324 



APPENDIX 



m 



, }|: 



I i>i' 



G. Controversies Respecting Eozoon. 



In the text (Chapter IX.) I have referred in 

 a cursory manner to these, but have felt that it 

 would be unprofitable to fight the old battles over 

 again, except in so far as the objections raised have 

 suggested new lines of study and investigation. 

 The old objections of Messrs. Rowney, King and 

 Carter were conclusively replied to by the late Dr. 

 Carpenter. The later criticisms of Mobius in his 

 elaborated memoir in " Palxontographica " were in 

 appearance more formidable ; but he had evidently 

 entered on the question with imperfect material, and 

 a very defective conception of its extent and mean- 

 ing. His treatment of it was also marked by 

 unfairness to those who had previously worked at 

 the subject, and by that narrow specialism and 

 captious spirit for which German naturalists are too 

 deservedly celebrated. The difficulties he raised 

 were met at the time, more especially in articles 

 by the present writer in the American Journal of 

 Science^ and in the Canadian Naturalist. Mobius, 

 I have no doubt, did his best from his special and 

 limited point of view ; but it was a crime which 

 science should not readily pardon or forget, on the 



\t n 



