66 Notice of Queketi’s Treatise on the Microscope. 
and the hope on the author’s part that the present volume “ will 
be found more worthy of notice.” 
In the brief space to which we are limited we can only examine 
the points of difference in the two editions. 
The second edition contains fifty-one pages, three plates, and 
twenty-nine wood engravings not in the former one. The gene- 
ral plan of the book is unchanged. 
To the history of the microscope, and the chapter on the sim- 
ple microscope, nothing has been added. The chief part of the 
chapter on compound microscopes is devoted to the description of 
the instruments made by Ross, Powell and Lealand, and Smit 
and Beck. These descriptions have the same fault as was gene- 
rally complained of in the first edition: the author does not prof- 
fer any advice, as to which form he has found to have the most 
advantages and fewest defects. In this chapter we have mention 
of a new London maker, Mr. Pillischer; also of Mr. King of 
Bristol and.Mr. Abrahams of Liverpool. These three, however, 
receive but faint praise, though “report speaks well” of Mr. 
rahams. 
Following this we have a description of “ foreign microscopes,” 
ba whose instruments are noticed. We can here only 
allude to two of them, M. Oberhauser, and M. Nachet of Paris. 
he instrument of M. Oberhauser, “for general purposes,” 
figured at page 107, isa deformed little microscope, with a com- 
we never saw one answering to the description here given. In 
a foot-note we are informed, as the latest information in regard to 
Oberhause $ microscopes, that he “has placed the fine adjustment 
ane bottom of the support of the compound body instead of at 
‘top. He has also increased the length of ‘the compound 
