would scarcely describe a Pandean 

 pipe as a bundle of reeds, seeing all the reeds are on 

 the same plane. That these stems are one stem 

 flattened is perfectly clear, there being only one pith 

 which is always pressed nearly flat ; this has been 

 pointed out by Herr professor Makowsky, in a paper 

 published in Germany, of which a friend has kindly 

 furnished me with a translation.* Only a few months 

 since I found a dandelion with a flattened stem, 

 crowned by two distinct flower-heads, but the stem 

 was a single flattened tube, and not two connate 

 stems, as I at first supposed. Moreover I have 

 before me a drawing of a daisy, brought me by a 

 friend in April 1866 which has four confluent disks 

 and a flattened stem, but whether this stem was four 

 stems united I cannot tell. Judging from the dande- 

 lion, I should rather think it was not ; I do not know 

 of a single case of two or more shoots being produced 

 in confluence, although there seems no possible 

 reason why this might not happen, seeing that what 

 are commonly called " double fruits " are by no means 

 rare. Of course woody stems sometimes become 

 confluent, simply because there is not room for their 

 annual increase ; this may be often seen in the 

 common ivy. When smaller flattened shoots are 

 produced from the coxcomb end of these fasciated 

 stems, I believe they are always on the same plane as 

 Herr Makowsky observes, as in the holly, in fig. 119, 

 a ; at least I believe this to be the case, although the 

 stems have somewhat twisted in drying. I have a 

 sketch of a flattened holly stem, made in 1S66, which 

 seems to be the first stage of fig. 1 19 a ; the blade being 



* Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brunn, 

 III. Band 1864, S. 19. 



