340 The Microscope. 



EDITORIAL. 



IN glancing over one of our exchanges we came across the 

 following sentence in a review of the proceedings of the Amer- 

 ican Society of Microscopists for 1886: " There can be no doubt that 

 this Society is doing a good work, and while it is the means of pub- 

 lishing much that is crude and which might better be left in manu- 

 script, it still serves as a center for many who otherwise would not 

 belong to any scientific association." 



We presume this means that in spite of its fault in publishing 

 some crude matter, the Society can be commended for drawing to it 

 a class not easily reached. The tone of the above extract is one that 

 is becoming altogether too prevalent in scientific circles of this coun- 

 try, and for that reason we have thought well to notice it. 



Admitting, as we do, that some of the published matter may 

 seem crude, yet, befoi'e condemning, it certainly were better to find, 

 if possible, the cause of this crudity, and then to decide if, after all, 

 its publication is so undesirable. Can it not be accepted as a fact 

 that much of this crude work is done by the "many who otherwise 

 would not belong '?" and is it better that they should write not at all 

 than to write that which, in the minds of those apparently more for- 

 tunate, may seem crude? 



The purposes of a scientific society, especially ones like the A. 

 S. M., or A. A. A. S., in which the work done is of a very general 

 character, should be two-fold: (1) The advancement of science and {2\ 

 its diffusion, and it is a question in our mind if, after a certain point, 

 the latter purpose should not take precedence over the former. The 

 diffusion of science by societies cannot, we think, be better accom- 

 plished than by encouraging all who are anxious to learn to become 

 members, and when this is done, encouraging them to work, even 

 though that work be somewhat cnide. In the majority of cases, 

 where work is persisted in, this crudity will disappear, and the ulti- 

 mate result will be that the army recruited through the diffusion of 

 science will be the larger to work for its advancement. 



There should be no place for an aristocracy in science. We need 

 more men like Tyndall, Huxley and Youmans, and we need more 

 societies in which the requirements for membership are not too strin- 

 gent — too selfish, and in which all members are urged to do some 

 work. 



Societies, the work of which is general in character, have been 

 organized in which the membership is limited either by number or 



