246 PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES. 



which could not be done if the cover were cemented down in the usual 

 way. The paper would be taken as read, and of course it would appear 

 in tl e Journal. (See p. 221.) 



The thanks of the Society were voted to Professor Kupert Jones for 

 his conjmunication. 



The Secretary then read a paper which had been received from 

 Dr. J. J. Woodward, of the United States' Army Medical Department, 

 " On the Markings of Navicula Bhomboides." The paper had special 

 reference to the remarks made by Mr. Hickie at a former meeting of 

 the Society, and some very beautifully executed photographs in 

 illustration had been forwarded with the MS. 



The President felt sure all wovdd unite in voting their cordial 

 thanks to Dr. Woodward for his paper. He was for his own part 

 extremely glad to have an opportunity of seeing these very beautiful 

 photographs ; he only wished that in this country they could photo- 

 graph these things as well. 



The thanks of the meeting were unanimously voted to Dr. Wood- 

 ward for his paper and the accompanying illustrations. 



In answer to the President's request, Mr. John Mayall, jun., said : — 

 I think it is perfectly evident from the reasoning in Dr. Woodward's 

 paper, that the diatom which Mr. Hickie calls Frustulia Saxonica is 

 identical with the Rhomboides which Dr. Woodward has photo- 

 graphed from Moller's Tyjjen-Platte, copies of which are before us. 

 The photographic evidence here adduced is of a novel character, so 

 far as I know, in deciding a question of identity of form and definition 

 in a microscopic object. Mr. Hickie exhibits photographs of a diatom 

 which he calls Frustulia Saxonica ; Dr. Woodward examines copies 

 of them, and finding the striae — or rows of hemispherical beads — to be 

 of just about the same degree of fineness with those on the Rhomboides 

 when the whole diatom is magnified so as to be of the same length, 

 he comes to the conclusion that the objects photographed must have 

 been practically the same. So far as similarity of outline and 

 definition can make out a clear case for the identity of two diatoms, I 

 consider Dr. Woodward has succeeded in proving that Mr. Hickie's 

 Frustulia Saxonica is simply a coarse form of Rhomboides. Every- 

 one who is familiar with the Frustulia >S'aa;ow2ca— photographs of 

 which Dr. Woodward sent in illustration of his paper in December — 

 knows it to be one of the most difficult test-objects, a diatom that 

 ranks next to AmpJiipleura pellucida. That particular form of 

 Frustulia is one that I have rarely seen resolved except by lenses of 

 the highest excellence. I considered Dr. Woodward's photographs 

 of it as in every way most remarkable, evincing first-rate skill brought 

 to bear on one of the finest known lenses. I am unable to com- 

 prehend the grounds on which Mr. Hickie seeks to depreciate those 

 photographs. That he should for an instant appeal to Seibert's 

 photographs of Rhomboides — or as he chooses to call the diatom, 

 Frustulia Saxonica— as being finer examples of manipulative skill, 

 proves to my mind that he knows little or nothing of the difference 

 between obtaining clear images of an easily resolved diatom, and 

 similar images of a really difficult object — one that taxes the lens to 



