108 CLARKE, ON OBJECTS FOR THE MICROSCOPE. 
microscopic objects by purchase or preparation. These 
objects are arranged in something like a systematic manner, 
beginning with general “objects from the vegetable king- 
dom.” Then follows “sections of wood” and “ infusorial 
earths.” After these come objects from the animal king- 
dom, in which the author commences with spiders, and goes 
through groups of insects capable of affording interesting 
matter for the microscope, and leaves off with the “ spicules 
of sponges.” “Slides of crystallization” finish the work. 
The remarks under these different heads might have been 
shorter, with advantage. The author has rather a tendency 
to write, which is a damaging propensity where conciseness 
is of value. Nevertheless, we think it will be found a useful 
book. 
A very short chapter “On the Use of the Microscope,” 
introduces this instrument to the reader, and as the author 
has here fallen into an error we must correct it. He 
recommends to the reader “the Society of Arts Micro- 
scopes,”’ and says— 
“They are.made by Mr. Baker, 244, High Holborn, and 
only cost £3 3s., complete in a neat mahogany cabinet. 
They are excellent working imstruments, and, for their 
utility and cheapness combined, were awarded a prize medal 
by the Society from which they derive their name” (page 2). 
Now we think most people would gather from this that 
Mr. Baker gained the prize of the Society of Arts for his 
microscopes, and they will perhaps be astonished when we 
tell them he did not do so. The microscope to which the 
Society of Arts gave their prize medal was one manufactured 
by Mr. Field, of Birmingham, to whom the public is in- 
debted for this cheap and efficient instrument. We know 
that Mr. Baker may reply that his microscopes are of the same 
pattern as the one which obtained the Society of Arts’ prize, 
but we hardly think that this justifies him and his friends 
in speaking of any instrument he makes as the “ Society of 
Arts Microscope,” much less in claiming for him the award 
of a medal which was given to another microscope-maker. 
We do not say this to depreciate Mr. Baker’s microscopes, 
—for aught we know they may be better than Mr. Field’s,— 
but we think that the public ought, in fairness, to know who 
is really the inventor and original maker of the “ Society of 
Arts Microscopes.” 
