*****
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