Mr. Le Neeve Forster, in the above remarks, doubtless strikes at the root of an evil that is fast becoming a nuisance, to the utter detriment of useful and sound work; the test-slide and diatom fever has spread like an infection among all classes of microscopists, and has resulted in an extravagant system of expenditure foreign to true scientific research. I find that $1,650 is now asked for a first-class instrument and fittings, and as much as $40 apiece for diatom-slides.
These eccentricities of leading microscopists appear to have received protests from various quarters, for the President of the Royal Microscopical Society, in his last address, states:
"It has been cast at us, as Fellows of this Society, that we do nothing but improve our tools, or measure the markings on the frustules of a diatom."[1]
One reason for the confessed poverty of microscopical results may be ascribed to the want of sufficient workers to cover so vast a field of research. It is to be regretted that many professional men, whose occupation would seem to demand the daily use of the microscope, deny themselves the facilities it offers. I apprehend that the explanation of this apparent neglect will be found in the high price asked for first-class instruments, and the absence in the market of a good standard instrument that combines the advantages of being of the best workmanship, full-sized, portable in form, and moderate in price.
Messrs. Baker, Crouch, Collins, and especially Swift, all of London, produce such microscopes, but, as their importation doubles the cost, their chief merit of cheapness is lost. In our own country, opticians have proved that they can produce work that cannot be surpassed, provided that their patrons entertain the same views as Sir Charles Surface respecting the expense; but those of more moderate means, who wish to purchase a good working microscope at a moderate cost, are offered a pretentious display of foreign and domestic forms, totally unfit for professional or scientific use. If makers of microscopes would take a lesson from the best telescope-makers, and, instead of multiplying the number of their models, combine their energy in the production of a good standard instrument, filling the conditions that I have already stated, they would promote the cause of science and concentrate their business.
Fig. 2.—Instrument folded for Carriage.
Those who have read the biographical and obituary sketches of eminent microscopists have probably noticed that it was a favorite pursuit with many of them to make their own instruments. In the
- ↑ February 3, 1875.
