Moseley's Microscope

Moseley stated he used a Hartnack's Number 4 objective and No. 4 eyepiece. Here's a picture of a Hartnack with a Number 3 (10X) eyepiece.

I received the following response on the sci.techniques.microscopy group to my inquiry:

Hi

Not a historian but recently borrowed the splendid book by van Heurck
'The microscope' English translation by W E Baxter 1892 to form the
5th edition according to Preface.

There is a table of Hartnack's objectives on page 167 ...

The No 4 objective is listed as 'Equivalent focus ' 10 mm and
'Numerical Aperture' 0.5.
The mag of this would depend on what tube length microscope it was
used on. ca. 16x on a 160 mm

If it's the same no. 4 objective as the one the above author refers
to, he remarks on it on page 165: Quote:

"No. 4 is an excellent objective. It is very clear, and its powers of
definition and penetration are very remarkable."

If the Hartnack's eyepiece conforms to an earlier note in this book on
eyepieces but might not, p71: Quote:

"Thus the ocular 4 amplifies the image given by the objective four
times".

Me on Sidney Hickson

I have Googled Hickson, and found one of my own postings to a Microscopy mailing list about him:

-------------%------------- Sun Dec 2 23:02:29 2001

I am interested in gaining insight into the role of microscopic artifacts
in the history of biology. May I impose on list members to contribute
particularly glaring examples of misinterpreation of biological facts due
to improper microscopic technique? I apologize if this is off-topic or a
waste of bandwidth.

Let me provide the first example of a misinterpretation and request your
assistance in learning whether this was due to improper use of the
microscope, or perhaps even malfeasance: Sidney Hickson's early work on
Millepora spp. (Cnidaria:Hydrozoa) fire corals. It seems an incredible
lapse, a wholly fabricated natural history account, one that persisted for
a considerable period in the fabric of the mythology of biological
knowledge. I am interested because reproduction of Millepora platyphylla
is the subject of incompleted thesis research of mine.

Hickson published a report on reproduction of "Millepora" around the end
of the 19th Century. (Anong his other errors he synonomyized all species
of Millepora as ecomorphs of one, M. alcicornis.) In this report, which
I do not have available at this time, he included several plates of
drawings depicting a putative sequence of reproductive events in this
organism. We now understand that his depiction is not even close to the
way that Millepora spp. (which were later redesignated as proper
individual species through painstaking work by Boschma---notwithstanding
the issues recently raised by molecular work) reproduce. The depiction
involved dozens of drawings, and a sequence of events based on a
misinterpretation of what are apparently artifacts.

Hickson (of Cambridge University) worked extensively in the field,
including Indonesia and the Philippines. Was his microscopic work done
in the field? Are members of this list enlightened as to Hickson's
methods?

Hickson's erroneous drawings of the medusae of Millepora lived on for over
3/4 of a century in virtually every Invertebrate Zoology textbook
published until the late 1980s or 1990s. His erroneous description of the
medusa of Millepora as lacking a velum led to the designation of a
separate branch of hydromedusae by Mayer, as the only hydrozoan medusa
without a velum. My unpublished observations in the 1980s as well as
published observations by John Lewis of McGill University showed that the
medusae of Millepora spp. clearly possess a velum.

I apologize for monopolizing the bandwidth. I hope this is as fascinating
a topic for others as for myself, and not considered off-topic.

-----------------%----------------------- END

Millepora: what's in a name (or a picture)

"Millepora"---just a quick note here on violence done to Millepora spp. names and pictures by Sydney Hickson, and by history.

This genus has been treated poorly. Professor Richard Randall at the UOG Marine Lab had few if any kind words for Hickson, the Don of Invertebrate Zoology at Cambridge, at the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century. In particular, Hickson decided that all species of Millepora spp. were synonyms of Millepora alcycornis. Somehow, either because of this fiasco, or for whatever reason, the name "Millepora" stuck, and still does today. Even among those who should know better. My sense of the English language makes it sometimes problematical to recite the whole name of any particular Millepora species. It took the great Hulbrand Boschma a very long time, and a lot of work, to sort out the species, years later.

