CORRESPONDENCE. 41 



having crroaeously repeated it. I assure Mr. Brooke tliat beyoucl the 

 questionable propriety of introducing my nationality at all in his 

 address to the members of the Royal Microscopical Society, to whom 

 I am by no means a stranger, I care not a button whether he believed 

 that I was a Prussian or a Turk. 



With regard to Mr. Brooke's argimient that native British ojitical 

 goods were wholly unrepresented at the Vienna Exhibition, I think 

 any schoolboy, if asked, will tell him that goods manufactured in 

 England, of English materials, by English workmen, under the super- 

 intendence of an English foreman, are to all intents and purposes 

 native British j)roducts. 



As to deep objectives : somehow it pleases Mr. Brooke to remember 

 my telling him at the Exhibition that I had no higher j^ower than 

 a ^-inch, but I expected some, and he attributes to me extreme care- 

 lessness for not informing him personally of their subsequent arrival. 

 I emphatically deny in the most positive terms having had any cou- 

 versation whatsoever with Mr. Brooke on the above subject, except 

 on the day when my microscopes and objectives were before the jury ; 

 it was there, I repeat, that he asked me what objectives I had to show, 

 and when telling him that a series ranging from 4-inch to Tjlg^-inch 

 were on the table, he replied, " I do not care for high powers," and left 

 it to me to show him what I liked. The day having been dark and 

 gloomy, and no artificial light provided, and convinced that under such 

 circumstances it would be vain to attempt to show a high power ; 

 moreover, perceiving that the only test the jury had at their disposal 

 was a coarse angulatum intermixed with a specimen or two of 

 Surirella gemma, I contented myself with showing the angulatum under 

 a i-inch and Kellner's D eye-piece, evidently to the satisfaction of the 

 three jurors present. 



Ajjologizing for trespassing on your valuable space, 



I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, 



M. PiLLISCHEK. 



[Out of a desire to exhibit fair play we liave inserted Mr. Pillisclier's letter, 

 having removed tlie more objectiouable passages. At the same time we cannot 

 but deprecate the tone of his observations. On communicating with Mr. Brooke, 

 he has informed us that his "recollections of Vienna are entirely at variance with 

 those of Mr. Pillischer."— Ed. ' M. M. J.'] 



Immersion v. Dry Objectives. 



To the Editor of the ^Monthly Microscopical Journal.'' 



1, Bedfokd Square, June 20, 1874. 

 Sir, — I have no intention of asking you to devote more of your 

 valuable space to " The hattle of the Lenses," nor am I at all inclined 

 to enter into a controversy with the Eev. S. L. Brakey, " On the 

 Theory of Immersion," but if Mr. Brakey's practical experience of 

 the immersion system is too limited to enable him to say whether or 

 not " the immersion lenses do actually possess the superiority of defi- 

 nition which has lately been ascribed to them," I venture to think 



