March 13, 1885.] 



SCIENCE. 



209 



Supposed crude jade from Alaska. 



In Science for Dec. 19, 1884, there was given an 

 abstract of the explorations on the Kowak River of 

 Alaska by a party from the U. S. steamer Corwin, 

 Lieut. Cantwell commanding. In this abstract it was 

 stated that beds of a beautifully mottled serpentine 

 were found in the mountains near the river, " as 

 well as the so-called ' jade,' used far and wide for the 

 most costly and elegant stone implements, which is 

 perhaps the variety pectolite recently described by 

 Clarke from specimens got at Point Barrow." It was 

 also stated that ' Jade Mountain ' seemed to be entirely 

 composed of the green stone, about one hundred 

 pounds of which were collected. 



The collections on the return of the party were for- 

 warded, as usual, to the national museum, as were also 

 those made a little later from nearly the same locali- 

 ties by Lieut. Stoney's party. Both lots were referred 

 to the writer for examination and report, and were 

 found to consist largely of serpentine and a greenish 

 * gray quartzite, together with other miscellaneous 

 material not necessary to mention here. The serpen- 

 tine is mostly the ordinary green massive variety, 

 though a few pieces of the columnar and fibrous forms 

 picrolite and chrysotile are present. The quartz rock, 

 which is doubtless the material mistaken by both 

 parties for ' jade,' is light greenish in color, very fine 

 grained, compact, and hard. Under the microscope, 

 it is seen to be distinctly granular, but not perfectly 

 homogeneous, containing innumerable exceedingly 

 minute micaceous particles of a greenish color, and 

 to the presence of which is doubtless due the color of 

 the stone. There are also present many minute color- 

 less needlelike crystals too small for accurate deter- 

 mination. Its specific gravity, as determined by a 

 Jolly's balance, is 2.66, and a chemical test by Profes- 

 sor Clarke yielded 94.49% of silica. The rock is 

 therefore radically different, not only from the Alas- 

 kan pectolite, but from any of the so-called 'jades ' 

 from any source that have yet been examined. An 

 examination of the collections brought from Alaska 

 has failed also to bring to light a single implement or 

 ornament manufactured of this material : hence we 

 must conclude that all the parties concerned were 

 misled by the color and hardness of the stone, and 

 that the true source of the so-called * jade ' is yet to 

 be discovered. Geo. P. Merrill. 



National museum, Feb. 28. 



'What is a microscopist ? ' 



You seem to have run short of subjects for ' Com- 

 ment and criticism' in your issue of Feb. 27, for 

 otherwise I cannot believe that you would have writ- 

 ten your ill-natured remarks upon ' microscopists.' 

 If you had confined yourself to the definition of 

 a microscopist as " an amateur who rejoices in 

 the beautiful variety of microscopical specimens," 

 I should have offered no protest; for I recognize 

 in that definition a truthful, though only partial, 

 description of a class to which it has long been 

 my pleasure to belong. If you had been content 

 to express your belief that the term ' microscopy ' is 

 a misnomer, and that the large and growing body of 

 so-called 'microscopists' is not to be regarded as a 

 division of the 'regular army' of science, I should 

 still have held a humble and respectful silence, be- 

 cause I can see how such an opinion may be very 

 honestly and very plausibly maintained. But your 

 remarks call for a protest on the ground, that, instead 

 of helping to a true estimate of the scientific spirit, 

 they set up narrow and exclusive standards, and are 

 essentially and offensively personal. 



Microscopists, as far as they are mere amateurs 

 and ' universal gatherers,' may perhaps not be enti- 

 tled to more consideration than is due to ' camp- 

 followers ' and ' hangers-on ; ' although I think there 

 is possibly a question as to your right to give them 

 notice to leave. I am not sure but that I might 

 argue, with some success, that many microscopists 

 are more than amateurs, or that many recognized 

 scientific specialists are, after all, only skilled micros- 

 copists; but why dispute over mere names? I am 

 one of those who believe that in the most effective 

 use of the modern microscope there are required a 

 degree of technical skill and an amount of special 

 knowledge which raise it to the rank of a distinct 

 scientific pursuit. You, on the contrary, appear 

 to look upon the microscope as you do upon the 

 tweezers, the scissors, or the hammer, — as an instru- 

 ment so simple that any student in any department 

 may take it up without previous special training 

 in its use, and obtain from it at once trustworthy 

 results. But I beg to inform you, if you do not 

 already know it, that, in the more delicate kinds of 

 microscopical work, it is absolutely essential to em- 

 ploy expert methods in manipulation, and to apply 

 very particular principles of interpretation, or else 

 the conclusions are likely to have no value whatever. 

 The exhibition of pretty things because they are 

 pretty, and for the mere amusement of lookers-on, is 

 no more microscopy than the making and administer- 

 ing of laughing-gas is chemistry. 



But you seem to infer that microscopists are not 

 properly scientific men, since they are not generally 

 specialists; and the ground of your inference ap- 

 pears to be that such microscopists as you have 

 happened to know have directed their attention to 

 very various objects obtained from the different 

 realms of nature. But might not the same criticism 

 be made upon chemists, who analyze and weigh every 

 sort of substance, — animal, vegetable, and mineral ? 

 Why is it more legitimate for them to rest their 

 science upon a basis of molecular and atomic weights 

 than for others to build a microscopical science upon 

 a system of micrometric measurements ? I should 

 not quarrel with you if you urged the expediency of 

 restricting the term 'microscopy' to a branch of 

 physics, or even of optics, because we may all fairly 

 differ about questions of classification; but, as things 

 now are, I cannot discover the force of your objec- 

 tion to the recognition of microscopy as a division of 

 general science based upon the fact that the subjects 

 of its investigation are beyond the range of unaided 

 vision in one direction, since astronomy, whose right 

 to the name of a science you probably do not ques- 

 tion, is founded upon the fact that the objects of its 

 study are beyond unaided vision in another direction. 

 In both cases, it seems to me, the science is condi- 

 tioned by its instrumental requirements. In one 

 instance it is the science of the microscope, in the 

 other it is the science of the telescope. Why not 

 object to astronomy because of its foundation in ' a 

 common quality' of remoteness in space, or to pale- 

 ontology as based upon 'a common quality' of re- 

 moteness in time ? 



But I have no intention of endeavoring to justify 

 a claim on behalf of microscopists to be admitted to 

 the sect of orthodox scientific men. I merely wish to 

 speak a good word for the class as it now stands. I 

 am fortunate in being acquainted with a number of 

 cultivated and educated men, both amateur and 

 professional, who make constant use of the micro- 

 scope, either in the pursuit of their regular business 

 occupations or in their private intellectual life, and 

 who take pains to keep informed as to the improve- 



