COKRESPONDENCE. 41 



working distance to resolve the Pleurosigma angulatum, through a 

 thick slide turned over. With the slides right side up, and rising 

 up to ^-inch eye-piece, x 1600; I resolve the angulatum either dry 

 or in balsam, and show both sets of lines of Navlcula rhomhoides 

 distinctly. Stauroneis phcenicenteron is resolved without resorting to 

 oblique light. On Surirella gemma I get the transverse lines strong, 

 bu^ the longitudinal are faint and unsatisfactory to one accustomed 

 to the comjilete resolution into hexagons got by objectives of higher 

 angle. On the whole, it is a very useful glass, but cannot take the 

 place of the immersion objectives of high angle on one side, nor of 

 4-inch to §-inch objectives on the other. 



The above work with the jth was all done without the aid of 

 Mr. Weuham's Keflex Illuminator, — a very important aid in resolving 

 lined tests, whether used as originally intended by the inventor, on 

 dry mounts, with object in contact with the slide ; or, as pointed out 

 by Samuel Wells, Esq., on balsam slides, with objectives of suf- 

 ficiently high angle of ajjerture to give a bright field. The latter 

 method, to me, is the most serviceable of the two, for on most of my 

 slides the objects adhere to the cover. Out of half-a-dozen slides of 

 S. gemma, I was unable to find a single frustule detached. The 

 Reflex Illuminator makes the medium angles approach more nearly 

 to the former i:)erformance of the higher, but it also enables the latter 

 to fully maintain their superiority over the former. 



Yours truly, 



Geo. W. Morehouse, 



Wayland Depot, Steuben Co., New York, U.S.A. 



Mk. Hickie and Professor Hasert's newest Objective. 



To the Editor of the ' Monthly Microscoi^ical Journal.' 



Lrv'ERPOOL, November 5, 1875. 



Sir, — I was very anxious to hear further respecting Professor 

 Hasert's newest objective, having received from a friend in London 

 a report of what had taken place at the October meeting of the 

 Eoyal Microscopical Society respecting the above objective, and I 

 must confess that I felt very much disappointed when I read 

 Mr. Hickie's letter in your November number, and still more so 

 when I heard that the objective was not exhibited, as suggested, 

 at the November meeting of your Society ; possibly Mr. Hickie may 

 not be guilty of this mishap. 



It is, however, curious that after so much fuss has been made 

 of Hasert's objective, when the time came for proofs the objective was 

 not produced ! ! Mr. Hickie's letters are very interesting because 

 they generally contain some outlandish disclosures, such as, " Its 

 performance (No. 7, Beneche's) on S. gemma I shall leave unrecorded, 

 as the truth here would seem incredible." * 



* ' M. M. J.,' No. Ixx., p. 208. 



