1889.] MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL. 247 



How to Draw Microscopic Objects. 



By W. J. SIMMONS. 



CALCUTTA, INDIA. 



Objects may be viewed under the microscope in two ways. They 

 may be looked at as one looks at the colored patterns formed in a kaleid- 

 oscope, or they ma}- be observed scientificallv. From an educational 

 and practical point of view, perhaps, the surest way to learn how to 

 observe an object as distinguished from merely " looking at" it, is to 

 sit down and draw it. If this view of the matter be correct, it is ob- 

 vious that the subjects dealt with in this paper lie at the verv thresh- 

 old of every real microscopist's training. 



The subject of micrometric measuring should be dealt with by itself; 

 the need for a knowledge of the method of ascertaining the size of min- 

 ute objects — knowledge only to be acquired by actual and continued 

 practice — is constantly cropping up in study and in work. Kent's 

 Manual ; Leidy's Monograph on Rhizopods ; Pritchard's Infusoria 

 (which includes Desmids. Diatoms, and Rotifers) ; Crookshank's Bac- 

 teriology ; Wolle's book on Alga3 ; the Micrographic Dictionary, in- 

 deed, every standard work, constantly refers to size as a special feature 

 in micro-organisms. Huxley's Practical Biology repeatedly requires 

 the observer to draw and measure the organisms to which his attention 

 is directed. In all these facts I find justification or specially dealing 

 with what, to those who are familiar with them, and know their scien- 

 tific value, may seem verv elementarv matters, to be safely relegated to 

 the private study and perseverance of individuals. 



Two or three who have discussed the point with me appear to hold 

 that it is better to photograph objects than to draw them ; and undoubtedly 

 for certain purposes photography is invaluable. Perhaps it will avoid 

 misconceptions later on if I at once say that for myself I agree with the 

 learned President of the Asiatic Society in regarding photography as 

 '• the recording pencil of science in all its branches." Vou will, how- 

 ever, admit that it is indiscriminately faithful ; it perpetuates details, 

 such as dirt and extraneous matters, which may well be left out of a 

 drawing accurate enough for all practical purposes. Photography does 

 not compel you to look into and study your object, as distinguished 

 from its picture, so thoroughly as you must do when you sit to draw it. 

 Experience proves that, by drawing an object, one acquires a clearer 

 and more lasting impression of its details than is likely to be obtained 

 by photographing it. Again, photography involves the expenditure of 

 more time and more money than many can spare. You will find, too, 

 as a fact, that owing to the great simplicity of the adjustments required 

 for drawing, a man is far more likely to utilize his skill as a draughts- 

 man than he is to employ his skill as a photographer. The materials 

 required for drawing occupy less space, are far less numerous, and re- 

 quire less provision to be made for them than the itnpedhncnta of the 

 photo-micrographic artist ; and therefore, though I do not overlook the 

 advantages in these respects of the dry-plate process, the abilitv to draw 

 your objects is a handier accomplishment when travelling than the 

 ability to photograph them. You must not infer from all this tliat I 

 depreciate photo-micrography ; far from it, but I consider it should run 

 in double harness with drawing. It is useful to enable you or your 



