1881.] 



MICROSCOPICAL JOUENAL. 



217 



eluded from any paper having the 

 least pretentions to be scientific. The 

 probably true and the false are so inter- 

 mingled in these articles that the or- 

 dinary reader cannot distinguish be- 

 tween them. 



Microscope Stands. — We have 

 not the least objection to being criti- 

 cised, providing it is done soundly 

 and energetically. It is quite immate- 

 rial whether our critic is right or not, 

 if he will only express his views in a 

 sufficiently dogmatic and emphatic 

 manner we will surely print his criti- 

 cism — for there is such a thing as in- 

 juring the force of an argument by 

 unreasonable claims. Mr. Stodder 

 has soundly berated us for what we 

 said about stands two months ago, 

 but, strange as it may seem, we really 

 do not feel like making the slightest 

 retraction. No doubt we are very 

 obstinate, but, a propos of M. Stod- 

 der's complimentary allusion to our 

 responsibility as an authoritative ins- 

 tructor, we deem it proper to say that 

 nothing goes into the editorial co- 

 lumns of this Journal until it has been 

 carefully considered, and we do not 

 mean to give advice for which we are 

 unwilling to assume all responsibility. 

 To be sure, it may not always be mi- 

 croscopically orthodox — but perhaps 

 our personal equation would not 

 permit it to be so ; since we are al- 

 ways looking for the best that is, or 

 will be, and trying to improve upon 

 the perfection that has been. Never- 

 theless, we cannot allow Mr. Stod- 

 der's article to pass without a few re- 

 marks, principally to correct some 

 misapprehensions to which it might 

 lead, as to our own words. We have 

 in no place especially commended the 

 German model, but we wrote of " low 

 stands not much higher than the com- 

 mon German model." 



We most decidedly object to the 

 style of criticism which permits of in- 

 complete quotations. Mr. Stodder 

 quotes us as saying " the smaller and 

 the more compact a stand can be 

 made * * * the better it is" : We 



said no such thing. Where he has 

 placed the stars we had the words 

 " without sacrificing convenience of 

 manipulation and effectiveness." Mr. 

 Stodder's remarks about weight 

 should not be taken without some 

 consideration. We would say that if 

 a stand is too light to permit the 

 coarse and fine adjustments to be tur- 

 ned without moving the instrument, 

 the fault is in the adjustments more 

 than in the stand. We stated, that 

 low stands are " by far the more con- 

 venient " Mr. Stodder says : " the re- 

 verse is the truth:" Mr. Stodder's 

 challenge does not materially effect 

 our position. It is sheer nonsense to 

 attribute special advantages to a stand 

 of large size, over a properly cons- 

 tructed small one. The fact that an 

 object can be displayed better by a 

 large Tolles stands then by a small 

 Hartnack proves nothing, except that 

 the Hartnack is not properly made for 

 competition of this kind. For a fair 

 criticism, Mr. Stodder must confine 

 himself to the conditions of the ques- 

 tion as set forth in our previous ar- 

 ticle. We did not invite a comparison 

 between the optical effects to be ob- 

 served on large and small stands as 

 now made. Our text was, the greater 

 convenience of the latter, and the 

 principles to be considered in de- 

 signing the stands of the future. 



NOTES. 



— A corespondent desires to know how 

 to mount the tracheal system of insects so 

 as to retain the air within the tubes. He 

 finds that after a while the air is likely to 

 be removed by the mounting medium. 

 We would be glad to receive an article 

 upon the subject from some one who has 

 been more successful. 



— A pound of cotton has been spun into 

 a yarn over 715 miles in length. In the 

 examination of textile fabrics it may be 

 useful to know the relations between the 

 sizes of yarns, as distinguished by their 

 trade numbers. A cotton pound is 7,000 

 grains. When 840 yards of yarn weigh 

 one cotton-pound, the yarn is designated 

 as number i. To get the number of 



