158 
NOTES AND HEMOBANDA. 
the following quotations : — “ One of my most interesting test-objects, 
namely, human blood disks, are shown by the vertical illuminator in a 
most remarkable manner, at once inconsistent with the teachings of 
the books. The matter is receiving my earnest attention, and I 
simply make this mention now, but at some future time, and after 
more mature study, I shall report the results to the Dunkirk 
Society.” — “ The work obtainable by the use of the oblique prism is 
very superior ; all of the before-mentioned tests, including the same 
mounted in balsam, are shown by it in a most charming manner. Its 
resolutions of the Moller plate are quite as acceptable as those 
obtained with the Wenham ‘ Reflex.’ Its work over human blood 
disks is truly remarkable, and I may add, not precisely in harmony 
with that of tho vertical illuminator. As before stated, the matter is 
now engaging my serious attention, and will be again referred to at 
some future time.” 
Mr. Gundlach’s Reply to Dr. Hunt’s Charge. — In our number 
for July we reprinted an article by Dr. Hunt on “the microscopes of 
the American Exhibition,” in which he says : “ It is stated in the 
‘ American Naturalist ’ for December, that a firm from Rochester, New 
York, ‘ hinged the sub-stage bar at the level of the object,’ but the 
small stands exhibited by said firm at the opening of the Exhibition 
were not so made, neither had they any facility for registering 
obliquity. The firm in question did not grasp Zentmayer’s idea at 
all, and hence can justly claim no priority of invention.” To this 
statement Mr. Gundlach has offered a very calm and temperate reply, 
which we regret we have not space for in its entirety. (It would 
occupy more than two pages.) It is addressed to the firm referred to. 
It states at first that, “ For obvious reasons, the ‘ firm from Rochester, 
New York,’ mentioned in the above note, can be no other than the 
Rausch and Lomb Optical Company, of this city, and as the micro- 
scope department of your company has been under my solo superin- 
tendence since you began making these instruments, it must be myself 
individually who, in the opinion of the writer of said note, failed to 
‘ grasp Zentmayer’s idea.’ Feeling thus my integrity called in 
question, I beg leave to submit to you, and to the public generally, 
the following statement.” Then follows a long account of the nature 
aud period of certain inventions. The writer concludes as follows : — 
“ What I contend for and stand ready to prove is, that stands of my 
construction, exhibited at the opening of the Philadelphia Exposition, 
had the arrangement of the swinging mirror bar (with diaphragm 
attached) hinged in the (as near as attainable) optically correct plane 
of the object, with a view to the use of a solid glass stage without 
central opening, and the change necessary to fit the same for the use 
of stages of different descriptions was simply not then effected for 
want of time. Other stands were then in process of construction, 
arranged to meet the altered circumstances, and were afterwards 
exhibited at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, all of them 
conceived by me, and executed under my superintendence, before I had 
seen or heard of Mr. Zentmayer’s efforts in the same direction. I 
may not be the only, nor the first, inventor of this arrangement, and 
