Viruses could not be seen because the resolution and magnification was not good enough until 1938 when Ernst Ruska developed the electron microscope.
Bacteria are much larger than viruses and can be seen under a light microscope, which was available in the 17th century. In contrast, viruses are much smaller and can only be seen with the invention of the electron microscope in the 20th century, leading to their discovery in 1938. This difference in size and technology needed for visualization explains the lag in discovery between bacteria and viruses.
they are able to multiply, which could be seen as a form of reproduction
how could you find the name of fish you haven't seen before
they certainly can be seen
Viruses are too small to be seen directly with a light microscope.Can be seen when it's examined under an electron microscope
Many bacteria and viruses need time to multiply before any signs and symptoms can be seen.
Viruses are too small, and can't be seen in an optic microscope.
Viruses are too small for van Leeuwenhoek to have seen with his simple microscope.
Viruses cannot be seen with a compound light microscope as they are too small, typically ranging from 20 to 400 nanometers in size. Specialized electron microscopes, such as transmission electron microscopes, are used to visualize viruses due to their high magnification capabilities.
Only the largest of viruses (e.g. Pox viruses) can be seen with a good light microscope (albeit with poor detail). Viruses usually can only be seen by electron microscopy. [2nd year Dental student, Naser]
The cell structure that could not be seen until the invention of the electron microscope is the organelle called the mitochondrion. Mitochondria are responsible for producing energy for the cell through a process called cellular respiration.
Yes, bacteria can be seen under a light microscope as they are larger than viruses. However, viruses are much smaller and cannot be seen with a light microscope. Specialized electron microscopes are required to visualize viruses.