1887.] MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL. 197 
ment of its capabilities. And further than this, we may go and speak in the 
warmest commendation of the able manner in which the author proceeds in 
the latter portion of his article to show the special appreciation of the micro- 
scope ‘ in determining a constant in nature.’ 
And yet we would beg leave to call attention to the fact that sciences are 
not named in reference to the instruments employed in their study, but with 
reference to the objects studied, and that the mass of facts collected by the 
aid of the microscope as an instrument cannot with any beneficial result be 
treated as a single science, or, if we follow the analogy of nomenclature in 
vogue for the other sciences, given the name microscopy. We might term the 
scientific study of the branch of optics which treats especially of the micro- 
scope as its subject-matter microscopy if we cared to do so, but we should 
depart from the usages of nomenclature to term such a heterogeneous mass as the. 
biology, mineralogy, pathology, etc., etc., which is pursued with the micro- 
scope, by a name, supposing it to stand for one department of natural science. 
Now, no one would attempt to make the name have any such meaning. 
The science of-biology would never be understood to leave off and micro- 
scopy begin, or petrography leave off and become microscopy at the line 
where we cease to see with the unaided eye and call on a lens to help us out. 
It is for this reason that we say there is no dispute about the claims, except 
as to the mere matter of nomenclature. We see no advantage to be gained 
by naming a science which does not exist. Ina truly scientific sense there is 
no such thing as a science of microscopy, as defined by Prof. Rogers. The 
bond of union between the heterogenous facts of the so-called science is not 
a natural one, but only one artificially placed on the objects of study because 
of their extreme interest through their connection with the instrument, In 
writing thus we have. no desire to take away from the importance of the 
microscope in most departments of physical research. Prof. Rogers most 
happily says in his address :—‘ The microscope supplements the natural vision 
to such an extent that we can submit nearly every theory, nearly every deduc- 
tion from experiment, nearly every fact of observation, to the supreme and 
only test by which a real truth in nature can be established, viz., through the 
medium of one of the senses with which we have been endowed by the 
Creator.’ A sentiment which we most heartily endorse. We are bound to 
do and have done any and everything in our power to further its wide use and 
improvement. 
O 
A correspondent who has recently written to us regarding the purszzt of 
microscopical studies, as an amateur, has suggested some thoughts upon the 
subject which have been running unsaid for some time. The writer, who is 
in the banking business, has his days fully occupied, but plenty of time at 
night for mounting, etc. Now, the question arises, how can a man, who 
uses the microscope and studies pursued by its aid as a means of recreation, 
retain his interest in the subject. There is no need to say that the student, 
who has gotten an introduction to nature’s mysteries, and who is beginning 
to unravel tangled threads of meanings, will never have his interest flag be he 
never so busy during his days, and be he amateur or professional. It is also 
needless to say that be he never so untiring, and even had he all his time at 
his disposal, he will never exhaust all the questions which call for investiga- 
tion. But if he has not received his introduction to nature’s questions, so 
that he recognizes a mystery when he sees it abroad, and begins to try its 
solution, then what must he do to acquire it? 
We can readily see how one, who prosecuted in an amateur way the col- 
lection of mounted slides, and derived his pleasure from them as mere curi- 
“ 
