INTRODUCTION.. 



" (8) " and last, which need not be thought of, as " It may be 

 added, though perhaps not as an argument/'' Thus all the forces 

 which constitute eozoonism are individually invalidated ; and, 

 necessarily, " when taken together, are of no value whatever." 



Handbuch der Palaontologie. Professors Karl A. Zi,t,tel and 1879. 



W. P. Schimper. 

 The authors reject the organic origin of "Eozoon" 



Note on Recent Controversies respecting Eozoon Canadense. 1880. 

 Dr. J. W. Dawson. Canadian Naturalist, vol. ix. no. 4. 



The writer notices Mobius's "Der Bau des Eozoon Canadense" 

 and the " Abstract" by ourselves (A.D. 1879). He evidently 

 prefers pronouncing our theory of methylosis, in its explana- 

 tion of the origin of the Archaean " crystalline limestones/' to 

 be " stupendously absurd " rather than discussing it. 



The facts we have made known in connexion with the 

 different eozoonal features constitute, with others, the data on 

 which our theory of their origin is founded. In the "Abstract" 

 referred to we applied this theory as an hypothesis to account 

 for the origin of the Archaean hemithrenes and ophites. 

 Obviously, then, Dr. Dawson, carried away by his oracularism, 

 was ignoring the question at issue, which is not the methylosis 

 of those ancient rocks, but the origin of the different parts 

 forming " Eozoon Canadense." Therefore, instead of wasting 

 some pages in fruitlessly criticising Otto Hahn's ' Die Urzelle/ 

 which has nothing to do with the " recent controversies " 

 Dr. Dawson had to notice, his attention ought to have been 

 directed to the evidences on which our theory is founded. 



Dr. Dawson has elsewhere (A.D. 1875) designated our 

 explanation of the origin of the different eozoonal features 

 a u complicated theory of pseudomorphism and replacement ;" 

 so he ordained that it be " dismissed at once " a very con- 

 venient way of getting rid of a difficult point. We shall offer 

 no protest against this designation, but simply mention that, 

 compared with his explanation, ours is simplicity itself ! 



d 



