NOTES AND MEMORANDA. 
241 
He calls those correctly named, honest ; by implication, those not so 
named, dishonest. Dr. Wm. B. Carpenter* says, c the designations given 
by the opticians to their objectives are often far from representing 
their focal length as estimated by that of single lenses of equivalent 
magnifying power, a temptation to underrate them being afforded by 
the consideration that if an objective of a certain focus will show a 
test object as well as another of higher focus, the former is to be pre- 
ferred. Thus it happens that what are sold as A-inch objectives are 
often more nearly and that what are sold as 4 are not unfrequently 
more nearly A.’ I presume that I am justified in assuming that 
Mr. Wenham was fully aware of both the above, that Captain Mitchell 
termed the custom dishonest in 1862, and Dr. Carpenter that it was 
the result of £ temptation ’ in 1868, yet he did not feel called on to 
‘ practically defend ’ the want of honesty, or the yielding to tempt- 
ation. Was he not then as now £ a witness in behalf’ of those he 
calls the ‘ most respectable portion of the body ’ ? Was it only 
censure from this side of the Atlantic that was £ worth caring for ’ ? 
It certainly looks so. For some twenty years I have watched 
Mr. Wenham’s contributions to microscopy. I have used and admired 
his ingenious inventions and appliances, and have looked upon him as 
one of the foremost leaders and authorities in the mechanical and 
theoretic departments of the science. It was with regret that I saw 
that he did not disapprove of the fictitious nomenclature. It is with 
greater regret that I find that he has in his haste used arrogant 
expressions. The question of nomenclature is now being agitated, 
the attention of microscopists is attracted to it, and one consequence 
will be that the £ honest ’ makers will be appreciated.” 
Appendage to Mr. Stodder's Remarks from £ American Naturalist ,’ 
by Mr. Wenham. — Mr. Wenham sends us the following reply : — I 
should not have taken time to notice the above long comment on 
my short letter, appearing on page 234 of this Journal for May, 1872, 
but for the remark that my letter was written with “ evident loss of 
temper” ! Quite the reverse; it was penned in a spirit of “chaff,” 
and Mr. Bicknell, in his brief note in reply, seems to have caught the 
vein ; at which no one, perhaps, laughed more heartily than myself. On 
the other hand, it has drawn C. S. out of his shell, with horns erect, in 
his proper name or colour. I have nothing further to say on the 
question, which leads to no scientific discovery, and is one to be settled 
between the makers of object-glasses and purchasers, who are now 
sufficiently warned. No particular reform can be anticipated by 
pages of a controversy having from its very basis such full scope for 
personalities, of which this and the above may be taken as a sample. 
The tone is becoming silly and tiresome ; ancl having contributed my 
share, I must drop the subject, with the remark that no one would 
be. more willing to induce the makers to adopt a nomenclature having 
a definite reference to actual magnifying power than myself, could I 
see the possibility of doing so. Numerals such as those adopted by 
the Continental makers would perhaps partly meet the difficulty ; but 
I believe that no English optician would consent to namo his glasses 
this way. — F. H. Wenham. 
* 1 The Microscope,’ 4th edition, 1808, p. 184. 
T 2 
