Letter | Published:

Microscope Stands

Nature volume 88, pages 480481 (08 February 1912) | Download Citation



THE discussion on microscope stands will do little good if it is directed towards the production of a universal type of instrument. As a maker of microscopes, I come into close contact with many branches of work the requirements of which are totally different. To make but one form would be a fatal mistake. The metallurgist cannot use the instrument which is best suited for the bacteriologist, neither will the Rosenhain metallurgical microscope suit the biologist. The Dick petrological microscope is quite unsuitable for the entomologist, and the binocular instrument, which demands long tubes and a great range of focus for the use of the lowest powers, will not satisfy the chemist. For the use of botanists, zoologists, and bacteriologists there is a certain similarity of requirements, but even here it would be unwise to endeavour to make all microscopes on one model. The work of the student in the botanical laboratory is totally different from that of the research worker who is making photomicrographs with the highest power immersion lenses.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Author information


  1. 68 Cornhill, London, E.C.



  1. Search for CONRAD BECK in:

About this article

Publication history





By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.