642 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1904. 



The evidence, however, was not altogether one way, Max Schultze, 

 after an examination of a specimen transmitted him by Dawson, 

 announcing' that "there can be no serious doubt as to the forami- 

 niferal nature of Eozoon canadense." Further evidence against the 

 organic nature of the Eozoon was, however, furnished hy Mr. H. A. 

 Carter in 3 874, in a letter to Professor King, and published in the 

 Annals and Magazine of Natural History of that year. After a some- 

 what elaborate comparison of the structure of Eozoon with that of 

 known foraminifera, he wrote: 



But in vain do we seek in the so-called Eozoon canadense for an unvarying perpen- 

 dicular tubuli, the sine qua non of foraminiferal structure. * * * In short, in vain 

 do we look for the casts of true foraminiferous chambers at all in the grains of serpen- 

 tine. They, for the most part, are not subglobular hut subprismatic. With such 

 deficiencies I am at a loss to conceive how the so-called Eozoon canadense can be 

 identified with foraminiferous structure except by the wildest conjecture. 



To the conclusions of Carter, Carpenter took violent exception and 

 accused that gentleman of not having read anything that had been 

 written bearing upon the other side of the question; of having no 

 comprehensive knowledge of foraminiferal structure, and of having 

 seen only those samples of Eozoon submitted by Professor King; and 

 hence his imputation to the effect that the organic nature of the 

 Eozoon had no other basis than iw the wildest conjecture " was to be 

 regarded "simply as specimens of a new method of language which 

 might be termed Carterese." He then went over once more certain 

 disputed points and concluded by saying: 



An experience of thirty-five years * * * has given me, I venture to think, 

 some special aptitude for recognizing organic structure when I see it; and I never 

 saw, in any fossil whatever, more distinct evidences of organic structure than are to 

 be seen in these finer ramifications of the canal system of Eozoon." 



Perhaps the most important paper on the subject after those men- 

 tioned was that of Dr. (Jail Moebius, of Kiel, in 1879. Moebius, it 

 should be noted, was a zoologist and microseopist. He claimed to 

 have been first led to the study of the Eozoon through observations of 

 the structure of a rhyzopod found by him in 1874 on the coral reefs 

 near Mauritius. Sections of these growths so closely resembled the 

 representations of Eozoon sections published that he resolved to 

 make a careful investigation of the latter for purposes of comparison 

 with his Carpentaria ni]>/ii<l<><lf ml 'r<>n and other foraminifera. With 

 this object in view, he investigated upward of 90 Eozoon sections, 

 which were placed at his disposal through the kindness of Doctor 

 Carpenter, and many of which original ly belonged to Professor 

 Dawson. 



" " For treweley there is noon of us all, 

 If any wight wol claw us on the galle, 

 That we nyl kike." 



