Why don't compound microscopes use an erecting lens like terrestrial telescopes?

[arvindsharma]

I read that in terrestrial telescope there is an erecting lens whose function is to erect the inverted image formed by objective lens so that final image formed by eyepiece is also erect.there is no need of erecting lens in astronomical telescope because astronomical bodies are symmetrical in nature and hence they look alike whether image is inverted or erect.my doubt is why do not we use an erecting lens in compound microscope also because microscope also form an inverted image and micro particles which are seen through these microscopes may not be symmetrical in nature.please clear my doubt.i will be thankful.Regards
Arvind.

 

[Bystander]

my doubt is why do not we use an erecting lens in compound microscope also because microscope also form an inverted image

You're not scanning the horizon from left to right through a microscope with your head turning the opposite way through a microscope as it would be with an "un-erected" telescope. Some people can do it without getting seasick, others can't.

The image of symmetric object argument has the sound of something made up on the spur of the moment to quiet a classroom..

 

[Drakkith]

In regards to the symmetry of an object, I think what is meant is that in space and on a microscope slide there are no preferred directions like there are when viewing a terrestrial scene. If a nebula or bacterium is "upside down" it doesn't really matter, as there isn't one correct orientation anyways. But if you're trying to view a bird or a landscape, then having your view upside down or mirrored is extremely disorienting.