230 Tue Microscope. 
in the past, such assistance and encouragement as it may be in our 
power to give.”’ 
We regret to learn that Mr. Bennett, of London, did not 
“profoundly treat” his subject. Pres. Cox has our sympathy, 
because we know now his paper was “ not characterized by very 
profound treatment.” 
The above articles, together with Prof. Kellicott’s, Dr. Black- 
ham’s, Dr. Lewis’, Mr. Bausch’s, Mr. Gundlach’s, and others, 
make it necessary for an editor to hope that “the next volume 
of Proceedings will not be regarded as representing American 
microscopy !” 
We are glad to learn we are classed as an “association of 
amateurs.” Goy. Cox, Prof. Smith, Dr. Blackham, Prof. Kelli- 
cott, Prof. Gage, Prof. Lattimore, Prof. Burrill, Prof. Moore, 
Prof. Rogers, did you know, gentlemen, that the authority from 
the capital says that you are nothing but amateurs? And yet, 
in the face of all this he declares that, as a society, we have 
his ‘‘ best wishes.” If the above is a sample of his good wishes 
and assistance, it is hoped that he will pour out his fiercest 
wrath, for the above kind of help makes him our worst enemy. 
TO SEE IS TO BELIEVE. 
In our last issue we purposely refrained from mentioning 
the “ Working Department” of the American Society at its 
Rochester meeting, for we desired to give it more particular 
notice. 
It seems to have been left to the genius of Mr. E. H. Grif- 
fith to invent this department, and how successful the enterprise 
has been all can testify who have ever attended one of the ses- 
sions. 
It came to the knowledge of the writer, while at the Roches- 
ter meeting, that a certain committee was to render a report 
that would practically abolish this feature of our annual gath- 
ering. 
Therefore immediately after the election of officers, and 
before this committee could get in their formal report, a motion 
was made that we proceed at once to elect a superintendent of 
the working session. 
