[Vol- v.. No. I!fc
��I
��menti being made in the i lies, us well a£ in the mctlioils ol Iw matilpulailun uid supplication. Some of tlietn jolD wilb others of like p red iiecl ions in organlraiions which nre com- monly called ' microscopical socielies,' Ihe purpoies of which are mutual Btimulation and the enjoyment and propagation of scientific — shall I say diietlauleiam? — yes, if you like. At any rate, these gentlemen are engaged in very nearly the same kind of work that Science is engaged in; and many of them take your paper, and not only read it, but, when It presents siib- jscts which they can illustrate or test by means of their microscopes, they undertake to see for thera- telves, and lorm their own conctunlons. A smaller number of them even presnme to make original In- vestigations of one kind or another; and some of them actually add a new fact now and then to the great treasury of scientific truth, though It may often be such a little fact as not t^ attract much at- tention. I do not think they are usually men of great conceit; and I have never happened to come in con- tact with one who was over-anxious to be considered a ' regular ' scientific man, or to receive any particular recognition b; learned bodies. Generally speaking, I have found them to be gentlemen of simple and unpretentious devotion to nature, who had found themselves, somehow, endowed with a preference for those tilings which are Invisible lo the average sight, and who had imbibwl the teachings of those who, like yourself, have advocated the popularizing of science.
Bui in this class are some who have earned and compelled recognition as men of science; and in Lon- don and In Brussels (to say nothing of home organ- izations) are microscopical societies of world-wide fame and importance, which have long been looked upon by some of us as bodies of scientific men. In their lists of fellows are such names as Dr. W. B. Carpenter, Dr. Lionel S. Beale, Prof. F. Jeffrey Bell, Rev. W. H. Dalllnger, Prof. P. Martin Duncan, Dr. Henry VanHeurck, and many others whose scientific attainments speakfor themselves, and no one of whom would disdain the name of ' mlcroaeopiat.' In our own country, I may with propriety mention one who has but recently passed away, and who, although pos- sessing other claims to scientific eminence, achieved his greatest reputation and his most lasting fame In the field of pure microscopical manipulation. I refer tti the late Dr. J. J. Woodward of the U. S. army, who was pre-eminently a niicroico;)fst, and who did every thing he could to promote and encourage the finest kind of technical and test work. His labors in that direction, with those of others of like proclivi- ties aod skill, have done more llian all other causes to bring about the present wonderful perfection of the microscope objective. By the work and the demands of such manipulators, the great mannfacturing opti- cians, like the iate Mr. Spencer and Mr. Tolles, have been encouraged and stimulated to produce the latest marvels In optics, — the 'homogeneous immersion'
In view of the valuable services of such men as T have mentioned. I am at a ioss to understand your arrogant assertion that ' scientific men have been very lenient towards the microscopists.' Is it to be understood that you are about to advocate some new standard of orthodoxy, or to put into oi>eration some new formula of excoraraunication? Permit me, fur- ther, to inquire whether you really consider it un- scientific to choose skilfully and neatly prepared specimens, carefully classified, neatly labelled, and systematical I y catalogued and stored? Is it amateur- ish to prefer a good and complete instrument to a cheap
���and imperfect one? Is there any particular virtue In
working with poor tools when good ones can be ob- tained? Is there any tiling unworthy in patience and painstaking? Is any thing in nature too small to be worth examination, or any fragment of knowledge loo insignificant lo pay for its acquisition? If yoa disclaim any such sentiments as these, why spesk
��of ' bits of tissue,' of ' polarizing crystals,' < short, almost any tiny scrap of the universe'? For when you talk so flippantly of these things, you cer- tainly leave the impression on some minds that then may be matters so trifling and so tiny that they be- little the man who admires or studies them: and in- stead of promoting the general cause of science, ai you profess to be desirous of doing, you c
..TAD f. d>-.,T...t.liT..., k1..^l- Af nAlFvT nwa^it^l.^
��way a slumbling-bloclt of petty prejudice, rli. Marrhl.
��C. P. Cox.
��THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF MARCH M.J
Attention has already been drawn to 1 chief circumBtaaces of this eelipst? Science almanac, or at p. 57S of the la§t 1 ume of Scietice, where the times of beginn] and ending are given for a large number I places in the United States. The QDniifl phase will be visible only within the limits T a belt between thirty and forty miles wif which lies over a very sparsely settled tract I the North -AmerieaD continent, and wbich^^ difflcull of access at this season of the year. In the United States generally, the eclipse will be visible as a partial one on the afternoon of the IGth in the eastern stiites, and in the ror«-_ noon in the western.
Regarding the cycle of eclipses called t Saroa, this eclipse is a ' return ' of the annul eclipse of the 22d of February, 1849, viaiM almost wholly upon the North Pacific 0« the track of the annular phase skirting | eastern shores of Japan; also of the annul eclipse of March 5-6, 18C7, which was visibff as a partial eclipse over almost Ibe entire Eu- ropean continent, and the greater part of Africa and Asia; the ccnti'al line of annular phase running through northern Africa, crossing the Mediterranean and southern Italy, Russia and Siberia, and which was obser^-ed at a large number of European observatories. The next return of the eclipse following the present one will occur in the latter part of March. i:)0».
Annular eclipses are usually regarded as a useless aud insignificant sort of celestial phe- nomenon, and astronomers in the past have given very little attention to the observation of them. In comparison with the imposing spec- tacle of a total eclipse of the sun, an annular
�� �
