Dr. W. B. Carpenter on Eozoon Canadense. 135 
(3) that the ‘proper wall’ is structurally identical with the 
asbestiform layer which frequently invests the grains of chondro- 
dite—that, instead of belonging to the skeleton, as must be the 
case on the eozoonal view, it is altogether independent of that 
part, and forms, on the contrary, an integral portion of the 
serpentine constituting the ‘ chamber-casts,’ under the allomorphic 
form of chrysotile, and that perfectly genuine specimens of it, 
completely simulating casts of separated nummuline tubules, 
occur in true fissures of the serpentine-granules; (4) that the 
‘eanal-system’ is analogous to the imbedded crystallizations of 
native silver and other similarly conditioned minerals, also to the 
coralloids imbedded in Permian Magnesian Limestone; that its 
typical Grenville form occurs as metaxite, a chemically identical 
mineral imbedded in saccharoidal calcite ; (5) that the type ex- 
amples of ‘casts of stolon-passages’ are isolated crystals appa- 
rently of pyrosclerite. Furthermore, considering that there has 
been a complete failure to explain the characters of the so-called 
internal casts of the ‘pseudopodial tubules’ and other ‘ passages’ 
on the hypothesis of ordinary mechanical or chemical infiltration, 
also bearing in mind the significant fact that the ‘intermediate 
skeleton,’ in Irish and other varieties of eozoonal rock, contains 
modified examples of the ‘definite shapes’ more or less resembling 
the crystalline aggregations and prismatic lumps in primary sac- 
charoidal marbles—that eozoonal structure is only found in meta- 
morphic rocks belonging to widely separated geological systems, 
never in their unaltered sedimentary deposits,—taking all these 
points into consideration, also the arguments and other evidences 
contained in the present memoir, we feel the conclusion to be fully 
established, that every one of the specialities which have been 
diagnosed for Hozoon Canadense is solely and purely of crystalline 
origin: in short, we hold, without the least reservation, that from 
every available standing point—foraminiferal, mineralogical, che- 
mical, and geological—the opposite view has been shown to be 
utterly untenable.” 
Considering that the Foraminiferal characters of Hozoon Cana- 
dense had been unhesitatingly accepted by all those zoologists, 
Continental as well as British, whose special acquaintance with 
the group gave weight to their opinion, it might have been pru- 
dent, as well as becoming, on the part of the Galway Professors, 
to express themselves somewhat less confidently in regard to its 
purely mineral origin. The case they made out would not have 
lost any of its real strength if they had simply put forward their 
facts as affording valid grounds for questioning the received doc- 
trine ; and a way of escape would have been left for them, if the 
progress of research should happen to bring to light conclusive 
evidence on the other side. ; 
Although such conclusive evidence is now producible, it may be 
well for me briefly to point out what I regard as the fundamental 
fallacies in the argument of Professors King and Rowney. 
