Page:Science vol. 5.djvu/229

 Snppoaed omdn jade (lom Alaska. In Scienet for Dec 19, ISS4, there was glren an abstract of the explorations oii the Eowak Rtver of Alaaka br a party from the D. S. steamer Corwin, Lirat. Cantwell coaimandinK. In this abstract It was itated that bed^ of a beautifully mottled serpentine were found in the mounlaloa new the riser, "as •cell as the so-called * jade,' used tar aiid wide for the most costly and elegant stone implements, which Is pertiaps the rariety pectolite recently described by Clarke from specimens got at Point Barrow.'' tt was also stated that ' Jade Mountain ' seemed to be entirely eompotcd of the green stone, about one buudred poonds ot which were collected.

The collections on the return of the party were for- warded, as usual, to thti national museum, ai were alno tboae made a little later fn>m nearly the same locall- lles by Lieut. Stoney's |mrty. Both lots were referred to the writer for EKaminatioQ and report, and were found to consist largely of serpentine and a greenish gray quartiite, together with other miscellaneous material not necessary to mention here. The Berpen- tine Is mostly the ordinary green massive variety, though a few pieces of the columnar and Bbrous forms picrolite and chrysotile are present. The quartz rock, which U doubtless the material mistaken by both parties tor ' jade,' is tight greenish in color, very fine grained, compact, and hard. Under the microscope. It i» seen to be distinctly granular, but not perfectly homogeneous, containing Innumerable exceedingly minute micaceous particles ot a greenish color, aud to Uie presence of which is (loubtless due the color of the stone. There are also present many minute color- leas ne«dlelike crystals too small fur accurate deter- mination. Its specific gravity, as determined by a Jolly's balance, is 2.66, aud a chemical test by Profes- sor Clarke yielded lH.41>ft ot silica. The rock is therefore radically different, not only from the Alas- kfto pectolite, but from any of the so-called 'jades' from any source that have yet been examined. An eiaminatlon of the collections brought from Alaska has failed ^so to bring to light a single Implement or ornament manufactured of this material : hence we most conclude that all the parties concerned were misled by the color and hardness of the stone, and that the true source of the so-called 'jade' is yet to be discovered. Geo. P. Merbill.

NmUouJ aaKuiD. Feb. -IS.

'VThat JH a microscopist ? ' Tou seem to have run abort ot subjects for 'Com- ment and criticism ' in your issue of Feb. 37, for otherwise I cannot believe that you would have writ- ten your ill-natured remark* upon *microscoplsta.' If you bad confined yourself to the definition of a microscopist as " an amateur who rejoices in the beautiful variety of microscopical specimens," 1 should have offered no protest; for I recognize in that deUnltion a trutliful, though only partial, description of a class to which it has long been my pleasure to belong. It you had been content to express your belief that the term 'microscopy' is a misnomer, and that the large and growing body of ■o-called 'microscopista' is not to be regarded as a dirision of the 'regular army' of science, I should still have held a humble and respectful silence, because 1 can see how such an opinion may be very boneitly and very plausibly maintained. But your retnarks call for a protest on the ground, that, instead ot helping to a true estimate of the scientific sptrlt, they Mt tip narrow and exclusive standards, and are CMenlaally and offensively personal.

��Microscopiats, as far as they are mere amHleurs and 'universal gatherers,' may perhaps not be enti- tled to more consideration than Is doe to 'camp- followers' and 'hangerS'On;' although I think there i» possibly a question as to yonr right to give them notice to leave. I am not sure but that I might argue, with some success, that many mlcroscoplsts are more than amateurs, or that many recogniied scientific specialists are, after all, only sldlled micros- eopista; but why dispute over mere names? I am one of those who believe that in the most effective use of the modern microscope there are required a degree of technical skill and an amount of special knowledge which raise it to the rank of a distinct scientific pursuit. You, on the contrary, appear to look upon the microscope as you do upon the tweezers, the scissors, or the hammer, — as an Instru- ment BO simple that any student in any department may take it up without previous special training in its use. and obtain from it at once trustworthy results. But I beg to Inform you, it you do not already know it, that, in the more delicate kinds ot microscopical work, it is absolutely essential to em- ploy expert methods in manipulation, and to apply very particular principles of interpretation, or else the conclusions are likely to have no value whatever. The exhibition of pretty tilings because they are pretty, and for the mere amusement of looken-on, is no more microscopy than the making and administering of laugbing^^ is chemistry.

But you seem to Infer that mlcroscoplsts are not properly scientific men, aiuce they are not generally specialists; and the ground of your inference ap- pears to be that such microscopista as you have happened to know have directed their attention to very various objects obtained from the different realms of nature. But might not the same criticism be made upon chemists, who analyze and weigh erery sort of substance, — animal, vegetable, and mineral ? Why is it more legitimate for them to rest their science upon a bails of molecular and atomic weights than for others to build a microscopical science upon a system of micrometric measurements ? I should not quarrel with you if you urged the expediency of restricting the term 'microscopy' to a branch of physics, or even ot optlot, because we may all fairly differ about questions of classlHcatlon; but, as thiugs now are, I cannot discover the force of your objec- tion to the recognition of microscopy as a division of general science based upon the tact that the subjects of its investigation are beyond the range ot unaided vision In one direction, since astronomy, whose right to the name of a science you probably do not ques- tion, is founded upon the fact that the objects of its study are beyond unaided vision in another direction. In both cases, it seems to me, the science is condi- tioned by its instrumental requirements. In one Instance it Is the science of the microscope, in the other It Is the science of the telescope. Why not object to astronomy because of its foundation In 'u common quality ' of remoteness in space, or to pale- ontology as based upon 'a common quality' of re- moteness in Ume ?

But I have no intention ot endeavoring to justify a claim on behalf ot microscopisls to be admitted tii the sect of orthodox scientific men. I merely wish to speak a good word tor the class as it now stands. I am fortunate in being acquafnteil with a number of cultivated and educated men, both amateur and professional, who make constant use of the micro- scope, either in the pursuit of their regular business occupations or in their private intellectual life, and who take pains to keep Informed as to the Improve-

�� �