1882.] 



MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL. 



13 



be followed, however swift or tortu- 

 ous its course may be. It permits a 

 complete rotation. There is no ma- 

 chinery underneath to interfere with 

 the course of the light. The stage 

 may be made extremely thin. In this 

 stand light may be admitted at an 

 angle of something more than i6o 

 degrees. 



The stand has also an arrangement 

 for drawing, suggested to Mr. Bulloch 

 by Dr. Lester Curtis, which is de- 

 signed to do away with some of the 

 difficulties attending the use of the 

 ordinary camera lucida. A little table 

 is fastened to the limb bymilled-head 

 screws. Paper is placed upon this for 

 drawing. One of Hartnack's right- 

 angled camera lucidas is used. Draw- 

 ing can be done in any position of 

 the microscope. There is hardly more 

 preparation required for this than 

 would be required to change an eye- 

 piece. The comfort of this arrange- 

 ment, when one is doing work which 

 requires much drawing while obser- 

 vation is going on, needs to be ex- 

 perienced to be appreciated. 



Large vs. Small Stands. 



I must thank you Mr. Editor, for 

 your criticism of my remarks on stands 

 in your November number. You have 

 undoubtedly done the best you could 

 for your side of the question, and 

 that is very little. As the matter is 

 one of the first importance to all in- 

 vestigators, as well as to those who 

 are to be the investigators of the fu- 

 ture, I must ask the privilege of criti- 

 cizing my critic, and allow me to re- 

 mind you that this is not a new sub- 

 ject with me; I fought the same battle 

 with Prasmowsky in the Lens several 

 years ago. 



You now ignore the main question 

 which I endeavored to make promi- 

 nent: "There can be no doubt that 

 the time of large and costly micro- 

 scopes is passed. Indeed, there will be 

 always some that will want them, but 

 the experienced worker, whether he 



be an amateur or a professional, will 

 surely discard them." 



It is this teaching that I reject, and 

 claim ought to be rejected; and I 

 claim also that it is rejected. 



Now I know that there. are persons, 

 not only in Europe, but in America, 

 who think and talk as you do; but I 

 do not know that any one of them 

 has any experience of the difference 

 of vision between the common Ger- 

 man model and the full-sized ten- 

 inch tube of English and American 

 instruments. As I said before, the 

 whole use of the microscope is to see 

 with, and considerations of cost or 

 convenience must be secondary to 

 seeing best. It does not follow that 

 the full-sized Jackson model should 

 be very costly, further than two 

 pounds of brass cost more than one 

 pound. Of course, some persons need 

 or wish for, appliances that cannot 

 be used at all, or not efficiently on 

 the short stands. That is another 

 matter, I am claiming the time of 

 large microscopes is not passed. 



I utterly deny that the small stands 

 "are more convenient." Any use of 

 a microscope is a matter of delicate 

 manipulation, and it is equally con- 

 venient to take a sixteen pound mi- 

 croscope from its case, where it stands 

 vertically ready for use, as it is a four 

 pound one. 



You say, " We have in no place es- 

 pecially commended the German 

 model, but we wrote of 'low stands 

 not much higher than the German 

 model.' " Precisely that I, and I pre- 

 sume every one, understands to be 

 a commendation of the German mo- 

 del, and my objection is not especially 

 to German, btit to any not much 

 higher. 



My omission in the quotation that 

 you refer to, was intentional; I was 

 not, in that passage, considering the 

 minor question of convenience, but 

 the great all-important one of superi- 

 ority of vision which, practically you 

 surrender. 



To conclude, if any yet claims that 

 the time of large microscopes — mean- 



