1890.] MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL. 83 



Is there a Science of Microscopy ? 



• By WM. H. seaman, M. D., 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 



The words "science" and "scientific" are often used with very 

 loose and indefinite notions of their meaning. In general, science is 

 certain knowledge, the total written record of the observations and 

 opinions of men trained in investigation, and logical in habits of 

 thought. In particular, it means that part of such record as relates to 

 one single class of closely related phenomena, as of light, the science 

 of optics. 



When the worker or investigator requires a knowledge of several 

 different parts of science or sciences, which co-operate to enable him to 

 produce a given result, such a collective body of knowledge of different 

 kinds constitutes an art, as the art of medicine or of painting. Now 

 in the telescope and microscope we have two instruments, each of 

 which, in its own place, has equally aided in scientific research. The 

 word telescope has the same form of derivatives, telescopic, telescopical, 

 as microscope, but in place of telescopy we say astronomy. 



Nobody questions the right of astronomy to be called a science, but 

 it includes a knowledge of the instrument used, /. ^., telescope, and also 

 of the things observed. The telescope is chiefly applied to celestial 

 bodies in regard to which our powers are limited to a few characters, 

 as size, distance, etc., while the microscope gives us a much greater 

 variety of knowledge. If, however, we consider the applications of 

 the latter instrument, we shall find it chiefly employed in examining the 

 simplest forms and elements of organic life, and this is pre-eminently 

 the field in which skill in the use of the instrument and knowledge of 

 the thing observed go hand in hand. Here then is the basis of the 

 science of microscopy as a definite branch or division of human knowl- 

 edge, as accurately and well defined as astronomy. 



Histology, the Protozoa and Cryptogamia, together with the tech- 

 nics of the instrument are the principal and particular subjects included 

 under the more general term "Microscopy." 



Certain other subjects are partially but less perfectly covered, as em- 

 bryology, physiography, etc., because they involve in their treatment 

 both macroscopic characters and ideas, chemical or otherwise, not mi- 

 croscopic. But the parallel with astronomy still holds good, for that 

 science has, likewise, side or auxiliary branches, as spectral analysis, 

 stellar photograph}^, etc. 



The use of the words " microscopy " and " microscopical" to indi- 

 cate a particular sciei\ce, is not only justified by the above parallel, but 

 also by usage, which has much to do with fixing the meaning of terms, 

 and, when fully established, dominates other considerations in the use 

 of language. From the time when the compound microscope was 

 made in its modern form we have had numerous societies, periodicals, 

 and text-books, of the highest scientific value, in the titles of which the 

 words in question are used. If we examine the character of this litera- 

 ture, we shall find it corresponds to the above statements. The Royal 

 Microscopical Society of London publishes a journal which contains 

 abstracts of all current microscopical literature as well as its own trans- 

 actions. Less than half of the papers in the " Transactions," and 

 a still smaller proportion of the " abstracts," relate to microscopical 

 technics. The abstracts are classified in the index under the various 



