liv INTRODUCTION. 



" mildly protested against/' Dr. E/oemer may reasonably be 

 " at a loss to understand." 



We shall now conclude by drawing up a conspectus of the 

 various points of importance which have been advanced by us 

 against the organic origin of ' ' Eozoon Canadense " and it is 

 greatly to be desired that the upholders of this view, instead of 

 continually begging the question, introducing irrelevancies, or 

 being too often reticent in their replies, will endeavour to over- 

 throw them in a manner becoming their scientific reputation. 



Our points arrange themselves as follows : 



Foraminiferal. 



(1) The existence of an upper and an under ff proper wall " in 

 immediate connexion with a " chamber/' and the frequent oc- 

 currence of this same part, with its " tubuli " (aciculse) passing 

 continuously, or without interruption, from one ' ( chamber " to 

 another, to the exclusion of the " intermediate skeleton"*; also 

 the frequent horizontality of the " tubuli" to their adjacent 

 " chamber." 



(2) The configurations presumed to represent the fc canal 

 system" have no constant correlativeness, and are totally devoid 

 of any regularity of form in the one case emanating indifferently 

 from chambers, or from " tubuli " of the " proper wall," and in 

 the other being incompatible with the feature with which they 

 have been identified. 



The above points, admitted to be " anomalies," but not yet 

 explained, establish the "essential" parts of "Eozoon Cana- 

 dense " to be foraminiferal impossibilities. 



* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxii. p. 191. Proc. Eoy. Irish Acad. vol. x. 

 p. 517. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. xiv. pp. 274-289. This work, 

 p. xxxiv. 



