378 Mr. H. J. Carter on Eozoon canadeuse. 



port " states tliat '' the application of stronger powers shows 

 that in tlie finer structure of the canals [of the eozoonal lime- 

 stone '?] there is so great an agreement with that of Polytrema 

 among the living Acervulinai, that, weighing all the other con- 

 ditions of structure which come into consideration, there can 

 be no serious doubt as to the foraminiferous nature of Eozoon 

 canadensey 



AVhat " canals " are here meant in the translated " Re- 

 port " it is difficult for me to see — that is, whether thej be the 

 '' tubuli " or the " canal-system." The term " ramified 

 canal-system " is mentioned in the former part of the " Report,'' 

 but never the words " nummuline tubulation " or " tubuli." 

 Still, as the position of the latter with respect to the chambers 

 is the sine qua no7i here, the " ramified canal-system " is, so 

 far, of no consequence. 



Thus we come to the identification of the tubuli of Polytrema 

 with the aciculte of the eozoonal structure ; and here we have 

 again a repetition of the fact before stated, viz. that in a mounted 

 section of a thin slice of Polytrema wherein the tubuli can 

 be best seen, they are in all places observed to pass directly 

 across the walls of the chambers — that is, to be perpendicular 

 to the surface or confines of the latter ; while in the " eozoonal 

 structure " the acicula?, which have been stated to be identical 

 with the tubuli, are observed to be parallel or tangential to the 

 grains of serpentine. 



That is to say, in the section of eozoonal limestone their 

 endsj for the most part, may be seen around the grains of 

 serpentine, while in the ivalls of the chambers in the section 

 of Polytrema they are always seen to be sideicise. 



In short the tuljuli of the calcareous foraminiferous test are as 

 perpendicular to the confines of the chambers as the lines of 

 enamel to the dentine of a tooth. Now no one, under any cir- 

 cumstances, could make a section of a tooth in which the lines 

 of the enamel would appear otherwise than perpendicular to 

 the dentine ,• neither could he do the like with a foraminiferal 

 chamber. 



How is it, then, that the " aciculae " to which I have alluded 

 are seen endicise [vide woodcut) around and not perpendicular 

 to the confines of the grains of serpentine, if the latter be the 

 cast of a foraminiferous chamber? 



Either the foraminiferous chambers and their tubuli of the 

 species possessing calcareous tests (for we have nothing to do 

 with arenaceous ones here) belie themselves, which is not likely, 

 or the so-called Eozoon canadeuse in the Laurentian Limestone 

 is not a fossilized foraminiferous structure. 



That Schultze should have failed to realize this is not extra- 

 ordinary under the circumstances. 



