Monthy Wlerasenpea of the Microscope. 259 
ture I afterwards confirmed by myself... . . The late Richard Beck 
investigated this test as an opaque uncovered object with a 3th. 
The light was thrown on the scale by condensing lenses... . . 
‘When they (the markings) are in the same direction as the light, 
with the narrow ends pointing to it the broad ends appear like 
brilliant spots, the light from the points is so slight that the scales 
appear to have lost their markings altogether. Now if the mark- 
ings were an opaque substance, this result would have been a 
convincing proof that the markings were depressions; but as we 
know it to be transparent, it follows that these particular appear- 
ances can only be produced by elevations.’” 
Whilst in July we read, page 27, 1869 :—“In all other 
respects of intervals, form, and position, they (the markings) are 
the same as under transmitted light, and we are equally unable to 
prove that they ewist in the form of projections.” 
Amid this discrepancy of projection or no projection, ribs or no 
ribs, veritable spines, horrific like the bristles of a hide, and dark 
pigment cells forming vanishing markings, and all melting into 
beads, ‘‘ six in one direction and twenty-four in another” in the 
field of 3 inches and of 12,000 diameters, it is interesting to remark 
that by two observers (Mr. Reade and Mr. Wenham) beads (subse- 
quent to the announcement) are admitted somewhere. The differ- 
ence, however, between that and a full resolution is immense. They 
are described as very sparse in one direction, whereas the scale is as 
thickly crowded as can well be conceived. 
In the ‘Popular Science Review,’ April, 1870, the President 
writes :—“I can now see with my own powers what has been before 
invisible, viz. the beautifully beaded structure of the whole test- 
scale as discovered by Dr. Pigott. I found twenty-four beads in 
+dsoth of an inch in horizontal direction, and six in the vertical. 
This is the utmost I have been able to accomplish . . . . the defect 
was in the power.” 
On several occasions I had the honour of exhibiting to the 
Rev. Mr. Reade, F.R.S., through his Wray 3th, the beads in question 
as described by him in this passage. 
Again, p. 303, “ Figs. 4 to 7 in Dr. Pigott’s paper do not fairly 
represent the appearance. The beads are neither so closely packed 
or so regular as there shown... . . The under beads may appear 
to cross either to the right or left, according to the illumination or 
fancy of the observer. Having got the beaded form developed to 
the best advantage, if we now remove the highest eye-piece and 
substitute the lowest therefor, close in the tube and adjust the focus 
(which the change of eye-piece requires), the beaded appearance dis- 
solves into the usual note of admiration markings.” (Mr. Wenham.) 
Once for all, I must state these are not the general beaded 
system I have described at all. It should be observed that the 
