344 Mr. R. Kirkpatrick on the 



type of Stvomatoporoids. Apparentl}' Nicholson failed to 

 see them in the latter, snpposing the holes in the regular 

 " tangential himinse " to represent the " zooitlal tubes." 



Nicholson's classification, based on the erroneous idea that 

 one group of Stromatoporoitls (the Actinostromida^) was 

 related to Hydractinia, and the other (Stromatoporidte) to 

 Millepora, needs revision. As Nicholson himself pointed out, 

 there are transitions between Actinostromids and Stromato- 

 porids. In both there are concentric layers, astrorhizse, 

 "tabula}/^ and a capacity for incrusting and enveloping other 

 objects, such as corals. In the Actinostromid or rectilinear 

 type the calcareous skeleton has a more regular and definite 

 arrangement of chambers than has the Strou)atoporid type. 



My intention in the present paper, however, is not to enter 

 into the question of the classification of Stromatoporoids, 

 but mainly to announce that these fossils have a calcareous 

 skeleton showing the Foraminiferal structure. 



While I was examining sections of the aberrant genus 

 Beatricea I was reminded of the peculiar structure of 

 Eozoon, and was thereby led to examine specimens of the 

 latter, despite the fact that current opinion is almost wholly 

 opposed to a belief in their organic nature. Zittel *, following 

 Prof. Karl Mobius t, refers to Eozoon as a product of purely 

 mineral origin. SteinmannJ does not even mention this, 

 perhaps the most interesting of all fossils, but writes, " Aus 

 der eozooischen Periode kennen wir kaum sichere Spuren 

 organischer Wesen." Likewise in Lister's § memoir on the 

 Foraminifera there is no reference to Eozoon. Ilartog {| 

 writes in a footnote : " The alleged Archsean genus Eozoon, 

 ibunded by Carpenter and Dawson on structures found in 

 the Lower Laurentian serpentines and referred to the close 

 proximity of Nummulites, has been claimed as of purely 

 mineral structure by the petrologists ; and recently biologists 

 have admitted the claim." Geikie ^, while stating the pros 



• Zittel, K., ' Grundziige der Palaontologie,' Abth. i. 2ud edition, 1903, 

 p. 35. 



t Mobius, K., * Palseontograpliica,' xxv. 1878, p. 175. Also Carpenter, 

 on Mobius's results, ' Nature,' vol. xx. 1880, p. 272. 



J Steinmann, G., ' Einflihrung in der Palaontologie,' ed. 2, 1907, p. 7. 



§ Lister, J. J., 'Treatise of Zoology' (ed. by E. R. Lankester), 

 Memoir " Foraminifera." 



II Hartog, M., 'Cambridge Natural History' (Harmer and Shipley), 

 Memoir "Protozoa," 1906, p. 70. 



*[[ Geikie, A., 'Text-book of Geology,' 1903, p. 878. See also Sher- 

 born, ' Bibliography of the Foraminifera,' under Dawson, Mobius, 

 Carpenter, &c. 



