:-fr- 



3 



fragmeDts of serpentindus limestone, without any structure what- 

 ever. I have seen in the collections of dealers and even in public 

 museums, specimens labelled " Eozoon Canadtnse,'' which have 

 as little claim to that designation as a chip of limestone has to 

 be called a coral or a crinoid," ='• 



These statements v^ere called forth by the appearance of a 

 learned and well illustrated paper, disputing the animal nature 

 of Eozoon, by Prof Karl Moebius of Kiel, and in which, on the 

 evidence of several specimens given to him by Dr. C-irpeiiter and 

 myself, he assumes that he has " investigated more closely and 

 described more minutely " than any other naturalist, its forms 

 and structures, and that by his labours Eozoon has been '* suc- 

 cessfully eliminated from the domain of organic bodies." 



feince the appearance of this memoir, and of my criticism upon 

 it, Moebius has published in the same Journal a reply, which has 

 appended to it a note by the principal editor, closing the contro- 

 versy in so far as that Journal is concerned, by stating that the 

 editor had pledged himself that no rejoinder would be permitted. 

 This, of course, excludes ti;e advocates of tlu; animal nature of 

 Eozoon from any farther argument, in so far as ilie principal 

 organ of scientific opinion in th(^ United States is concerned; 

 and it is partly for this reason that I appear at present in the 

 attitude of a defender of Eorjtou on its own soil, instead of, as 

 heretofore, carrying the war into the enemy's country. 



Still later than this reply of Moebius, are two additional 

 papers of still more remarkable ciiaracter. For. while Moebius 

 is content to take up a purely nesrative position, these undertake 

 to account for the structures of Eozoon by other causes than that 

 of animal growth, and by causes altogether inconsistent with one 

 another. The first of these is an abstract of a memoir •' On the 

 origin of the mineral, structural and chemical characters of 

 :^ Ophites and related rocks." presented to the Royal Society of 

 London by Professors King and Rowney. The second is a quarto 

 pamphlet of 96 pages with 30 plates, by Dr. Otto Hahn, entitled 

 " Die Urzelle,,' the " Primordial cell." 



I confess I do not regard either of these papers as of any 

 scientific value, in so far as Eozoon is concerned, but as they 

 are at least bold and confident in their tone, and emanate from 

 quarters which may be supposed to give them some little influ- 



* Amor. .lour, of Hitience. March. 1879. 



l^^J^ 



H 



