APPENDIX 325 



part of editors of the German periodical, to publish 

 and illustrate as scientific material a paper which 

 was so very far from being either fair or adequate. 



The later objections of Gregory and Lavis are 

 open to similar criticism as imperfect and partial, 

 and as confounding Eozoon with mineral structures 

 which previous writers had carefully distinguished 

 from it. I have stated these points in letters to 

 Nature and to the Council of the Dublin Academy, 

 and have also re-stated the evidence bearing on the 

 animal nature of Eozoon in a series of papers in the 

 Geological Magazine for 1895. I may add here, as 

 apposite to the present condition of the matter, a 

 few remarks referring to the appearance of Eozoon 

 in Dr. Dallinger's new edition of Carpenter's great 

 work on the Microscope,^ and more especially to 

 his retaining unchanged the description of Eozoon 

 Canadense, as a monument of an important research 

 up to a certain date, while adding a note with 

 reference to the later criticisms of Mr. Gregory. 



Dr. Carpenter devoted much time to the study of 

 Eozoon, and brought to bear on it his great experi- 

 ence of foraminiferal forms, and his wonderful 



* Nature, March 17, 1892. 



