a7icl its Observers. 119 



claimed, and not for the first time, to have ante-dated Dr. W.'s 

 claims nearly a year, independent of the original claim of 1867; 

 and I now repeat my claim, that I and others repeatedly saw the 

 true hnes of the 19th band with several of ToUes objectives (no 

 one of them being of so high a power as a Tcth) previous to the 

 time that they were seen by him, after all due consideration of 

 his reasons for disbelieving me. 



Dr. Woodward's reason for refusing belief in my claim is this : 

 " In my judgment it cannot be said that one of the bands is resolved, 

 unless the lines are shown in such a manner that they can be cor- 

 rectly counted fi-om one edge of the band to the other." This 

 sentence contains the whole gist of the matter. (It will be in- 

 teresting hereafter to examine the evidence offered that Dr. W. 

 has himself performed that feat.) Dr. Woodward here assumes 

 that "his judgment" is conclusive and sufficient, and that that 

 settles the matter; that all who dissent from that "judgment" 

 must be in error. It is certainly a short method of settling dis- 

 puted questions, but a method that is not generally accepted. I 

 acknowledge that Dr. Woodward has obtained a high reputation as 

 a microscopist, that his instruments, apparatus, and facilities for 

 observing are of a high order, having almost at his command the 

 purse of the United States ; that the photographs executed by him, 

 or under his direction, are, many of them, of surpassing excellence ; 

 yet I cannot admit that his "judgment" is sufficient authority, or 

 competent to establish the law for the microscopical world against 

 the "judgment " of other experts. 



Mr. W. S. Sulivant says,* " a portion only of the width [of a 

 band] can be brought into exact focus at once; if that portion, 

 however, is measured, and its lines resolved under suitable ampli- 

 fication, the data are obtained for the solution of the problem." 

 Mr. Suhvant's authority on this question is second to none: the 

 method he requires has been repeatedly apphed to the resolution 

 with Tolles' objectives, but I did not deem it of importance enough 

 to mention. I have conferred with numerous experts on this matter. 

 Dr. Woodward's law is generally rejected. That ought to suffice ; 

 but as Dr. Woodward has produced one " witness " to support his 

 "judgment," before I close I propose to introduce some on my 

 side. 



Dr. Woodward makes some trite observations on the fact " that 

 objectives of inadequate defining power can easily be made to show " 

 spurious lines — a fact to be noticed by all novices, but which it was 

 hardly worth while to repeat to me, as Mr. Greenleaf and myself 

 were perfectly famihar with the fact, having worked on the Nobert 

 13lates for years, and resolved the equivalent of the 15th band with 

 a Tolles' ith in the year (I think) 1865. Dr. W. might have 



* ' American Joiirn. of Science,' vol. xlvi., p. 350, and also in letter to me. 

 VOL. V. K 



