COKKESPONDENCE. 201 



increased, and amounted sometimes to four or more in a single cell. 

 The third change consisted in the division of the spindle-shaped 

 corpuscles. These first assumed an hour-glass appearance, and finally- 

 divided across in one or more than one place. Sometimes the spindles 

 did not divide, but formed movable, multi-nucleated masses, like those 

 described by Strieker. Dr. Purser believed, too, that the researches of 

 this physiologist on inflammation confirm his own observations. 



NOTES AND MEMOEANDA. 



Mr. Wenham and Mr. Tolles. — In reference to Mr. Wenham's 

 last communication, we have received a letter from Mr. Charles Stodder, 

 of Boston, relative to his supposed share in the controversy. He 

 thinks that Mr. Wenham does him " too much honour when he 

 associates " his name with that of Mr. Tolles, in the matter of the 

 angle of light admitted to an objective. He does not presume to 

 have or express any opinion either on one side or the other. It seems 

 that his note, whicb we published, was intended to be a private note, 

 containing a correction. As, however, it was not marked private, 

 we could not imagine it was intended as such, and hence, for full 

 correction sake, we published it. Mr. Tolles does not wish to have his 

 name mixed up in the discussion. En passant, we beg to point out 

 that there was an error in Mr. Tolles' paper, the word sit/fraction 

 being printed by a stupid mistake for refraction. 



COERESPONDENCE. 



Nobert's Nineteenth Band. — Col. Woodward. — Mr. Stodder. 



To the Editor of the ' Monthly Microscopical Journal.^ 



Boston, July 20, 1871. 



Me. Editor, — I have no longer any controversy with Col. Dr. 

 Woodward on the question whether he or Mr. Greenleaf and myself 

 were the first to resolve the nineteenth band of Nobert's plate. I have 

 said on that, all that I need to say. 



But his last paper, in the July number of the ' Monthly Microsco- 

 pical Journal,' has some propositions that are subjects of fair criticism 

 — some that I dissent from, and must point out, or my silence would be 

 claimed as assenting. Therefore I ask the privilege of submitting my 

 views to the " goodly company" of microscopists, who must decide. 



Dr. Woodward opens his case, by saying that he does not think 

 that the question of priority as to the resolution of the nineteenth band 

 possesses sufiicient general interest to make it worth while for him to 



