372 Dr. W. B. Carpenter on Eozoon canadense. 



On the other hand (1) a study of Foraminifera, now pro- 

 longed over nearly thirty years, having convinced me (as a 

 like study has convinced others) that to no group in the 

 whole Animal Kingdom is Prof. Huxley's phrase " There is no 

 end to the possibilities of Nature " more applicable, I cannot 

 give up this conviction at the bidding of the Galway Pro- 

 fessors. Many of the new types I have myself described 

 would, according to their doctrine, have been impossibilities 

 "from a Foraminiferal point of view"*; and I have many 

 more in my possession (as yet undescribed) which are equally 

 unconformable to any types previously known. 



Again (2), being fully conscious of my own fallibility, I 

 should be quite ready to believe that I see the " nummuline 

 tubulation in my specimen of Eozoon with my mind's eye 

 rather than with my bodily eye (as Dr. Martin Barry saw 

 "spirals' 5 everywhere), if I were to find other experienced 

 Microscopists, after " comparison of actual specimens," dis- 

 agreeing with me. But having submitted this specimen, 

 with a section of a recent Nummuline shell (Cyclochqjeus) , to a 

 score or so of competent observers f, and having received their 

 entire assent to the correctness of my description and ot 

 Mr. George West's delineation, I cannot surrender our unani- 

 mous conviction of this objective reality, because Profs. King 

 and RoAvney, who have not seen the specimen, consider it a 

 " Foraminiferal impossibility." 



As I should now no more think of attempting to convince 

 the Galway " infallibles," than of trying to convert the Pope, 

 I leave them in triumphant possession of the field. Your 

 readers, perhaps, may claim the exercise of "private judgment " 

 in the matter. Your obedient servant, 



William B. Carpenter. 



Loudon, Oct. 17, 1874. 



* Thus, of the gigantic arenaceous Parker ia of the Cambridge Green- 

 sand, I had to say (Philos. Transact. 1869, p. 734): — "The strongly 

 marked dissimilarity between the fabric of Parkeria as now described, 

 and that of any Fo:raminifeka previously known, whether recent or fos- 

 sil, renders it impossible to predicate with certainty what was the precise 

 relation of the animal to its arenaceous ' test.' ' And yet I was able to 

 append in a note, as that Paper was passing through the press : — " Since 

 the above was written, 1 have obtained from the Deep-sea Dredgings of 

 the ' Porcupine Expedition ' (1869) a complete confirmation of the view 

 taken in the text. For on examining the internal structure of the largest 

 Nautiloid Lituola, I find, though in a rudimentaiy condition, a laby- 

 riuthic structure whose relation to the chamber it surrounds is essentially 

 the same as in Parkeria." 



t As Profs. King and Rowney may possibly give the credit to the 

 impartial attestation of their own colleagues and friends, which they re- 

 fuse to my statements, I would refer them to Prof. Cleland of Galway, 

 Prof. Redfern of Belfast, Prof. Greene of Cork, and Prof. Perceval Wright, 

 Dr. Macalister, and Mr. Archer of Dublin. 



