248 The Microscope. 



The advanced worker is trying to make them true ; the amateur 

 to make them beautiful, and we hope the day is not far distant 

 when the two quaHties can be combined. 



We should be pleased to see all our editorials so freely com- 

 mented on as the one in our May number on thin sections. Prof. 

 Stowell complimented us with his approval of the views expressed, 

 and now comes Dr. Reeves with a reply intended to combat what he 

 calls the "pernicious influence" of the same views. Without going 

 into a lengthy discussion, we must say that we do not think that Dr. 

 Reeves disagrees with us as widely as he imagines. He holds that 

 had we stated the whole case, our position had been untenable; he, 

 therefore, to show our error, "completes" our case by the addition of 

 two important facts. We quite agree with him in the importance 

 and correctness of these facts, but do not see that they have anything 

 to do with the subject under discussion. Our differences can, we 

 think, be thus summarized : 



We believe that "the rule should be, then, not to make the sec- 

 tions as thin as possible, but rather to have them of a thickness that 

 will include as many layers as can be clearly studied." 



Dr. Reeves believes that "when the finest possible details of a 

 histological or pathological specimen are sought by the aid of a high- 

 power objective, a section just thick enough to hold the tissue ele- 

 ments together will not be too thin — the thinner the better, provided 

 the section has been handled from beginning to end in the highest 

 style of the beautiful art." 



We have no objections to the " highest style," in fact we confess 

 to being rather fond of it, but we still insist that oui* sections must 

 have a thickness that will include as many layers as can be clearly 

 studied; for the details of a specimen cannot be observed unless it is 

 thick enough to show the arrangement of its parts. As for studying 

 the finest possible details, such as the structure of, or changes in 

 individual cells, no section, however thin, will serve the purpose. 

 Other methods must then be employed. 



We have examined the specimens referred to in his letter and 

 find them, like all examples of his work, most excellently prepared 

 and mounted. Our only criticism is that they were not quite thick 

 enough to show the tissue relations to the best advantage. 



Dk. Reeves' idea regarding the benefits to be derived from a daily 

 working session at the meetings of the A. S. M. should be encouraged. 



