But to do so I must begin with familiar objects, objects used solely to convey good relative ideas of minute dimension. I begin with small objects with the actual size of which you are familiar. All of us have taken a naked eye view of the sting of the wasp or honey bee; we have a due conception of its size. This is the scabbard or sheath which the naked eye sees.[3] Within this are two blades terminating in barbed points. The point of the scabbard more highly magnified is presented, showing the inclosed barbs. One of the barbs, looked at on the barbed edge, is also seen. Now these two barbed stings are tubes with an opening in the end of the barb. Each is connected with the tube of the sac, C. This Is a reservoir of poison, and D is the gland by which it is secreted. Now I present this to you, not for its own sake, but simply for the comparison, a comparison which struck the earliest microscopists. Here is the scabbard carefully rendered. One of the stings is protruded below its point, as in the act of stinging; the other is free to show its form. Now the actual length of this scabbard in nature was the _one-thirtieth_ of an inch. I have taken the point, C, of a fine cambric sewing needle, and broken it off to slightly less than the one-thirtieth of an inch, and magnified it as the sting is magnified. Now here we obtain an instance of what I mean by magnification. The needle point is not merely bigger, unsuspected details start into view. The sting is not simply enlarged, but all its structure is revealed. Nor can we fail to note that the _finish_ of art differs from that of nature. The homogeneous gloss of the needle disappears under the fierce scrutiny of the lens, and its delicate point becomes furrowed and riven. But Nature's finish reveals no flaw, it remains perfect to the last. [Footnote 3: A magnified image of the bee's sting was projected on the screen.]