315 
Bibliographical Notice. 
appearances in Calcarina &c. were figured and published without 
reference to and before the discovery of Eozoon. That ancient 
organisms, though belonging to the same groups as are represented 
in nature to-day, should differ widely in details of structure, is a 
truism illustrated by many newly discovered fossil (and even recent) 
forms of life, whose structure is found to be wondei'fully different 
from, and yet wonderfully consonant with, the make-up of the 
already known types of organic structure ; and this invalidates our 
author’s objection to a reliance on the possibilities of Nature. 
What zoologist or botanist can predicate the structural details of 
the next discovered plant or animal, however narrow the limits we 
may suppose to define its alliance to any previously known form ? 
Although many mineralogists regard the Eozoonal rock as having 
been as inorganic in its origin as it now is in its material, yet Dr. 
Sterry Hunt, for one, who has long studied it, thinks that its pecu¬ 
liarities are not due to a mineral genesis alone. We know also 
that not only Foraminiferal shells, but other calcareous tests and 
skeletons, both recent and fossil, have their tubes and cavities filled 
by various minerals, with results very similar to what is regarded as 
having taken place and as being visible in Eozoon. 
It is not that here and there, and, indeed, in very many parts of 
a true Eozoonal rock there are lines and patches, fibrous and con¬ 
cretionary, of purely mineral origin, as well as their mineral 
matrix ; the point to be kept in view is that the structure of cer¬ 
tain portions is best explained by reference to mineral infiltration 
of tubular and cavernous shells, which grew and spread after the 
manner of Foraminifera, though not identical with any known 
form in particular. Also it has to be remembered that not only 
has the enclosing rock been itself subjected to mineral changes, but 
has been crushed, broken, and twisted, and that the scarcity of large 
areas of perfect and undisturbed structure, in such a relatively large 
Rhizopod, has to be supplemented, in the study of its whole, by 
such diagrammatic constructions of what the experienced observer 
recognizes and wishes to explain, as our author condemns at p. 188, 
because, he thinks, the Eozoonists in their diagrams have over¬ 
stepped the line of probability. Without such illustrations, showing 
(like models) both the elevation and perspective of internal arrange¬ 
ments, we may remark, external appearance and microscopic sec¬ 
tions would very imperfectly elucidate the descriptions of large 
Foraminifera. The correlation of the mineral representatives of at 
least the “ canal-tubes ” and “ chambers ” in Eozoon , both of which 
are cut at many different angles in sections, and can rarely be seen 
in elevation, and then only to a small extent, are best shown by 
this method —especially, too, as the student has, in this case, to 
make a mental translation of threads into tubes and nodules into 
chambers. 
At page 198 Prof. Mobius consoles the Eozoonists with his 
opinion that the doctrine of evolution need not be despaired of be¬ 
cause he removes the primordial Eozoon from the category of 
Beings. We do not see the value of this commonplace and wordy 
