PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY. 121 



retained its position unchanged. He did not think it would be possible 

 to account for this in any other way than by differences of phase in the 

 spectra of the two sets of lines. He thought Mr. Conrady was to be 

 congratulated on having so successfully worked out an important point 

 in the theory of microscopic vision. 



The thanks of the Society were then, upon the motion of the 

 Chairman, unanimously voted to Mr. Conrady for his paper, and for 

 his experimental proof of the correctness of his theory. 



Mr. J. W. Gordon then gave a summary of his paper " On the 

 Theory of Highly Magnified Images," and illustrated his remarks by 

 diagrams shown upon the screen. 



The Chairman expressed the thanks of the Meeting to Mr. Gordon 

 for his communication, and in asking for remarks on the subject, 

 reminded intending speakers of the time limit previously mentioned. 



Mr. Rheinberg, after premising that he had had an opportunity of 

 studying an advance proof of Mr. Gordon's paper, and having obtained 

 the Chairman's permission to read his remarks thereon, said : It appears to 

 me that advance in the domain of microscopic optics depends upon 

 simplification of existing theories, and upon a ready willingness to 

 recognise that a subject such as this may be regarded from many 

 standpoints which, when carefully examined, mutually aid each other. 

 Reviews of the subject, such as Dr. R. T. Glazebrook's Presidential 

 Address before the Physical Society of London, this year, in which 

 various theories are carefully compared in simple language, cannot fail 

 to assist in progress and be helpful to the student. Similarly refreshing 

 and helpful are papers like the masterly one brought before the Society 

 at the last meeting by Mr. A. E. Conrady, in which, working on the 

 lines of a well-established theory, certain matters are cleared up, ex- 

 plained, and simplified in a plain, straightforward manner, with in- 

 teresting new points, readily demonstrable experimentally, following as. 

 a consequence. But the paper read this evening cannot be classed with 

 these. To him it appeared throughout as a complication, and even 

 inadvertent perversion, alike of the many well-known facts which it 

 discusses and sets itself to explain, and of the new ideas which it. 

 propounds. 



He would do no more than refer to a few examples. 



The well-known and famous Abbe theory is dismissed as incorrect 

 and useless in a proposition which is quite irrelevant. He said the 

 Abbe theory advisedly, for it stands beyond doubt that that theory 

 includes the deduction of effects in the view plane from those in the 

 region of the upper focal plane of the objective. Far from being dis- 

 avowed, the fact is so apparent from any of Professor Abbe's papers on 

 the subject, that it would seem almost superfluous to mention that he 

 knew it besides from a personal conversation with that distinguished 

 man of science in 1902. Mr. Gordon's disproof has so little to do 

 with the question at issue, as in itself to show that he has entirely 

 failed to understand the elements of that theory. 



The main point of Mr. Gordon's paper appears to be a speculation 



