EOZOON 843 



differs from every known living form. Yet the suggestion that it is 

 of mineral origin would be scouted as absurd by every palaeontologist. 

 Again it is urged by Professor Mobius that as the supposed canal 

 system of Eozoon has not the constancy and regularity of distribu- 

 tion which it presents in existing Foraminifera, it must be accounted 

 a mineral infiltration. To this the Author would reply (1) that 

 a prolonged and careful study of this 'canal system,' in a great 

 variety of modes, with an amount of material at his disposal many 

 times greater than Professor Mobius could command, has satisfied 

 him that in well-preserved specimens the canal system, so far from 

 being vague and indefinite, has a very regular plan of distribution ; 

 (2) that this plan does not differ more from the arrangements 

 characteristic of the several types of existing Foraminifera than 

 these differ from each other, its general conformity to them being 

 such as to satisfy Professor Max Schultze (one of the ablest students 

 of the group) of its foraminiferal character ; and (3) that not only 

 does the distribution of the canal system of Eozoon differ in certain 

 essential features from every form of mineral infiltration hitherto 

 brought to light, but that canal systems in no respect differing from 

 each other in distribution are occupied by different minerals] a fact 

 which seems conclusively to point to their pre-existence in the cal- 

 careous layers, and the subsequent penetration of these minerals into 

 the passages previously occupied by sarcode precisely as has 

 happened in those ' internal casts ' of existing Foraminifera which 

 Professor Mobius altogether ignores. 



The argument for the foraminiferal nature of Eozoon is essentially 

 a cumulative one, resting on a number of independent probabilities^ 

 no one of which, taken separately, has the cogency of a proof; yet 

 the accordance of them all with that hypothesis has an almost 

 demonstrative value, no other hypothesis accounting at once for the 

 whole assemblage of facts. 1 



Collection and Selection of Foraminifera. Many of the Fora- 

 minifera attach themselves in the living state to seaweeds, zoophytes, 

 itc. ; and they should therefore be carefully looked for on such 

 bodies, especially when it is desired to observe their internal organi- 

 sation and their habits of life. They are often to be collected in 



1 The above account of Eozoon is allowed to stand as Dr. Carpenter's name has 

 become so intimately connected with the view, now not commonly held, that the body 

 has an animal origin. It may be noted that Prof. J. W. Gregory, wlio has had an 

 opportunity of examining the so-called Tudor specimen of Eozoon, communicated 

 to the Geological Society, on March 11, 1891, a paper, of which the following is an 

 abstract : 



After careful examination of all the slides and figures, and after consideration of 

 Sir W. Dawaon's interpretation, the author is absolutely unable to recognise in the 

 specimen any trace of the ' proper wall,' ' canals,' or ' stolon passages,' which are 

 claimed to occur in Eozoon, or any reasons for regarding the calcite bands as the 

 ' intermediate skeleton ' of a foraminifer. There are points in Sir W. Dawson's 

 figure which might pass as ' stolon passages,' but they appear very different in a 

 photograph, and the specimen agrees with the latter. The author, however, gives 

 reasons for concluding that the case against the organic origin of the Tudor specimen 

 does not rest on negative evidence alone ; for, though the rock is much contorted, the 

 twin lamellae and cleavage-planes of the calcite are not bent ; and the fact that the 

 crystalline bands cut across the bedding-planes further shows their secondary origin. 

 The rock in which the specimen was found is not ' Lower Laurentian,' and is included 

 by Messrs. Selwyn and Vennor in the Huronian. 



