MICROSCOPIE IN GERMANY. 
489 
its entire mechanical arrangement; superior indeed to many that 
were made later. Tube movement, exact and easy ; an excellent 
and convenient object table; a moveable plane mirror; a contriv¬ 
ance for opaque illumination, after the method of Lieberkuhn, 
and an adjustable, plain micrometer. These are the characteris¬ 
tics of its mechanism. 
Cuff improved the compound microscope still further. In its 
form it was similar to that in use at the present day. From this 
period on, the number of microscope-makers increased. The mic¬ 
roscope stative was also made in many different forms. We will 
only mention Steiner von Gleichen and Benjamin Martin, who, 
with others, made the first pocket microscope and the first so. 
called u universal microscope.” Bing and Veunebruck in Berlin^ 
Bheinthaler in Leipsic, and Burucker in Nurnberg, all imitated 
the Cuff microscope in a greater or less degree. In the year 1770 
Brander of Augsburg made himself famous through his micro¬ 
scope. One of his instruments resembles in an extraordinary 
manner the Martin pocket microscope, the other is an imitation 
of the Cuff instruments. Brander first introduced a contrivance 
in the form of a horse-shoe, over the object table, which served to 
fasten the objects firmly on the table, being used in the place of 
the object holder with the spiral spring, which, with some modi¬ 
fications, is in use at the present day. Brander declared that his 
instruments magnified one hundred and twenty times, with a 
visual distance of eight inches. 
In the last part of the eighteenth century the improvement in 
the optical portion of the compound microscope was very small. 
In 1672 Sturm attempted to construct the objective out of two 
lenses. No one followed his example. Instead of seeking to 
perfect the objective, every microscope maker sought to overcome 
the defects of the compound microscope by perfecting the ocular. 
In the place of two glasses, three, four or five were used for 
the ocular. Instead of bi-con vex lenses, plain convex. The dis¬ 
tance and inclination of these lenses was varied in every possible 
manner. Dellebarre sought to make the microscope acromatic by 
the use of bi-convex lenses, made from flint and crown glass. 
None of these efforts accomplished the desired results. A more 
