210 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. V., No. 110. 



rnents being made in the instrument and its accesso- 

 ries, as well as in the methods of its manipulation 

 and application. Some of them join with others of 

 like predilections in organizations which are com- 

 monly called 'microscopical societies,' the purposes of 

 which are mutual stimulation and the enjoyment and 

 propagation of scientific — shall I say dilettanteism? 

 — yes, if you like. At any rate, these gentlemen are 

 engaged in very nearly the same kind of work that 

 Science is engaged in ; and many of them take your 

 paper, and not only read it, but, when it presents sub- 

 jects which they can illustrate or test by means of 

 their microscopes, they undertake to see for them- 

 selves, and form their own conclusions. A smaller 

 number of them even presume to make original in- 

 vestigations of one kind or another; and some of 

 them actually add a new fact now and then to the 

 great treasury of scientific truth, though it may 

 often be such a little fact as not to attract much at- 

 tention. I do not think they are usually men of great 

 conceit; and I have never happened to come in con- 

 tact with one who was over-anxious to be considered 

 a ' regular ' scientific man, or to receive any particular 

 recognition by learned bodies. Generally speaking, 

 I have found them to be gentlemen of simple and 

 unpretentious devotion to nature, who had found 

 themselves, somehow, endowed with a preference for 

 those things which are invisible to the average sight, 

 and who had imbibed the teachings of those who, 

 like yourself, have advocated the popularizing of 

 science. 



But in this class are some who have earned and 

 compelled recognition as men of science; and in Lon- 

 don and in Brussels (to say nothing of home organ- 

 izations) are microscopical societies of world-wide 

 fame and importance, which have long been looked 

 upon by some of us as bodies of scientific men. In 

 their lists of fellows are such names as Dr. W. B. 

 Carpenter, Dr. Lionel S. Beale, Prof. F. Jeffrey Bell, 

 Rev. W. H. Dallinger, Prof. P. Martin Duncan, Dr. 

 Henry VanHeurck, and many others whose scientific 

 attainments speak for themselves, and no one of whom 

 would disdain the name of ' microscopist.' In our 

 own country, I may with propriety mention one who 

 has but recently passed away, and who, although pos- 

 sessing other claims to scientific eminence, achieved 

 his greatest reputation and his most lasting fame in 

 the field of pure microscopical manipulation. I refer 

 to the late Dr. J. J. Woodward of the U. S. army, 

 who was pre-eminently a microscopist, and who did 

 every thing he could to promote and encourage the 

 finest kind of technical and test work. His labors in 

 that direction, with those of others of like proclivi- 

 ties and skill, have done more than all other causes 

 to bring about the present wonderful perfection of the 

 microscope objective. By the work and the demands 

 of such manipulators, the great manufacturing opti- 

 cians, like the late Mr. Spencer and Mr. Tolles, have 

 been encouraged and stimulated to produce the latest 

 marvels in optics, — the 'homogeneous immersion' 

 lenses. 



In view of the valuable services of such men as I 

 have mentioned, I am at a loss to understand your 

 arrogant assertion that ' scientific men have been 

 very lenient towards the microscopists.' Is it to be 

 understood that you are about to advocate some new 

 standard of orthodoxy, or to put into operation some 

 new formula of excommunication ? Permit me, fur- 

 ther, to inquire whether you really consider it un- 

 scientific to choose skilfully and neatly prepared 

 specimens, carefully classified, neatly labelled, and 

 systematically catalogued and stored ? Is it amateur- 

 ish to prefer a good and complete instrument to a cheap 



and imperfect one ? Is there any particular virtue in 

 working with poor tools when good ones can be ob- 

 tained ? Is there any thing unworthy in patience and 

 painstaking ? Is any thing in nature too small to be 

 worth examination, or any fragment of knowledge 

 too insignificant to pay for its acquisition? If you 

 disclaim any such sentiments as these, why speak 

 disparagingly of well-made 'slides,' of fine 'test 

 objects,' of 'delicate diatoms' and ' podura scales,' 

 of 'bits of tissue,' of 'polarizing crystals,' or, 'in 

 short, almost any tiny scrap of the universe ' ? For 

 when you talk so flippantly of these things, you cer- 

 tainly leave the impression on some minds that there 

 may be matters so trifling and so tiny that they be- 

 little the man who admires or studies them; and in- 

 stead of promoting the general cause of science, as 

 you profess to be desirous of doing, you cast in the 

 way a stumbling-block of petty prejudice. 



C. F. Cox. 



New York, March 1. 



THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF MARCH 16. 



Attention has alreacty been drawn to the 

 chief circumstances of this eclipse in the 

 Science almanac, or at p. 578 of the last vol- 

 ume of Science, where the times of beginning 

 and ending are given for a large number of 

 places in the United States. The annular 

 phase will be visible only within the limits of 

 a belt between thirty and forty miles wide, 

 which lies over a veiy sparsely settled tract of 

 the North- American continent, and which is 

 difficult of access at this season of the year. 

 In the United States generally, the eclipse will 

 be visible as a partial one on the afternoon of 

 the 16th in the eastern states, and in the fore- 

 noon in the western. 



Regarding the cycle of eclipses called the 

 Saros, this eclipse is a ' return ' of the annular 

 eclipse of the 22d of February, 1849, visible 

 almost wholly upon the North Pacific Ocean, 

 the track of the annular phase skirting the 

 eastern shores of Japan ; also of the annular 

 eclipse of March 5-6, 1867, which was visible 

 as a partial eclipse over almost the entire Eu- 

 ropean continent, and the greater part of Africa 

 and Asia ; the central line of annular phase 

 running through northern Africa, crossing the 

 Mediterranean and southern Italy, Russia and 

 Siberia, and which was observed at a large 

 number of European observatories. The next 

 return of the eclipse following the present one 

 will occur in the latter part of March, 1903. 



Annular eclipses are usually regarded as a 

 useless and insignificant sort of celestial phe- 

 nomenon, and astronomers in the past have 

 given very little attention to the observation of 

 them. In comparison with the imposing spec- 

 tacle of a total eclipse of the sun, an annular 



