P THE DAWN-ANIMAL AS A TEACHER IN SCIENCE. 227 



iQquire^ What do we know as to any modification in 

 the case of the primeval Foraminifers, whether with 

 reference to the derivation from them of other Pro- 

 tozoa or of higher forms of life ? 



There is no link whatever in geological fact to con- 

 nect Eozoon with any of the MoUusks, Radiates^ or 

 Crustaceans of the succeeding Primordial. What may 

 be discovered in the future we cannot conjecture; but 

 at present these stand before us as distinct creations. 

 It would of course be more probable that Eozoon 

 should be the ancestor of some of the Foraminifera of 

 the Primordial age^ but strangely enough it is very 

 dissimilar from all these except Stromatopora; and 

 here^ as already stated^ the evidence of minute struc- 

 ture fails to a great extent, and Eozoon Bavaricum of 

 the Huronian age scarcely helps to bridge over the gap 

 which yawns in our imperfect geological record. Of 

 actual facts, therefore, we have none ; and those evolu- 

 tionists who have regarded the dawn-animal as an 

 evidence in their favour, have been obliged to have 

 recourse to supposition and assumption. 



T&king the ground of the derivationist, it is con- 

 venient to assume (1) that Eozoon was either the j&rst 

 or nearly the first of animals, and that, being a Pro- 

 tozoan of simple structure, it constitutes an appropriate 

 beginning of life ; (2) that it originated from some 

 unexplained change in the protoplasmic or albuminous 

 matter of some humble plant, or directly from inor- 

 ganic matter, or at least was descended from some 

 creature only a little more simple which had being in 



