56 The Microscope and its Misinterpretations. By J. Michels. 
the true appearance. These photographs showed the spines. 
Colonel Woodward, however, reserved his opinion, and asked for a 
specimen of the true test-Podura scale. 
Dr. Maddox, in August, exhibited various photographs of 
Podura scales, which Mr. Wenham commented on in a paper to the 
Microscopical Journal of September following, which merely reite- 
rated his views that the “ spines ” were the true appearance of 
Podura scales. 
The Rev. J. B. Reade, in the £ Popular Science Review,’ of April, 
1870, appears to accept Dr. Pigott’s views entirely, and writes : “ I 
can now see with my own powers what has been before invisible, 
viz. the beautiful headed structure of the whole test-scale, as 
discovered by Dr. Pigott.” 
It would he tedious to continue the subject and give even an 
outline of the papers and discussions that have been provoked by 
this knotty question ; I shall therefore conclude by stating that 
Colonel Woodward has since produced two photographs, showing 
the two aspects of the question; they are made from authentic 
scales, and are pronounced very perfect. 
In further illustration of the difficulty of obtaining a true and 
reliable image of an object when viewed under the microscope with 
high powers, I offer drawings which have been made by Mr. Ralph 
H. Westropp, B.A., T.C.D., of Allyflin Park, England. These 
figures all represent the same object, a scale of Podura viewed under 
different phases of oblique light ; they are interesting as showing 
the effect produced by the play of light upon a refractive object. 
The fact that the most skilful microscopists of the age all differ 
upon the true appearances of a common and not very minute object, 
and the microscope itself presenting to the vision the most opposite 
appearances of one and the same object, should act as a caution to 
those who accept too readily theories based upon microscopical 
research ; and suggests that, in the cause of justice, when life is at 
stake, single-handed evidence relating to the microscopical examina- 
tion of apparent blood-stains should be verified at least by a second 
person before being accepted. 
Thus we see that the so-called revelations of the microscope are 
but hieroglyphics, needing the interpretation of a mind of the 
highest culture, and that while the microscope is a good servant it 
is a bad master — mighty in the hands of a Huxley, but as useless 
to a man without the powers of discrimination as the chisel of 
Michael Angelo would be in the hands of a Modoc. — The American 
Popular Science Monthly, June, 1875. 
