646 REPOKT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1904. 



It has been noted that American workers took comparatively little 

 part in active research, though it does not necessarily follow that 

 examinations of the problematic bodies were not made sufficient to 

 enable them to hold opinions of their own. It is interesting-, there- 

 fore, to note that few of the active workers accepted unhesitatingly 

 the organic theory, and many of them rejected it entirely. The con- 

 sensus of opinion to-day is so decidedly against the organic nature of 

 the body that it may be considered as practically settled, although 

 Dana, in the latest issue of his Manual, includes a copy of one of 

 Dawson's original figures, and sums up the evidence pro and con 

 without prejudice. 



There is apparently no doubt but that this simulative form is due 

 merely to a process of chemical metamorphism, a process of indefinite 

 substitution and replacement, technically metasomatosis, acting upon 

 rocks which are granular aggregates of lime-magnesian pyroxenes, 

 with more or less calcareous matter, the serpentine being, in all cases, 

 secondary. Such an origin is suggested at once, even to the uniniti- 

 ated, by reference to figures like that of Bonney's, on page 644. 

 Similar structures have, moreover, been noted by various observers 

 in rocks which were unmistakably of igneous origin. 



Specialization is, undoubtedly, essential to the rapid advancement of 

 knowledge, but there is danger of specialization being carried too far- 

 danger that the individual, through insufficient breadth of training or 

 through too close application to his own particular hobby, may ignore 

 the work of his neighbor along other lines, and perhaps in time 

 become so immune as to be unable to appreciate that work, even when 

 its details are laid before him. 



In the review of the Eozoon question, much must be allowed for the 

 growth of science — the gradual increase in knowledge regarding both 

 mineral structure and mineral alteration. Still, one who peruses these 

 papers can but feel that had Messrs. Dawson and Carpenter had a little 

 more knowledge of mineralogy they would have been less dogmatic 

 in their assertions, and it is possible that had Messrs. King and Row- 

 ney had more knowledge of foraminiferal structure they might have 

 been less harsh in their criticisms. 



" ' My children,' the chameleon cries, 

 (Then first the creature found a tongue,) 

 ' Yon all are right and all are wrong. 

 When next yon talk of what you view, 

 Think others see, as well as you, 

 Nor wonder, if you find that none 

 Prefers your eyesight to his own.' " 