The illustration of "Millepora" likewise suffered violence at the hands of Hickson. I observed medusae of Millepora platyphylla several times in 1985 and 1986: little did they resemble those drawn from Hickson's illustrations early in the 20th Century, or late in the 19th. And Mayer even had it wrong in his medusae of the world, a copy of which exists at the U. of Guam. He called them Medusae Milleporinae, and stated that they differed from all other hydrozoan medusae, in not having a velum. We confirmed that the medusae of M. platyphylla do indeed possess a velum.

John Lewis of McGill University subsequently published illustrations of medusae of caribbean Millepora sp. that did resemble what we saw.

Beginning a Narrative on my earlier Research on Millepora platyphylla, 1984-1986

As a graduate student at the University of Guam Marine Laboratory, between 1984 and 1964, I came to study Millepora platyphylla reproduction, as well as other aspects of their biology. In this blog I will reiterate that research. I plan to continue with further research as well in directions suggested during that time. My research of those years was left incomplete, because I left Guam to go to Chuuk Lagoon to attend the birth of my first son, Forrest who as of Auguest 2007, is now 20 years old. The work I did at that time is still relevant today, and I intend to return my attention to it. My bread and butter is earned as a full time as a secondary science teacher, at Kagman High School, so my initial efforts will be done in my spare time, as I prepare, I hope, for more focused study in the near future.

Professor Richard Randall at the University of Guam had pointed out that Millepora spp. bear markers of reproductive activity in their hard parts. Therefore, by collecting fragments of the coralla (skeleta) of colonies data would be produced on reproductive condition. I was interested in reproductive periodicity, especially in higher invertebrates that exerted neurosecretory control over gametogenesis. Bivalves seemed interesting, perhaps giant clams. It was apparent, however, upon arrival at Guam, that Tridacnids were anything but abundant there---insufficient to enable any meaningful study. It could not hurt to start a collection of hard parts of Millepora spp., since I had been snorkeling quite alot on various reefs of Guam. Since Prof. Randall was recruiting a student for study of coral reproduction, and these particular corals possessed certain remarkable qualities, I set about right away to begin collecting fragments of Millepora platyphylla---the most common species where I had been snorkelling during the first month or so on Guam. I also collected a few fragments of M. dichotoma; however, it was not as convenient as the former species.

In fact, I had been intersted in neurological/neurosecretory control of gametogenesis. I had read methods by Gabe, involving what promised to be relatively straightforward light microscopy methods, simple and cheap compared to other kinds of laboratory studies. Or so I reasoned. During the first year, I began, then, a collection, even though I had not formally selected a research topic for my thesis.

A few specimens each time I snorkeled: that was relatively easy, and I figured I could do statistics, once I had a large enough collection, and generate some kind of picture of periodicity. Studies of neurosecretion are multi-disciplinary studies, suggesting a need for ecological data (for example, lunar cycle, tidal cycle), as well as microscopical study of neurosecretory structures. I didn't know that Millepora spp. would have neurosecretory cells, but that was far from my thoughts as I commenced my study in August and September, 1984.

Along about late May and Early April of 1985, toward the end of the second semester at U. of Guam, I was invited to go fishing with Ahser Edward, a student at the Marine Lab, and a colleague. I accompanied Ahser and his brothers and cousins to Toguan Bay, on the SouthWest coast of Guam, between Umatac and Merizo. I did not fish. I carried my flashlights and studied the reef, collecting Millepora platyphylla along the route, Southward from Toguan Bay, S. of Toguan River.

During my time at UOG Marine Lab. a seminar by George Barlow Prof. Barlow, from UC Berkeley, an offhand comment by him had a profound effect on my philosophy. Barlow studies fish behavior, and is something of an eclectic---something I appreciate. He made the point that Kenneth D, Roehder, a physiologist, had discovered a relationship between bat echolocation and avoidance by Notuid moths. Professor Barlow's point was that Roeder's approach to biological research was to focus on one species. By doing so, connections emerged between that species and other species. Something like that happened with my Millepora spp. research..