l888.] NEW-YORK MICROSCOPICAL SOCIETY. 33 



SUPPLEMENT I. TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE 

 FORAMINIFERA, RECENT AND FOSSIL, IN- 

 CLUDING EOZOON AND RECEPTACULITES. 



(Printed in the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Geographical and 

 Natural History Survey of Minnesota, pp. 167-311, 1885.) 



BY ANTHONY WOODWARD. 

 {Received October itth, 1887.) 



EOZOON. 



Anon. On Eozoon canadense ; by Prof. Wm. King, S. C. D., 

 and T. H. Rowney, Ph. D. Amer. Journ. Set., ser. 3, vol. i, 

 pp. 138-142, 1871. 



Anon. On the Geological Age and Microscopic Structure of 

 the Serpentine Marble or Ophite of Skye ; by Professors 

 W. King and T. H. Rowney (Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., Jan. 

 1871). On the Mineral Origin of the so-called "Eozoon 

 Canadense," by same (lb., Apr. 10, 187 1). Amer. Journ. 

 Sci., ser. 3, vol. ii, pp. 21 1-2 15, 187 1. 



Anon. The Eozoon Question — An American Mistake. Month. 

 Micro. Journ., vol. xiii, p. 244, 1875. 



Arbeiten der geologischen section der Landesdwichforschung 

 in Bohmen, Prag, 1869. 



Baily (Mr. ) expresses his doubt that "Eozoon," "the thing 

 in question, was a fossil at all." Journ. Geol. Soc. Dublin, 

 vol. i, n. s., 1865. 



Baily, W. H. The Cambrian Rocks of the British Islands. 

 Geol. Mag., vol. ii, p. 388, 1865. 



Bonney, T. G. On Serpentine and Associated Rocks of the 

 Lizard District. Quart. Journ. Geoi. Soc, vol. xxxiii, pp. 

 884-924, 1876. 



During the discussion which followed the reading of this memoir, and in 

 answer to a question put by the President, the writer replied that "for 

 his own part he believed in the organic nature of Eozoon.'" How this 

 reply is to be reconciled with the following statement Prof. Bonney has 

 lately made — ' ' I have never mvselj seen a serpentine which was not in- 

 trusive" (Geol. Mag., Feb. 1881, p. 94) — is a puzzle to us. as it must 

 be to eozoonists, considering that their doctrine is based on the sedimen- 

 tary or ' ' aqueous deposition "of " eozoonal " serpentines (see last citation). 

 But is not eozoonism full of inconsistencies ? (King and Rowney. An old 

 chapter of the Geol. Rec, p. xliv, i88i.) 



