ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY. MICROSCOPY, ETC. ^703 
special weight in their recommendations. A committee of this kind 
would naturally he guided to a great extent by the more experienced of 
the members ; and these latter would not hesitate to call in the assist- 
ance of any one who was known to be specially qualified to advise on the 
matter — I think that might well be taken for granted. 
With reference to the construction of students’ Microscopes, where 
experience informs me that English opticians are very apt to go astray : — 
If we take a general survey of the various kinds of students’ Microscopes 
produced in England, we shall be struck with the fact that they are too 
light in build, and consequently too liable to become loose and shaky in 
their bearings throughout. Take an average English stand of this class 
as it leaves the maker’s hands, put it on a laboratory table to be used by 
students for a session or two, and it will then show such signs of wear 
and tear as to need radical renovation. This rapid deterioration of the 
mechanism of our students’ Microscopes is, in great measure, due to the 
inferior quality of the metal employed, which is not selected for its 
durability, but mainly for its low price and the ease, and consequent 
cheapness, with which it can be fashioned. Thus instruments are put 
together with a considerable amount of accuracy in the bearings, and 
with rack-and-pinion work moving with all desirable smoothness, and, 
above all, with a most lustrous polish wherever the lathe can be brought 
to bear on the parts — the whole so artfully and cleverly finished that 
we are all deceived into commending the results. We examine critically 
all the movements and they pass muster with applause. But the 
question of the durability cannot be settled by mere inspection. We 
are apt to suppose that well-fitted metal-work must necessarily be durable 
because it is metal ; whereas, durability depends to a very large extent 
on the quality of the metal. Many of these modern Microscope-stands 
are made of a quality of brass that is specially chosen of just that degree 
of hardness to enable the work to be done with the maximum speed, and, 
consequently with the minimum outlay on the production of the instru- 
ments. The question of durability is wholly ignored. The policy seems 
to have been to make the utmost haste in the business of manufacturing, 
and let c the devil take the hindmost.’ 
Judicious concerted action on the part of class-teachers should put 
an end to this chaotic state of things, by giving the opticians reasonable 
assurance that those who can succeed in meeting the desiderata most 
efficiently will meet with the desired commercial success. 
I have been informed, on reliable authority, that some months ago a 
project was discussed by sundry amateurs in London for a competition 
among opticians relative to the production of the most efficient Micro- 
scope-stands of certain classes, and substantial prizes were to be offered. 
The matter went so far that the secretary of one of the most prosperous 
societies in London was ready to inaugurate the competition formally. 
But wiser counsels prevailed. It was plainly foreseen that the difficulties 
of settling the conditions of the competition and the selection of the 
jury would lead to endless bickering and dissatisfaction, and so the 
matter was dropped. 
The scheme we now have at heart is much less ambitious, and, I 
hope, more practical ; and I think it should have the support of 
Mr. Karop and his fellow-workers. — Microscopist.” 
