XXXV111 INTRODUCTION. 



Journal by Mr. Carter. He first shows, contrary to the state- 

 ment of Mr. Carter, that the fine mimmuline tabulation corre- 

 sponds precisely in its direction with reference to the chambers 

 with that observed in Nummulites and Orbitoides &c." In 

 reply, Mr. Carter, after giving his evidences, declares : "I there- 

 fore most unhesitatingly state that there is no identity between 

 this selected representation of the so-called ' Eozoon Canadense ' 

 and Foraminiferal structure. Such a relation of ' canal 

 system ' to f nummuline tabulation ' could not exist in a 

 Foraminiferal test either in theory or fact ! " 

 1876. On Mr. Carter's Objections to Eozoon. Dr. J. W. Dawson. 



Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. xvii. pp. 118, 119. 

 1876. The Dawn of Life. Dr. J. W. Dawson. 



Mr. L. S. Burbank's statement (supported by Mr. J. B. Perry) 

 respecting the occurrence of " Eozoon " in masses that are not 

 true stratified rocks (A.D. 1871) is met by Dr. Dawson' s asser- 

 tion that the figures and descriptions supporting it " lead to 

 the belief that this is an error of observation on his part/'' 

 1876. Correspondenzblatt des zoologisch. -miner alog. Vereins in Re- 



gensburg. 

 1876. Is there such a thing as Eozoon Canadense ? A Microgeological 



Investigation. Dr. Otto Hahn. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 



ser. 4, vol. xvii. pp. 265-282 ; Wiirttembergische naturwis- 



senschaftliche, Jahreshefte, 1876. 



Admitting that " a very great deal has been written on the 

 question/' the writer remarks : " The results of my investiga- 

 tion have, I think, finally settled it. By my investigation it is 

 established that there is no gigantic Foraminifer in serpentine 

 limestone." 



This " investigation " resolves itself into a " criticism of 

 mineralogical, .geological, and zoological facts." Much of what 

 the author says of chrysotile, though he sees its relation to the 

 " nummuline layer/' is to be objected to. Our observations 

 confirm Dr. Halm's respecting olivine ; we dissent, however, from 

 his statement that "the serpentine undoubtedly originated from 

 olivine." In his remarks and views on the ' ' canal system " we 



