ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY, MIOEOSOOPY, ETC. 1035 



what at the best is a very humiliating chapter so far as microscopical 

 optics is concerned. " A Member " insists that when Societies print 

 rubbish in their Proceedings such comments as we made are beside the 

 mark. Let us look at the matter by means of a parallel case. 



Suppose a Fellow read a paper at the Astronomical Society refuting 

 Newton's theory of gravitation on the ground that the premiss with 

 which he started was wrong — that the apple fell to the ground simply 

 because it got loose from the stalk, without which it would not have 

 fallen. Can it be seriously suggested that the Society, as a Society, 

 would not very properly incur serious discredit for printing such a 

 paper in their Transactions? Is it conceivable that any astronomer 

 would venture to write as " A Member " does, that '5 If no paper is to 

 " appear in any journal because some one or other, and perhaps very 

 " rightly, may consider it rubbish, most] Societies had better give up 

 " printing their proceedings altogether ; and if the opinions of an author, 

 " under his own signature, and controverted at the time of reading, are to 

 " be fathered upon a whole Society, either some animus exists or editorial 

 " craft must be in a poor way ! " 



It is especially to the Society who print nonsense that the complaint 

 must be addressed, because it is they who are in reality the offenders. 

 To the end of time there will be authors who will write with an air of 

 transcendent knowledge on subjects of which they know nothing, and 

 who will make similarly absurd mistakes to those of Mr. Morland and 

 and Mr. Smith. If the matter rested there it would be of small conse- 

 quence — an affair of only passing amusement. But when it comes to pub- 

 lication it is a very different question. Not only are the readers of the 

 papers misled, but microscopical science itself is degraded and disgraced, 

 and made a laughing-stock in other scientific circles. 



There is no possible reason why a Microscopical Society should be 

 less jealous of its good name and credit than any other learned Society ; 

 and so long as we have any share in the conduct of this Journal we 

 shall spare no effort to prevent the publication by any recognized micro- 

 scopical authority of views which whether by ignorance or only wrong- 

 headedness, are what we have described as terrible nonsense. We are 

 glad to note that the tone in which the authors write in their recent 

 letters sufficiently shows that when they next write a microscopical 

 paper they will take much more care than they did with the last, in 

 order to avoid the comments it has been our duty to make, so that even 

 in that quarter some good will have been accomplished ; the similar 

 feeling displayed in another direction by " A Member " leads us also to 

 the hopeful conclusion that even if similar authors should hereafter be 

 found, yet that we have seen the last of any reproduction in print of such 

 lamentable papers as those on which we have commented. 



AmpMpleiira pellucida. 



[Criticism, by Delta, of Mr. Nelson's note, ante, p. 809, and remarks by T. F. S., 

 E. M. Nelson, Delta, and Jack.] 



Engl. MecL, XLVIII. (1888) pp. 117, 138, 159, 178, 199 (1 fig.j, 



219 and 260 (i figs.). 

 D'Agen, E. — ^Initial Magnifying Power of Microscope Objectives. 



Engl. MecL, XLVIII. (1888) pp. 178-9, 



Hasselbekg, B. — Uber eine Methode die Brennweite eines Linsensystems fiir 



verscMedene Strahlen mit grosser Genauigkeit zu bestimmen. (On the method of 



determining with great accuracy the focal length of a system of lenses for diiferent 



rays.) £icU. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petershourg, XXXII. (1888) pp. 412-34. 



