( 240 ) 
NOTES AND MEMORANDA. 
Misnaming Objectives. — The following note from Mr. C. Stodder 
appears with tlie above beading in tbe ‘ American Naturalist ’ for 
August : we bave added to it some remarks from Mr. Wcnbam : — 
“ Tbe brief remarks of mine, printed over tbe initials C. S. in tbe 
March number of tliis journal, were copied essentially in tbe ‘ Monthly 
Microscopical Journal ’ for April. In tbe May number of that 
periodical Mr. Wenbam writes a reply. It is a remarkable paper, not 
only from tbe eminence of tbe writer as an authority on microscopy, 
but from bis evident loss of temper, and by tbe terms to which lie 
refers to Mr. Bicknell and to C. S. Under these circumstances I must 
ask for a little space for a rejoinder to my share ; I have nothing to 
say for Mr. Bicknell, as he is able to take care of himself. Mr. Wen- 
bam commences his paper, which he calls a £ reply,’ with this, — ‘ to 
correct a misstatement that I [Mr. W.J wrote a paper in reply to one of 
Mr. Bicknell’s ; I did not commit myself to such an extent.’ This is 
a mere quibble, unworthy of its author. The very caption of the 
paper had Mr. Bicknell’s name in it. I should not have noticed this, 
had not Mr. W. unfairly, as I. think, charged me with a misstatement. 
Next, Mr. Wenbam couples C. S. and Mr. Bicknell together as if they 
acted in concert, and were joint writers. I can assure Mr. Wenbam 
that it is not so. Mr. B. is not responsible for anything I have written, 
nor am I for him. Neither had seen the other’s writing until it was 
public. Next, I have no ‘ plea or atonement’ to make ‘ for expressions 
hastily or inconsiderately written.’ My expressions were used de- 
liberately and after full consideration of their import. I still hold 
the same opinion, namely, that selling an objective by a name that 
does not approximately indicate its focus (i. e. \ for 4, f° r tsi or, as 
I have known, ^ for as in the case of an eminent French maker ; 
or, as in another instance, a for a ; or, as in the case of an English 
objective that I have recently heard of, a for a 4) is an £ imposition,’ 
or a fraud if that term is preferred, not applying it, however, as 
Mr. Wenham represents, to a particular firm, but to all, of any country, 
who practise such ‘imposition ’; and that Mr. Wenham in his paper, 
by stating that * -|-ths were jjhs or T Vths, and some now approach T ^ths 
in power,’ without disapproval, was practically defending the custom, 
and that he does not now deny. His paper in reply to Mr. Bicknell 
was published in December. In May he writes, £ no one knows better 
than myself the difficulty of adopting a nomenclature that shall exactly 
denote the power of all the highest object-glasses sent out ’ — some- 
thing has evidently produced some effect on him since that time. The 
complaint was not of want of £ exactness,’ but of gross misnamers of 
20 or 50 per cent., such as he named in the December paper, not in 
regard to the highest powers alone, but applicable to the lowest powers 
as well. Such was what I called an imposition, and I call it so now. 
In the £ Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science,’ October, 1862, 
Captain Mitchell gives the measurement of the focus of several London 
objectives, most of them being undernamed. Captain M. complains of 
this. He says, ‘ when I buy a ^th, I want a ^th, not something else.’ 
