Dr. Dawson's 'Daw7i of Life. ^ 371 



8. "Short Answers " to each of our summarized "Objections " 

 against Eozoonism. 



After a lapse of more than four years, and after having been 

 repeatedly reminded of the necessity, Dr. Dawson has at last 

 ventured on noticing, but in the briefest possible way, the 

 twenty-one points which we drew up for the Royal Irish 

 Academy in 1871*. These points, which merely form a sum- 

 mary of the evidences and arguments that have at different 

 times been brought forward in our papers, have been treated 

 as if they were the evidences and arguments themselves ; and 

 by so doing they are made to appear to " general " and 

 ''unscientific readers" as if nothing more than the "short 

 answers " given by Dr. Dawson were necessary to defend 

 " Eozoon''^ and its "contemporaries" against all "opponents and 

 objections ;" notwithstanding, as it would seem, that answers 

 more " in detail " were required, considering that " few even 

 of geological and biological students have clear ideas of the 

 real nature and mode of occurrence of these ancient organisms, 

 and of their relation to the better-known forms of life " (Fora- 

 minifera) ; and that " very few geologists or naturalists have 

 much knowledge of the structure of foraminiferal shells, or 

 would be able under the microscope to recognize them with 

 certainty. Nor have they any distinct ideas of the appearances 

 of such structures under different kinds of preservation and 

 mineralization " ! 



Dr. Dawson's " short answers " resolve themselves into 

 three groups : — 



1st. Misconceptions. 



2nd. Evasions, which we are disposed to believe are unin- 

 tentional. 



3rd. Reliance on the already exploded arguments adduced 

 by other writers. 



Presuming that there is no necessity for us to weary the 

 reader with any remarks on the third group, we shall confine 

 our remarks to the other two, restricting ourselves to the most 

 important of the " short answers " they contain, particularly 

 as many of them have already been discussed. 



Misconceptions. " Short answers " 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 

 15, and 20 belong to this group. 



4th. Dr. Dawson seems not to be aware that malacolite, 

 which is mentioned in our " objection," is a white variety of 



* Vide * Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,' vol. i. ser. 2, pp. 148- 

 152. They were republished, with some slight alterations, in the 'Annals 

 and Magazine of Natural History/ May 1874. 



25* 



