504 MICROSCOPY. 
. temptation to underrate them being afforded by the consideration — 
that if an objective of a certain focus will show a test object as 
_ well as another of higher focus, the former is to be preferred. 
Thus it happens that what are sold as 4 inch objectives are often 
more nearly 45, and that what are sold as } are not unfrequently 
more nearly 1.” I presume that I am justified in assuming that 
Mr. Wenham was fully aware of both the above, that Capt. 
' Mitchell termed the custom dishonest in 1862, and Dr. Carpenter 
that it was the result of “ temptation” in 1868, yet he did not 
feel called on to ‘practically defend” the want of honesty, or the 
yielding to temptation. Was he not then as now “a witness 
in behalf” of those he calls the “most respectable portion of the 
body?” Was it only censure from this side of the Atlantic that 
was “ worth caring for?” It certainly looks so. . 
For some twenty years I have watched Mr. Wenham’s con- 
tributions to microscopy. I have used and admired his mge 
nious inventions and appliances and have looked upon him as one 
of the foremost leaders and authorities in the mechanical and 
theoretic departments of the science. It was with regret that I 
saw that he did not disapprove of the fictitious nomenclature. 
It is with greater regret that I find that he has in his haste used 
the arrogant expressions that he has. ; 
The question of nomenclature is now being agitated, the atten- 
tion of microscopists is attracted to it, and one consequence will 
be that the “honest” makers will be appreciated.— CHARLES 
Stopper, Boston, May 27th. : 
Nomencrature or Opsectives. — Dr. J. J. Woodward's Ln 
on this subject in the June number of the “ American Jo same 
Science and Arts,” goes over a considerable part of ba pee 
ground as Dr. Ward’s paper published in the NATURAL T 
months before; though that paper had not been m per 
Woodward at the time of writing the principal part of be hough 
Both authors are laboring for the same result, uniformity, t n ie 
with some important minor differences of which we n | ives 
another time. Both have proposed the naming of ot aa 
their amplifying powers; but it is greatly to be desired DS 
one shall adopt such a plan until some distance of _ aiferel™ 
can be agreed upon by all. We have enough individual a 
ces to reconcile already. | 
