314 
Bibliographical Notice. 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE. 
The Structure of Eozoon canadense compared with that of Foramini- 
fera, by his own Investigations. By Professor Karl Mobitjs, Pro¬ 
fessor of Zoology at Kiel. 4to. Extracted from Th. Fischer’s 
‘ Palceontographica,’vol. xxv. (pp. 175-192, and plates 33-40), 
1878. 
[Der Bau des Eozoon, &c.] 
The author first enumerates the published memoirs on Eozoon , and 
states how he was led to look specially into the matter, having met 
with his Carpenteria rhaphidodendron, of Mauritius, which at first 
6ight he thought would present some striking analogy to the pre¬ 
sumed Laurentian fossil. The sources whence he obtained Eozoonal 
preparations and the methods of examination arc also mentioned. 
The form and size of Eozoon, as recognized by Dawson and Car¬ 
penter, and their comparison of its structure with that of certain 
Foraminifera, are given in some detail ; also the shape, size, and 
arrangement of the serpentinal bodies (“ chamber-casts,” “concre¬ 
tions,” &c.), their connexion, and the fibrous layer (“ acicular 
crust,” “ nummuline layer,” &c.) between these bodies and the 
limestone (calcite) are treated of as figured in the accompanying 
plates. The little Eozoonal stalk-like bodies traversing the asso¬ 
ciated limestone (calcite), and regarded by Eozoonists as “ casts of 
canals,” are next dealt with (p. 185). The structure, as a whole, 
is compared with that of Foraminifera at pages 186-189. The 
absence of any primary or central chamber, the apparently capri¬ 
cious distribution of both the “tubuline layer” and the “canals,” 
the impossibility of representing the Eozoon as a whole by any 
drawing of one natural specimen, and the consequent necessity of 
using diagrammatic figures to illustrate the reconstructed body, 
are points dwelt upon in this chapter, leading to Prof. Mobius’s 
conclusion that he does not believe Eozoon to be a Foraminifer or 
organic at all. 
At pages 189-191 the author refers to the brief published obser¬ 
vations on Eozoon emanating from the lamented Max Schultze, who 
stated that he could not agree in the opinion that the so-called 
“ nummuline layer ” was really of Foraminiferal origin, and ex¬ 
pressed his intention of giving further study to the other peculiar 
structure, which had been referred by Dawson and Carpenter to the 
“ canal-system,” and with specimens of which his friends were sup¬ 
plying him. 
The reasons for referring the structure of Eozoonal marble to a 
Rhizopodal organism have been given in detail, with illustrations, 
in man}' papers and notes by Carpenter and Dawson in this and 
other periodicals. The objections now again raised by our author 
have been already dealt with in those papers. Of the structures 
treated of by Prof. Mbbius the branching and lobular infillings of 
the “ canal-system ” are particularly valued by Eozoonists as good 
evidence, on account of their peculiar arrangement, so agreeable to 
the disposition of canals in certain Foraminiferal shells. Such 
