3 18 
SCIENCE. 
objective of his telescope, discovered a small binuclear, 
planetary nebula. Its position for 1880 is R. A. 2ih. 
2m. 1 1. 8s, Dec. 47° 22.2' N. 
Washington, December 23, 1880. W. C. W. 
SWIFT’S COMET. 
The following are two more positions of this comet. 
These were obtained by the aid of a ring micrometer. 
Nov. 20, 1880, R. A. ih. 6m. 24s. : Dec. + 54° 22’ 39" : 
Time is toh. 49.1m. Washington m. t. Dec. 5, 1880, R. 
A. 4h. 71m 49.2s. : Dec. +48 30' 10™ Time is 9h. 49m. 
Washington m. t. I have also an observation of position 
for Nov. 7, which has not been reduced as I have not yet 
managed to find the position of a filth magnitude star, to 
which the comet’s position was referred. The star’s posi- 
tion will soon be obtained. 
Nashville, Tenn., Dec. 21, 1880. E. E. Barnard. 
NEW COMPANION TO y FORNACIS. 
Sir John Herschel entered this as No. 2161, of his Fifth 
Catalogue of Double Stars, by reason of a distant eleventh 
magnitude which he detected, at an estimated distance of 
45 ”, in the direction of 169 4 0 . This star was measured 
by me in 1879 in connection with a series of observations 
of a class of stars given in “Smyth’s Bedford Catalogue.” 
Since then, in repeating the measure of the Herschel 
Star, I have discovered a much nearer component, which 
fairly entitles the large star to be classed as double. The 
new star is very faint, and a rather difficult object with 
the i8j£-inch refractor of the Dearborn Observatory. 
This, however, is partly due to its low altitude in this 
latitude, it being 25 0 south of the Equator. The mean 
result of my measures of these companions on four nights 
is : — 
A and B P=I444° 0 = 11.53" 1880.93 
A and C 157.0 0 48.85" 1880.68 
I have estimated the new companion as thirteenth 
magnitude. This, it will be remembered, is in the Struve 
scale of magnitudes, which would make it very much 
smaller than Herschel’s twentieth magnitude. 
The place of the principal star for 1880 is : — 
R A. 2h. 44m. 33s. j 
Deck - — 25 0 3" ( 
S. W. Burnham. 
Chicago, Ills., December 21, 1880. 
To the Editor of SCIENCE : 
Professor Winchell, in the last number of “SCIENCE,” 
refers to what he supposes “ to be some errors in the 
dates in the list of minor planets discovered by the late 
Professor Watson,” viz. : 
(133) Cyrene, discovered Aug. 14, 1873 .Ain. Jour. Sa.III., VI., 296 
( 174) Phaedra, “ “ 8,1877, “ “ “ III., XIV., 325’ 
(175) Andromache, “ Sept. 2, 1877, “ “ “ III., XIV. , 325 
In correcting these supposed errors Prof. Winchell has 
fallen into more grievous ones. 
Owing to a misprint in the Astronomische Nachrichten 
I was led to record the date of the discovery of (133) as 
August 26 ; it should be August 16, vid. Astron. Each. 
82,241 Am. Jour. Sci. III., VI., 296. 
(174) Phaedra was discovered September 2, 1877, vid. 
Am. jour. Sci. III., XIV., 325. This date is given 
September 3 in Ctrc. Bert. Jahr. No. 76. September 2 
is undoubtedly the correct date. The object discovered 
August 8 turned out to be (141) Lumen, vid. III., XIV., 
429, Circ. Bert. Jahr. No. 76. 
(175) Andromache was discovered October 1, 1877, vid. 
Astron. Nach. 91-127; also Circ. Berl. Jahr. No. 81. 
The object called (175) in Am. Jour. Sci. 111 ., XIV., 325 
was really (174) Phaedra, as is explained in Circ. Berl. 
Jahr. No. 81. Aaron N. Skinner. 
U. S. Navai, Observatory, ) 
Washington, D. C., Dec. 22, 1880. y 
BOTANY. 
PIlosity as a Teratologicai, Piienomenon. — Hitherto 
teratologists have considered undue pilosity, or the advent i 
tous production of hair in plants, as a matter of minor im- 
portance, but M. Ed. Ileckel, in a recent note to the French 
Academy, ( Comptes Rendus , xci., p. 349), insists that there 
arc certain phases of this sort of change in plants which 
have a higher significance than that of a simple variation. 
He proposes to divide the phenomenon into the following 
j three categories : 
(1.) Physiological Pilosity , which includes the formation of 
hairs, or the increase in number of these, on the parts of 
plants where they are normally present, or even entirely 
wanting. Such cases are oftenest seen when plants change 
their habitat from a wet to a dry soil. This sort of physio- 
logical adaptation takes place within quite narrow limits ; 
and it varies from glabrousness to pilosity unaccompanied 
by any alteration of specific characters. 
(2.) Teratologicai Pilosity , which begins at the moment 
the specific habit is altered, and acquires its maxi- 
mum when the modifications are profound enough to sug- 
gest the idea of a new species. A large number of conditions 
capable of producing nutritive troubles in plants may give 
rise to this peculiar phenomenon, which M. Heckel pro- 
poses to introduce into teratologicai literature under the 
distinctive term of “ Deforming Pilosity ” ( Pilosisme defor- 
rnant). 
(3.) Pilosity due to the Sting of Insects or to Organic 
Variations, which is clearly distinguished from the former 
in being very localized (e. g. certain galls, the filaments of 
Vcrbascutn with aborted anthers, etc.,) and which cannot 
change the habit of the species. 
Of changes due to defotming pilosity, M. Heckel gives two 
prominent examples which he has studied, Liliurn Martagon, 
L., and Genista aspalathoides, Lam. The alterations in the 
last named plant are so profound that its monstrous state 
has even been described by De Candolle as a species, under 
the name of G. Lobelii; while by Morris it has been regard- 
ed as a marked variety, and named by him var. confertior. 
MICROSCOPY. 
The remarks of the “ Fellow of the Royal Microscopical 
Society,” who so ably advises The English Mechanic on 
Microscopy , on the faulty construction of many forms of 
“ Student’s ” microscopes, is well timed. 
In regard to the system of getting as much as possible 
for the money, he says : “ It is just this petty economy in 
the original outlay on a practical stand that cramps the 
student when he has acquired some manipulative dex- 
terity. Dealers and manufacturers are, of course, driven 
to supply what is recommended by the ‘ authorities.’ The 
continued refrain of ‘ cheapness, cheapness,’ brings down 
the construction of the microscope until it has become 
(in far too many instances) the baldest tube, stage, mir- 
ror, objective, and eyepiece with which it is possible to 
view a speck of saliva on a slip of glass. This perpetual 
reduction of the finish and design of the microscope tends 
to exclude all the better opticians from supplying students’ 
microscopes, for they cannot do justice to themselves 
when the price is to be cut down as it has been during 
the last few years. The consequence is that an enor- 
mous number of common French or German instruments 
has been imported into this country and America ; stu- 
dents have been ‘ set up ’ with these things, to discover 
later on, when they have become experienced enough to 
judge of such matters, that they have no market value 
except as lumber. 
The severe competition, lately, has been mainly con- 
fined to the production of low-priced microscopes, not 
the production of an efficient instrument at a moderate 
cost; the consequence appears to have been that manu- 
facturers whose appliances are about equal to the task of 
making gas-fittings have been induced to enter the com- 
petition ; a model of stand has been placed before them 
which they have copied ‘ more or less ;’ at any rate, the 
