XXX11 INTRODUCTION. 



1874. Further Remarks on Eozoon Canadense. Dr. W. B. Carpenter. 

 Report Brit. Assoc. Belfast Meeting. 



Additional reasons are adduced " for concluding the organic 

 nature of the organism"; and a contradiction is given to our 

 <( assertion " that Prof. Max Schultze had, just before his death, 

 changed his opinion on " Eozoon." " Mr. Gwyn Jeffreys, 

 Prof. Macalister, and Prof. Perceval Wright expressed their 

 general concurrence in Dr. Carpenter's views." 

 1874. New Observations on Eozoon Canadense. Dr. W. B. Carpenter. 

 Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. xiii. pp. 456-470. 



Dr. Carpenter in his usual style replies to Mr. Carter and the 

 "two Galway Professors :" the summary of the arguments and 

 evidences brought forward in our paper last noticed (A.D. 1871) 

 is all but ignored ; and 1'affaire Max Schultze is thus disposed 

 of: "At any rate, there is no mention of the nummuline 

 wall in his communication to the Wiesbaden Association 

 his acceptance of Eozoon as a foraminifer entirely resting 

 on the ' canal system/ which he had minutely studied, and as 

 to which there is no evidence whatever that he had changed his 

 opinion, as asserted by Professors King and Rowney. Had 

 he lived to see what I shall presently describe, I cannot doubt 

 that he, in common with the numerous microscopists to whom 

 I have recently shown it, would have accepted the ' nummuiine 

 wall ' without the slightest hesitation." What we " asserted " 

 was that "whatever opinion the late Prof. Schultze might 

 hold in the autumn of last year .respecting ' Eozoon/ he subse- 

 quently changed it after reading our papers." There is not a 

 word here about the " canal system " ! 



What Dr. Carpenter was to "presently describe," which 

 is called a " probative fact," is seen in a " section of nummuline 

 layer," in which " many of the tubuli remain empty j and they 

 can be distinguished as tubuli under any magnify ing -power that the 

 thickness of the covering-glass allows to be used." We have 

 on a former occasion stated our reasons foi 1 demurring to this 

 Case (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. xiv. p. 285), at the 



