CORRESPONDENCE. 275 



personal matters, a very different opinion must be formed of a writer 

 who has neither the candour nor courage to disclose his name. He 

 must not expect much influence, or attract respectful notice ; and 

 " Fair Play " coming forward in an optical question, should bring 

 some little knowledge of the science, in order at all to be recognized 

 as a judge. He may take this as " strong and arrogant," or, according 

 to his idea, " insulting " language ; it may be hurled at some one with 

 whom I am intimately acquainted, but as he is firing from behind 

 a bush, I cannot recognize him. Perhaps I ought to thank him for 

 the extraneous information he has volunteered — expressed not without 

 a tinge of malignity — that I have " come off second best " in the contro- 

 versy concerning angles of aperture. I am not conscious of this ; but, 

 on the contrary, have some hope that the readers of this Journal will 

 consider that it has been the means of eliciting some useful practical 

 matter of a character not usually disclosed, and shown some optical 

 errors which it may be better to point out than see permanently re- 

 corded. I can assure " Fair Play " that the moral of his letter does 

 not incline me to kiss the rod that he would hold up to me as a 

 warning in future ; for I will take the liberty of controverting any- 

 thing that appears to me to be an optical error, come from what source 

 it may. The style of the reply must be influenced by that of the 

 articles to which it refers ; if these are brought forward pompously, 

 and assumed as new discoveries, not to be questioned or, discussed, 

 then I submit that a strong tone is allowable. 



The readers of this Journal can judge from my articles how far I 

 have made any " insinuations against Dr. Pigott's character," for therein 

 is all that I have written concerning him. " Fair Play" makes this, to 

 me, most unwarrantable assertion, " Mr. Wenham was invited to see the 

 various apparatus employed, and witness experiments therewith, but 

 declined." This statement is simply not true; I never received a 

 letter from Dr. Pigott, or request to be present at any specific time 

 or place. I have a right to take up these questions as I find them in 

 print, and to argue them on this evidence alone ; I turn over p. 23 

 (containing matter that I have already commented upon), and refer 

 to hand-drawings as evidence by which it is sometimes impossible to 

 convey a true idea of difficult structure. " Fair Play " sneeringly 

 asks if I " think Dr. Woodward's photographs clumsy and inaccu- 

 rate ?" I reply, certainly not ; through Col. Woodward's kindness I 

 possess them all, and prize them highly. I have been collecting 

 peculiar forms of Podura scales and fragmentary pieces, in order to 

 photograph them for the purpose of showing that the " note " structure 

 is not " an optical illusion caused hy the oblique crossing of rouleaus of 

 beads on the opjwsite sides of the scale," as Dr. Pigott repeatedly states 

 them to be, but that it arises from the peculiar form of longitudinal 

 ribs, which may be clearly isolated and seen alone, and will produce 

 these photographs when a contrary opinion of any weight should call 

 for them. I have not denied a structure between these ribs. This 

 was not the question at all, as many Podura scales show unmistak- 

 able indications (analogous to those in other Lepidoptera) of cross- 

 bars, which can also easily be developed as beads by myself. 



VOL. X. Y 



