ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY, MICROSCOPY, ETC. 
827 
smaller letters, even to the punctuation, grammatical and orthographical 
relationship, and in comparative differentiation. All these things must 
be taken into consideration. 
In the examination of papers, documents, such as wills, notes, 
cheques, &c., as to whether or not they were mutilated and forged, the 
Microscope will certainly be the most reliable test, much the easiest and 
simplest. 
This is the way of determination, and an expert microscopist and 
observer can at once arrive at a correct and positive conclusion as to 
the genuineness of the autograph, &c. 
In the examination of U.S. currency the same will hold good as in 
the examination of written and printed matter, with the exception that 
additional observation is necessary in order to differentiate a genuine 
bill from a counterfeit. This lies in the microscopical examination 
(1) of the quality of paper used; (2) in the execution and finish of the 
hill ; (3) the grade and colour of the ink ; (4) the printed condition of 
the bill, including the autograph; (5) the most important and cha- 
racteristic means of determining a genuine bill from a counterfeit bill 
being in the observation of the red line which runs lengthwise across 
the bill, and it will be necessary to notice that the two red lines in a 
genuine bill are simply red silk thread interwoven in the paper of the 
bill, when in a counterfeit the red lines are simply red ink stripes, and 
no silk lines whatever. 
Medico-Legal Microscopy.* — The thirteenth annual meeting of the 
American Society of Microscopists was opened with a discussion on the 
“ Proposed Standing Committee on Medico-Legal Microscopy,” by Prof. 
Ewell of Chicago. The professor began the discussion by declaring 
that the Microscope was by no means the simple instrument usually 
imagined. On the contrary, he stated that it was an exceedingly difficult 
instrument to handle. Some of the pointed stories about the Microscope 
are the strongest points in favour of a medico-legal committee, as this 
would have a tendency to stop the circulation of stories exaggerating the 
powers of the Microscope. He called attention to an article in a 
scientific paper, telling how the brain-matter found in a Chicago sewer 
was identified as coming from Dr. Cronin’s head. No one had previously 
heard of Dr. Cronin’s brain being exposed until the autopsy. This 
Dr. Ewell deprecated in the highest degree. To assume for the Microscope 
a position of infallibility, from a medical standpoint, is an absurdity, and 
goes a long way towards injuring the general standard of the profession. 
Dr. Frank L. James, Prof. Seaman, Mr. H. L. Tolman, Dr. Stillson, 
and Prof. Claypole were in favour of such a committee to correct these 
wrongs. Newspapers have often spoken about the identification of blood 
by aid of the Microscope, but the best microscopists know that they can- 
not positively tell human blood. They can tell the difference between 
the blood of amphibians, mammalia, and fowls. They were of opinion 
that the committee would do a very great work if it could curb the 
enthusiasm of those who over-estimate the field of the Microscope. 
Courts should be given a standard by which the power of the Microscope 
can be judged. 
* Amer. Mon. Micr. Journ., xi. (1890) p. 199. 
