1882.J 



MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL. 



165 



of the net-work, and declared that it 

 could not be seen under the circum- 

 stances mentioned. Dr. Carl Seiler, 

 while not declaring against the doc- 

 trine advanced, desired to be in- 

 formed just how the net- work could 

 be found. He had looked for it, but 

 never seen it. His questions were 

 met by evasive, or very general, re- 

 plies, until they were put in such 

 form as required direct answers to 

 the specific points. The result of 

 the whole discussion was that Dr. 

 Elsberg declared the net-work to be 

 easily seen, while others, who had 

 looked for it, doubted its exist- 

 ence. 



We feel disposed to regard one 

 course of argument followed by the 

 author of the paper, as quite unbe- 

 coming in a gathering of scientific 

 gentlemen. In fact, it may justly 

 be regarded as decidedly impertinent 

 to come provided with a number of 

 standard and elementary works on 

 botany, and assuming, if not, indeed, 

 declaring, that those who are at 

 variance with him are ignorant of the 

 contents of those works, challenge 

 them to look and see what he has 

 described confirmed by drawings by 

 observers of unquestioned ability and 

 skill. Properly enough, the insult 

 was unnoticed, although fully recog- 

 nized. 



Realizing full well that an attempt 

 on our part to present the merits of 

 this subject at length, might not be 

 entirely satisfactory to the supporters 

 of the "bioplasson" doctrine, we 

 offer them the free use of these 

 columns for a fair presentation of the 

 doctrine before the microscopists of 

 the country, if they deem it desirable, 

 with the understanding that the sub- 

 ject be treated as concisely as pos- 

 sible, so as not to occupy too much 

 space. 



Dr. Henry C. Marcy spoke on the 

 " Histology of Uterine Fibroid Tu- 

 mors " which he illustrated with 

 photo-micrographs. 



Prof. T. J. Burrill then presented 

 his paper on " Some Vegetable Poi- 



sons," an abstract of which will be 

 printed next month. 



A most valuable and interesting 

 paper was read by Prof. W. A. 

 Rogers, which will doubtless be pub- 

 lished in full in the Journal of the 

 Royal Microscopical Society. The 

 following abstract covers most of the 

 ground of the original paper : — 



In offering a communication upon 

 the subject of ruling fine lines on 

 glass I am not unmindful of the fact 

 that I am entering a field in which I 

 acknowledge a master. Since the 

 death of Nobert, Mr. Fasoldt, of 

 Albany, stands first in the art of fine 

 ruling. I have confined my attention 

 to an attempt to subdivide any given 

 unit into sensibly equal parts. I have 

 been led to take up the subject of fine 

 rulings anew, by the claim of Mr. 

 Fasoldt, that he has succeeded in rul- 

 ing lines one million to the inch, and 

 especially by his claim that the 

 spectrum of such bands, is an evi- 

 dence of the reality of the separate 

 lines ********* 



When a diamond is ground to a 

 knife-edge, this edge is composed of 

 separate crystals, and a perfect line 

 is only obtained when the ruling is 

 done with a single crystal. When a 

 single crystal does all the work, the 

 line ruled is densely black. It is not 

 a simple scratch — an abrasion of the 

 surface. A portion of the glass sur- 

 face is probably always removed to 

 a greater or less extent. In many 

 cases the glass is thrown up as a 

 plough turns up a furrow. Sometimes 

 the surface is covered with filaments 

 thrown off by the diamond, which are 

 removed by rubbing the surface, at 

 other times the filaments take a spiral 

 form. In a certain condition of the 

 diamond-point, the lines ruled appear 

 black and clear along one edge, but 

 by rubbing, the glass, which seems to 

 have been turned up in a furrow, is 

 removed, and then the lines appear 

 as mere scratches. 



To rule lines finer than 10,000 or 

 20,000 to the inch, requires a dia- 

 mond-point that has been used a 



