http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Microscopy-or-Microscopies-tp7579142p7579160.html
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> *****
>
> I think the best scientific approach is to support your decision with data, similar to the Google and Pubmed searches previously presented but with more context.
>
>
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5R25WGP>
> I will report the data on Friday morning.
> -Lars
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Booth
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:33 AM
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Microscopy or Microscopies
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> *****
>
> Hey George,
> I would like to address the way that it would possibly sound to someone who
> isn't currently knowledgeable about advanced microscopy techniques, and not
> on this list serve like we are. Personally, I think the way that it is worded could
> create confusion as far as what type of microscopy/microscopies you are
> talking about. When you say "using confocal and light sheet fluorescence
> microscopies" it would read that you are using multiple types of microscopy,
> both confocal and light sheet fluorescence, due to the plural of microscopy.
> Grammatically I think this is correct, but it doesn't sound as good. However, if
> you were to say "using confocal and light sheet fluorescence microscopy" it
> reads as if the imaging technique used was confocal/light sheet fluorescence
> microscopy, which all of us on this listserve understand as two completely
> different techniques, but to a foreigner of advanced microscopy, they wouldn't
> know the difference and it would be confusing. Therefore, I think grammatically
> it would be better if you added the word "both" before confocal and light
> sheet... thus it would read "...using both confocal and light sheet microscopy" In
> this case, microscopy would be the correct form since you are talking about a
> single confocal microscopy technique and a single light sheet technique due to
> the separation provided by the word both. I think the reviewer is overseeing the
> fact that microscopies is talking about multiple types/forms of microscopy
> techniques while microscopy is only talking about a single instance. Thus,
> without the word both before confocal OR the plural of microscopy, there is no
> indication of difference between confocal and light sheet microscopy techniques.
> I hope this helps!
> -Chris