OPPONENTS AND OBJECTIONS. 197 



I^HBpecimen of fossil wood present in one part distorted and 

 ■^Bonfused fibres or mere crystals, with the remains of the wood 

 i forming pliragmata between them, when in other parts it may 

 r show the most minute structures in perfect preservation ? 



Kit who would use the disintegrated portions to invalidate 

 e evidence of the parts better preserved? Yet this is 

 ecisely the argument of Professors King and Eowney, and 

 which they have not hesitated in using in the case of a fossil 

 80 old as Eozoon, and so often compressed, crushed, and partly 

 destroyed by mineralization. 



I have in the above remarks confined myself to what I 

 regard as absolutely essential by way of explanation and 

 defence of the organic nature of Eozoon. It would be un- 

 profitable to enter into the multitude of subordinate points 

 I raised by the authors, and their theory of mineral pseudo- 

 \ morphism is discussed by my friend Dr. Hunt ; but I must 

 say here that this theory ought, in my opinion, to afibrd to 

 any chemist a strong presumption against the validity of their 

 objections, especially since it confessedly does not account for 

 all the facts, while requiring a most complicated series of 

 unproved and improbable suppositions. 



The only other new features in the communication to which 

 this note refers are contained in the " supplementary note." 

 The first of these relates to the grains of coccolite in the lime- 

 stone of Aker, in Sweden. Whether or not these are organic, 

 they are apparently di£Eerent from Eozoon Ganadense. They, 

 no doubt, resemble the grains referred to by Giimbel as 

 possibly organic, and also similar granular objects with pro- 

 jections which, in a previous paper, I have described from 

 Laurentian limestones in Canada. These objects are of 

 doubtful nature ; but if organic, they are distinct from 

 , Eozoon. The second relates to the supposed crystals of 

 malacolite from the same place. Admitting the interpretation 

 given of these to be correct, they are no more related to 

 Eozoon than are the curious vermicular crystals of a micaceous 

 mineral which I have noticed in the Canadian limestones. 



The third and still more remarkable case is that of a spinel 

 irom Amity, New York, containing calcite in its crevices. 



