( 442 ) 
fjune, 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
IMPERFECTIONS OF NATURE. 
To the Editor of the Monthly journal of Science. 
Sir, — The writer of the article “ Is Nature Perfedt?” — which 
appeared in your number for April — might have usefully contro- 
verted a mistaken notion as to the difference between natural 
objects and works of art. We are often told that the latter, however 
beautiful they may seem to the naked eye, on examination with a 
high magnifying power betray a multitude of flaws ^nd defedts, 
whilst the former will bear the most rigid microscopic scrutiny. 
This is by no means universally the case, not a few natural pro- 
ducts displaying a want of symmetry and finish when viewed 
with a strong lens. To our unaided sight the antennae of a male 
gnat appear like beautiful plumes, but if magnified they remind 
us irresistibly of a bottle-brush. Or take the finger-tip of the 
most delicate lady ; to the eye it seems beautifully smooth and 
even, whilst with a lens we perceive its surface to be rough, fur- 
rowed, and rugged. These cases are by no means singular. — 
I am, &c., 
Plain Facts. 
SOUND AS A NUISANCE. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Journal of Science. 
Sir, — I fully agree with the writer of an article in your April 
number, that man’s inability to shut out sound at will is a mis- 
fortune. But is it not possible that the vibration set up by 
powerful sounds might have a disturbing adtion upon our nerves 
even were we unable to hear? Thus the sensations akin to 
sea-sickness which some persons, myself included, experience if 
saluted by the deep notes of a large organ, seem to depend more 
on the undulations of the floor than upon the sound as such. — 
I am, &c., 
H. H. 
