312 



NATURE 



r January 4, 19 12 



Microkiocmatography. 



Is th«; nrtirlo on " ' !iv " in NvTrKf. 



of December 14, 191 1. point* which 



arc ixiircswd in ft nuiiiii- i ui.n ii..i. •. .lU to t»- ■•■■•■■ t»- 

 tion. I)rnlinjj with thrw; as they occur, in It 

 describe the prcxr-ss as having b«'en devi-loped ii 

 la«t few monthK? The inethtKl adopted by M. ( uiiiund«jn 

 wft» described in La Sature so long nyo as Nuveinb^-r, 

 I90«», and ffproductionj* «»f kincn)ato){raph films wc-re 

 u«ed to illustrate the paper. In this country, too, Dr. 

 Spitta has done and has exhibited numerous examples^, and 

 I believe I am ri(<ht in statinj^ that his work extends back 

 to an even earlier date 



The meth«Kl of illumination, which in any case is quite 

 well known and in use in every well-appointed bacterio- 

 logical laboratory to-day, is described as an application of 

 the " ultramicroscope." This is incorrect. Illumination 

 has clearly been effected by means of a paraboloidal or 

 spherical surface dnrk-(;round illuminator, and with this 

 appliance any object, such as u bacterium or trypanosome, 

 which is within the limits of the resolving power of the 

 objective used, may be rendered visible. 



In the ultramicroscope, much smaller objects than these 

 are dealt with, but owing to the method of illumination 

 the images obtained are not of necessity an indication of 

 the size or form oi the obje«ts under observation. They 

 appear as diffraction discs, which are visible or invisible, 

 and vary in apparent size, according to the intensity of 

 the source of light used. 



In the case of certain colloids, for instance, it is possible 

 to observe particles that approach molecular dimensions, 

 and no ordinary method of dark-ground illumination could 

 accomplish this. 



Confusion of thought often arises from failure to 

 appreciate that there is an important difference between 

 the limits of visibility and of resolution in the microscope. 

 The objects shown in the paper in question are well within 

 the limits of revolving power of even a high-power dry 

 objective, so that they arc in no sense " ultramicroscopic." 

 The term should only be applied in cases where the objects 

 are in all dimensions beyond the limits of resolution of the 

 best objectives, where special arrangements are necessary 

 in setting up the object to ensure that only the particular 

 layer under observation is illuminated, and where the source 

 of light is of sufficient power to render visible isolated 

 particles which are much smaller than the resolution limit. 

 The subject is one on which much might be said, but it is 

 clearly impossible to do more than indicate the line of 

 argument. 



Spirochacta pallida is especially referred to, but even 

 this is easily and perfectly shown under ordinary laboratory 

 conditions by a dark-ground illuminator. 



Is the statement literally true that " some thousands of 

 successive photographs" are taken per minute? If so, 

 then it appears to be necessary to give a much shorter 

 exposure in the kinematograph than when taking 

 instantaneous photographs of any of the subjects illustrated. 

 Without wishing in any way to minimise the achievements 

 describe^!, it should be borne in mind that the main diffi- 

 rulty is the almost prohibitive cost. There are manv photo- 

 micrographers who are competent to carry out such work 

 and to overcome such technical difficulties as exist, but 

 there are scarcely any who are able to face the great cost 

 of the films. In the present case, the immense resources 

 of .Messrs. Path^ Fr^res have been placed at the disposal 

 of the worker, so that this difficulty has not been experi- 

 «"f«l- ' J. E. Barnard. 



King s College (University of London), 

 Strand, XV.C, Deceniber 18, 191 1. 



It may be admitted that the word ultramicroscope is 

 misplaced, and its use may inadvertently cause some con- 

 fusion, though the remarks which immediately follow 

 should prevent any possible misconception as to the method 

 employed. The large cost involved is. of course, a con- 

 sideration of great importance to those actually concerned 

 in the produaion of the films, but scarcely one to be insisted 

 on in an article such as that under discussion. 



The Writer of the Article. 



>'0. 220r, VOL. 88] 



I SIVEKSIJY EDUCATION IS /< 



WE pubtiithcd on June 15, 191 1, an article . 

 Mime- infurinatiun as lu the proceed! dlts 

 led up to the appointment of the Koyal ( 

 on University Kducation in London, and d' 

 the second volume of evidence i<»sued by tl; 

 sion. The third volume of evidence [Cd. ^ 

 34. Sd.], recently issued, contains the evident^; pi 

 scnted between November 10, 1910, and July 2H, 10 1 

 Much of this evidence is not of dire< 

 the point of view of the promotion of 

 as it does with such matters as lejjal <(juciti>.n, ti 

 position of individual colie|:;es, and the relation of t) 

 University to secondary education, though the <'' 

 sion of these questions is of importance as ind 

 the general form of organisation for the ' ' 

 which the Commission will propose, and v 



in the future exercise a potent influence ovi ; ,. 



education in Ixindon and elsewhere. There are, ho'>' 

 ever, two subjects of more immediate ini' n ,: , 

 which a good deal of new evidence is now 

 first, the work and government of the Imp<-! 

 of Science and Technology at South Kensi; 

 its future relations to the University; ami. 

 the organisation of medical education in L- 

 Each of these questions is extraordinarily co; 

 and might well engage the sole attention of a 

 Commission ; and it will only be possible in .1 

 article to indicate in a rough way the char.K 

 evidence presented. 



The witnesses for the Imperial College, who wt r 

 heard on February 23, iqii, were Lord Crewe, th- 

 chairman of the governing body. Sir William Whitr 

 Dr. R. T. Glazebrook, Mr. R. Kaye Gray, and Si 

 .Alfred Keogh. and their evidence was based on th 

 following resolution adopted by the governing body : 



The Imperial College of Science and Technolog}- havin^ 

 been established " to give the highest specialised instru' 

 tion, and to provide the fullest equipment for the mo- 

 advanced training and research in various branches < 

 science, especially in its application to industry." th 

 governing body is of opinion that, in order to attaio tlv 

 purposes contemplated — 



(i) The autonomy of the Imperial College should 1> 

 maintained, and incorporation with the University (m 

 London should not take place ; and 



(ii) Some means shall be found, either by the establish-J 

 ment of an independent department or faculty of te 

 nology or otherwise, by which students of the Imperil 

 College of Science and Technology who satisfactorilv ■ '^"«- 

 plete the associateship courses of the college, and st 

 duly qualified by research, advanced study, or in 

 approved ways, may obtain degrees without furlh- i 

 examination. 



Throughout their evidence the witnesses laid gre.i 

 stress on the importance of the higher, or post- 

 graduate, work of the college, especially in its indu<- 

 trial aspects, and the action already taken by th.- 

 governing body in developing this side of the work 

 of the college was fully reported. With reference, 

 however, to the basing of the claim for autonomy on 

 this special characteristic of the work of the college, 

 the witnesses were subjected to somewhat severe 

 examiriation by Sir Robert Morant in regard to the 

 obligation imposed on the governing body in the 

 charter to carry on the work of the Royal College of 

 Science and the Royal School of Mines, which, has 

 been in the past. and. as statistics published in the 

 volume show, is at the present time mainly under- 

 graduate — that is, of the standard required for the 

 first degree of a university. In reply, it was con- 

 tended that the governing body had power to modify 

 the courses in these colleges; but Sir Robert Romer 



