http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Microscopy-or-Microscopies-tp7579142p7579149.html
120 PubMed hits for "biologies" disagree with you. Not as popular as
> *****
> from Phil ...
>
> you can argue about it, i guess, but 'microscopies' just sounds weird to
> me. it's an area of study, you wouldn't write about molecular and cellular
> biologies.
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Raghu Parthasarathy<
>
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>> *****
>>
>>
>> It’s a bit strange to send a grammar question to this email list, but
>> since it deals with microscopy and has perhaps come up in other contexts, I
>> thought someone reading may have insights. We’ve written a paper whose
>> title contains the phrase ‘[...] using confocal and light sheet
>> fluorescence microscopies’ (i.e. in which we use both confocal microscopy
>> and light sheet fluorescence microscopy to image things). A reviewer
>> suggests replacing “microscopies” with “microscopy.” I think
>> “microscopies” sounds better, but as a counter-point, I would think “...
>> comparing left-handed and right-handed calligraphy” would sound better than
>> “calligraphies” if I were writing about handwriting. Thoughts? (Sorry for
>> stretching the boundaries of the confocal list – hopefully it’s not too
>> annoying!)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Raghu
>>
>> --
>> Raghuveer Parthasarathy
>>
[hidden email]
>>
>>
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Physics
>> 1274 University of Oregon
>> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>>
http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/>>
>>
>
>
>