Although the small mirror must theoretically be hyperbolic, tolerable definition is obtained even if it be spherical or ellipsoidal, and its actual departure from these forms is so slight as to be beyond detection by measurement, so that the figuring of such mirrors can only be tested in the telescope. For photographic purposes this telescope has the very important advantage that a short telescope is equivalent to a very long one of the Newtonian form, or refracting telescope, so that the image of sun, moon, or planets formed at the focus is very large in comparison with the size of the telescope. A modification of this form of telescope, in which the small mirror is out of the path of the rays falling upon the larger one, and no longer obstructing the central part, has been revived by Dr. Common, and has become generally known as the “Skew Cassegrain.” In reflecting telescopes the mirrors were formerly made of speculum metal (an alloy of copper and tin), and the word _speculum_ is even now commonly employed to signify a telescopic mirror, although it is usual to make the mirror of glass, with the concave surface silvered and highly polished. One is frequently asked for an opinion as to which is the better form of telescope, the reflector or refractor, and it is a question that one finds some little difficulty in answering. On one point, however, all are agreed, namely, that the reflector has the advantage in regard to its achromatism; it is indeed perfectly achromatic, while the so-called “achromatic” refractor is at best only a compromise. For the rest, one can not do better than quote the evidence of Dr. Isaac Roberts before the International Astrophotographic Congress: “The reflector requires the exercise of great care and patience, and a thorough personal interest on the part of the observer using it. In the hands of such a person it yields excellent results, but in other hands it might be a bad instrument. The reflector gives results at least equal, if not superior, to those obtained with the refractor, if the observer be careful of the centring, and of the polish of the mirror, and keeps the instrument in the highest state of efficiency; but when intrusted to an ordinary assistant the conditions necessary for its best performance can not be so well fulfilled as the same could be in the case of the refractor.” One great practical advantage of the reflector is that there are fewer optical surfaces, so that a large reflector may be obtained for the price of a much smaller refractor. [Illustration: Fig. 22.—The Cassegrain Reflector] EYE-PIECES.—So far we have regarded the eye-piece of a telescope as a simple lens, but it is evident that the spherical and chromatic aberration of such a lens will interfere with its performance. For occasional use, however, even a simple lens is very serviceable if the object observed is brought to the centre of the field of view.