Dr. W. B. Carpenter on Eozoon canadense. 277 



Demetrida picea. 



Demetrida picea, Chaud. Bull. Mosc. 1848, i. p. 77 ; Ann. Soc. Ent. 



Eelg. tome xv. p. 19.5 (1872). 

 Cymindk australis, Hombr. & Jacq. Voy. Pole Sud, Zool. t. i. f. 7 (1842 ?). 

 Cytnindis Dieffmhachii, White, Dieiienb. New Zeal. vol. ii. p. 273 



(1843) ; Blauch. Voy. Pole Sud, Zool. iv. (1853). 



Christchiircli {Mr. Fereday). 



Chaiidoir's name must remain for this species, according to 

 the rule that the first unoccupial name accompanied bj a 

 description takes the priority. The figure in the ' Voyage an 

 Pole 8ud ' was published eleven years before the description, 

 and was erroneously lettered C. australis, not being the C. 

 australis of Dejean. Blanchard himself corrected this error in 

 1 853 ; but long before that date Chaudoir's excellent description 

 had appeared. White's name was simply given (witliout 

 description) to the above-mentioned figure, in place of the 

 erroneous C. australis. 



Species of doubtful position. 

 Pedalopia novcB zelandice^ Casteluau, J. c. p. 15-1. 



XXXVI. — Remarks on Mr. H. J. Carter's Letter to Prof King 

 on the Structure of the so-called Eozoon canadense. By 

 William B. Carpenter, ]\1.D., LL.D., F.K.S., Corre- 

 sponding Member of the Institute of France. 



The well-merited reputation which Mr. Carter has gained by 

 his researches on Sponges and Foraminifera will doubtless 

 give to his decided expression of opinion against the Forami- 

 nifcral character of the (so-called) Eozoon canadense a very 

 considerable weight with those naturalists who regard the 

 question as still sub judice. 



Had Mr. Carter (whose additions to our knowledge of the 

 minute structm'e of certain types of Foraminifera are estimated 

 by no one more highly than by myself) pronounced this 

 opinion after a careful study of what has been written in 

 favour of the Foraminiferal character of Eozoon.^ and after an 

 examination of the pieces justificatives therein referred to, I 

 should have respected it, however different from my own, as 

 that of an able investigator who has the fullest right both to 

 form and to publish his judgment, and should not have troubled 

 the scientific public with any fm'ther discussion of the ques- 

 tion at issue. 



Ann. & Mag. N. U. Scr. 4. Vol. xiii. 20 



