40 CORRESPONDENCE. 



arrived at. With what precision and accuracy the results of astrono- 

 mical observations are made ! and taking into consideration that many 

 of these results are obtained by different methods of observation, using 

 different instruments, and by different observers, it is astonishing that 

 the discrepancies and errors of observation are so small. It is generally 

 admitted that the microscope is, to say the least, equally perfect, if not 

 more so, than the telescope ; and we should therefore expect a corre- 

 sponding degree of accuracy in the results of niicroscoi)ical observa- 

 tions. There are no doubt many who, like myself, have hitherto 

 worked with only the medium and low powers, but wish to be possessed 

 of the improved objectives of high power, but from want of sufficient 

 information it is difficult to make a suitable choice. 



COKEESPONDENCE. 



A MOST Un-editorial Expression of Opinion. 



To the Editor of the ' Monthly Microscopiatl Journal.' 



Padnal Hall, Chadwell Heath, Essex, 

 May 24, 1873. 



SiK, — As another result of sending the Tolles' ^^^th for the aperture 

 experiment, my attention has been called to an editorial article api^earing 

 in the ' Lens ' for April last as a sample of the capabilities of a Journal 

 aspiring to be the exponent of microscopical science in America. 

 Therein my desire for a " fair trial and fair usage " is questioned, and 

 I am accused of having performed " a trick." This style forbids all 

 scientific discussion. If during the relative test from a defining aper- 

 ture in air — to water — and balsam, I had shifted the adjustment (which 

 the writer supposes I ought to have done), then I might projierly have 

 been accused of performing a "trick" instead of a simple optical de- 

 monstration. Sending this glass, without request, sj)ecially for me to 

 try, truly placed me on the " horns of a dilemma." Judging from the 

 remarks that it has elicited from some because the result has not gone 

 the way that they wished it to go, I can well imagine what would have 

 been said and the tone of triumph assumed if I had refused the trial. 



In reference to the final graceless and uncalled-for sentence of the 

 article, I may inform the writer and my American friends that which 

 it is needless to state here, that I never had and never shall have any 

 pecuniary interest in the manufacture of object-glasses as a motive for 

 disparaging the one in question. My experiments have been carried 

 out entirely for the sake of the pursuit, and the results would have 

 been confined to myself had there been no Society or Journal for such 

 communications. 



Yours truly, 



F. H. Wenham, 



Vice-President RM.S. 



