26 Microscopes at the American Exhibition. By J. G. Hunt 
rally not the case in lenses of estremest angle. The mechanical 
mounting and splendid finish of this truly grand objective should be 
a stimulus and admonition to other foreign makers to do likewise. 
It is useless to spend the time in such patient optical work as this 
lens demands if the mounting is defective. It is superbly mounted. 
Genius never clothes an angel of light in a beggar’s garment. The 
American plan of traversing the back combination is adopted, and 
every expert knows its value. 
From Germany I have seen nothing respectable. Several of 
Zeiss’ objectives have come under notice recently. His lower 
powers which I have seen are unfit for use. His ^ 5 th fails in 
revealing details which our lower powers show better. The brass- 
work is specially inferior. Amplification is not definition. Power 
“ is necessary to transport mountains ; definition and precision we 
demand in studying atoms.” I do not see in Zeiss’ objectives too 
much of Professor Abbe’s mathematics, but I do see an absence of 
finger-skill which stamps them with a national characteristic. 
Mathematics never made an objective. Like theology, it says, this 
is the way, walk in it. It is the manner of walking in that way, 
in each case, which is the business. Yet these and similar grades 
use the lenses continually recommended to students. This is a 
serious mistake, and is the explanation of much misinterpretation in 
biological work. But these foreign lenses are cheap ! For a dollar 
an optician will mount an uncorrected lens which will do as good 
work. Recall the results obtained by Swammerdam, who worked 
successfully at the anatomy of insects, and who discovered the 
values of the lymphatics in 1664. Of Leuwenhoek, who, with 
microscopes of his own make, better than some of which I am now 
speaking, and cheaper, discovered the organic muscular fibre cell, 
now attributed to Kolliker, and who described accurately the fibres 
of the crystalline lens of the eye. Of Malpighi and Grew, who 
first used the microscope in anatomy, and who made many dis- 
coveries in the structure of plants. Of Dr. Hook, and Baker, and 
Adams, and the earlier work of Ehrenberg. They observed with 
cheaper lenses and did better work than can he done with the 
glasses of which I am now speaking. Is anything cheap which 
misinterprets nature ? Do you give the student in astronomical 
science, or in spectroscopy, or in surveying, or the chemist, or in 
any other branch of mechanics, bad tools to work with? Why 
should the biological student be specially degraded ? Give him the 
best objectives. Cheapen their production as much as possible, but 
never at expense of their optical performance, because his function 
is to interpret, not only the genesis and structure of present organi- 
zation ; but equally, the vast and sacred mysteries of extinguished 
ages. True microscopy is the fertile branch of the great tree of 
aesthetics. Its revelations are the minute and beautiful things in 
