Examination of " Eozoon." 283 



directly our objection. It will be observed that the side of 

 the " wall " in contact with the serpentine (a) (in eozoic par- 

 lance, the face of a " chamber ") exhibits a number of ser- 

 pentine extensions or openings of various widths without aci- 

 culre. Openings of a similar character are not uncommon on 

 the other or calcitic side of the " wall " (d), called the " inter- 

 mediate skeleton," though they do not occur in the specimen 

 now under consideration*. In some cases the serpentine ex- 

 tensions are slender rods, and pass right across the " wall." 



Both sets of openings are represented by Dr. Carpenter in 

 the " nummuline wall " of the " constructed" figure to which we 

 make objection ; but he has represented them bridged over by 

 a continuation of the line defining the acicular portions, as will 

 be seen by our enlarged and roughly approximate copy of a 

 portion of the " wall," under fig. 6. The openings on the 

 " skeleton " side (d) consist of calcite ; those on the opposite or 

 "chamber" side (a) we have represented filled with serpen- 

 tine, as warranted by fig. 5. To some observers, endowed 

 with the gift of foraminiferizing j~, the latter openings might 

 be, and, if we are not mistaken, have been regarded as due to 

 "pillars of non-tubular " shell-substance, similar to the wall- 

 extensions that intersect the layers of a nummulite ; but this 

 view is obviously incorrect, as it requires the openings belong- 

 ing to both sides to be filled with calcite, also to be exten- 

 sions of chamber-walls : nothing, however, that can be con- 

 sidered to represent any thing of the kind is ever present. 

 Clearly, then, as the openings cannot be identified with the 

 non-tubular portions belonging to the shell-layers of a num- 

 mulite, they ought to have been represented unbridged, as in 

 fig. 7. Dr. Carpenter had no more right to introduce bridging 

 lines than we have in our fig. 5. It may be suggested that 

 he has merely given a hypothetical reconstruction ; but 

 nothing of the sort can be allowed after his express declara- 

 tion — u I have represented nothing that my specimens do not 



* As, from their similarity of composition, we cannot demonstrate any 

 difference between the u intermediate skeleton " and the adjoining calcitic 

 openings, and as it is immaterial to the point, it is unnecessary to make 

 any further allusion to the latter. 



f It is much to be feared that the spheroids, &c, common in the 

 magnesian limestone of Durham, will not escape being converted into 

 gigantic Foraminifers. Dr. Carpenter, after making some remarks in 

 connexion with these bodies, thus concludes — " The only question now 

 is, whether a careful microscopic examination of the minute structure of 

 the Permian concretions may not afford, through its likeness to that of 

 Parkeria, more or less definite indications of their organic origin obscured 

 by subsequent metamorphism " ! (Nature, vol. iii. p. 186). The late Pro- 

 fessor Sedgwick, in a letter to one of us, spoke strongly against the 

 "eozoic doctrine :" what would he have said respecting this idea? 



