tf«w 



r s^ 



r $r 



REGREATIONS^M IGROSGOPE 



POPULAR MICROSCOPY. 



BY FRANCIS ROLT-WHEELER, PH.D., NEW 

 YORK CITY. 



[PART OE A LECTURE.] 



Microscopy is primarily an art, not a 

 science. Only because of its general use- 

 fulness to certain of the sciences, no- 

 tably biology and petrology has it been 

 mistakenly placed in the scientific class. 

 It is as absured to call microscopy a 

 science as to call normal vision a 

 science, for, in very truth, the entire 

 purpose of microscopy is to extend the 

 range of normal vision. There is no 

 more a science of looking at diatoms 

 than there is a science of looking at 

 elephants. Many thousand persons 

 visit a Zoological Park on Sunday and 

 holidays in any of our large cities, but 

 their visit does not make them zoolo- 

 gists : it makes them, to coin a word, 

 — macroscopists. — Many thousand per- 

 sons may look at a diatom, but that 

 does not make them botanists ; it makes 

 them microscopists, because a diatom 

 cannot be seen without a microscope. 

 My first point, then, is that there is no 

 science of microscopy. 



As this is a somewhat sweeping 

 statement, I hasten to answer possible 

 objections. Most authorities on micros- 

 copy, when setting forth their art, de- 

 vote more or less time to the question 

 of the principles of microscopic illumi- 

 nation and magnification. This is not 

 microscopy. It is no more microscopy 

 than would be a dessertation on glass- 

 making or the alloys composing a brass 

 tube. The principles of microscopic 

 magnification appertain to the Science 

 of Optics. One might as well declare 

 that the arrangement of lenses in a 

 telescope was a part of the science of 

 astronomy. I might point out, more- 

 over, that telescopic observation of the 

 sky, per se, is not astronomy. 



In answer to my denial that micro- 

 scopy is a science, it may be advanced 

 that such matters as the proper prepa- 



ration and mounting of microscopic 

 specimens requires experience, deft- 

 ness and technical skill. This is true. 

 So do ivory carving, filigree work, min- 

 ature painting and lace pillow making, 

 but these are not sciences. It may be 

 suggested that a knowledge of chemis- 

 try is necessary to understand such 

 matters as dehydration and staining, 

 and especially such complicated pro- 

 cesses as fixing of Actinozoa and Hy- 

 drozoa with polypi extended. I reply 

 that chemical knowledge is equally 

 necessary for the manufacture of chew- 

 ing gum or toilet soap, but one cannot 

 consider such manufacturers as scien- 

 tists. 



It may be said — indeed I have heard 

 it said, — that the smaller is the object 

 on the microscope stage, the greater is 

 the amount of science involved. This 

 is sheer nonsense. Microscopy con- 

 sists in the art of seeing; not in object 

 seen. No one will say that he who 

 regards Yolvox is less a microscopist 

 than one who observes non-filterable 

 bacteria through the ultra-microscope. 

 Such a statement would be of an ab- 

 surdity comparable to the remark that 

 he who studies the planet Jupiter is 

 less of an astronomer than he who 

 studies Jupiter's moons. 



It may be objected that the observa- 

 tion of an object is of little value if the 

 observer does not know what he is ob- 

 serving. This I flatly deny. To me, 

 it is rank heresy. I cannot see that a 

 man's delight in mountain scenery is 

 to be set aside as unimportant because 

 he does not know the principles of tec- 

 tonic stratigraphy and because he does 

 not know a geological fault from a hat- 

 rack. Nor am I willing to admit that 

 the country girl who makes a posy of 

 wild flowers is to be frowned upon be- 

 cause she does not understand chloro- 

 phyllic processes nor because she calls 

 a flower "love-lies-bleeding" instead of 

 Amarantus Caudatus. I am unwilling 



