330 Dr. G. C. Wallicli on the true 



and subsiding to the bottom in a disintegrated condition only 

 after death — secondly, that coccospheres are to be met with 

 in abundance in dredgings along the coasts of the British 

 Channel* — and, lastly, that coccoliths occur also in abundance 

 in the post-tertiary fossil-earths of Americaf, — assume an im- 

 portance that would not, under other circumstances, have per- 

 tained to them. 



It has been shown that, whereas Prof. Huxley, in his 

 original report, declared that the coccoliths " cannot be or- 

 ganic" I proved them to be organic; whereas he doubted 

 their being the disjecta membra of the coccospheres, I proved 

 them to be so ; and whereas he alleged that they normally, as 

 " coccoliths," " discoliths," or " cyatholiths," constitute part 

 and parcel of the living thing to which he gave the name 

 of BathybiuS) I distinctly proved that the " coccoliths " have 

 no physiological connexion with the viscid matter in which 

 they are imbedded at the bottom of the sea, but are detached 

 and normal appendages of coccospheres which have lived in 

 the superficial waters of the ocean, and subsided to the bottom 

 only after death. 



As already stated, Prof. Huxley's announcement of Bathy- 

 bius appeared in the ' Quarterly Journal of Microscopical 

 Science ' for October 1868. In the following number of the 

 same journal (Jan. 1, 1869), in a paper upon " The Vital 

 Functions of the Deep-sea Protozoa," I entered very fully 

 into a refutation of Prof. Huxley's alleged discovery of Ba- 

 tkybius, quoting, much more in extenso than I should be 

 justified in doing here, the whole of Prof. Huxley's published 

 observations on the subject up to that date, and also Dr. 

 Carpenter's views regarding the organization and mode of 

 nutrition of the Foraminifera, with many points of which my 

 own observations were at direct variance. To that paper I beg 

 those who take sufficient interest in the question to refer. At 

 present I must confine myself to giving the following extracts 

 as bearing most directly upon Bathybius%. 



* See paper " On Amoeba villosa and other indigenous Rhizopods," by 

 G. C. Wallicli, M.D. &c. (Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 

 June 18G3, footnote p. 445) ; and also a paper " On the Vital Functions of 

 the Deep-Sea Protozoa," by same author (Monthly Microscopical Journal, 

 Jan. 1, 1809). 



t " On the Structur eand Affinities of the Polycystina," by same author 

 (' Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science ' for July 1865, footnote). 



X " On the Vital Functions of the Deep-Sea Protozoa," by G. C. Wal- 

 lich, M.D. &c. (Monthly Microscopical Journal, Jan. 1, 1869, pp. 38 & 

 39). Of the contents of this paper not the slightest notice has been taken, 

 either by Prof. Huxley, Dr. Carpenter, or Dr. Wyville Thomson. I am 

 quite content to submit to the verdict of every impartial critic, whether 



