Examination of " Eozoon." 285 



wall," in which it is stated that u many of the tubuli remain 

 empty j and they can be distinguished as tubuli under any 

 magnify dng-power that the thickness of the covering-glass allows 

 to be used.'''' If we are correct in our interpretation of this 

 statement, we think, although pronounced with italic emphasis, 

 that it ought to have been accompanied by some confirmatory 

 information. The " explanation " of the figures representing 

 the fragment is even less satisfactory. Dr. Carpenter must 

 excuse us ; but he ought to know that a mere statement of this 

 kind is totally insufficient to convince those who thoroughly 

 disbelieve in " Eozoon.'''' What may appear to him to be 

 empty tubuli cannot appear as such to the latter, unless they 

 are convinced of the validity of the evidence on which he 

 relies. Microscopic appearances are often difficult of interpre- 

 tation. Besides, it must not be forgotten that Dr. Carpenter is 

 as fallible as any other mortal*. To us this case does not 

 add a single particle of weight to the " eozoic doctrine." Having 

 been brought forward without one iota of evidence, we are 

 under the necessity of making no further comments on it, 

 except to state that we do not dispute but the fragment exhi- 

 bits some structural peculiarity giving rise to appearances of 

 empty tribulation ; but being familiar with numerous things 

 in various minerals which cannot possibly be what they are 

 in appearance, as well as with tubular cavities in the same of 

 inorganic origin, we unhesitatingly demur to Dr. Carpenter's 

 interpretation, — more especially as it involves the existence in 

 their original empty condition of fossilized tubules, stated to 

 be " less than y^oa part of an inch in diameter," and preserved 

 in a well crystallized and complexly mineraliferous rock, like 

 ophite, that has participated in all the mechanical and physical 

 movements undergone by the violently disturbed and highly 

 metamorphosed Laurentians of Canada. It was hard enough 

 for geological or mineralogical believers (full exception must 

 be made in favour of those belonging to the biological class) 

 to accept " the fact that the organic structure of the shell is in 

 many instances even more completely preserved than it usually 

 is in the Nummulites and other Foraminifera of the Nummu- 

 litic limestone of the early Tertiaries "f, or the statement that 

 " Eozoon " is best preserved in the Laurentians of a " highly 



* It will not be the first time that Dr. Carpenter has committed some 

 grave errors, even in cases surrounded by no such difficulties as pertain 

 to the one under notice. We need only mention his idea, apparently 

 held for some years, that the " solid pillars " of the Nummulites were 

 perforations filled up with mineral matter. Of course we attach nothing 

 more to this error than its pertinency to the case of the "empty tubuli." 



t Carpenter, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxi. p. 64. 



