Reviews — King and Roivney on Eozoon Canadense. 231 



from any deposits going on at this moment ; the latter are horizontal, 

 and do not mantle the sides of the valleys ; the former do so. and are 

 spread over them independently of the irregularity of their surface 

 (Du Terrain Quaternaire et de I'Anciennete de I'Homme, dans le 

 Nord de la France, p. 17). 



( To be concluded in our next Numher.) 



le DE AT- I IB "W s. 



An Old Chaptek in the Geological Eecord with a New 

 Interpretation ; or Rock Metamorphism (especially of the 

 Methylosed Kind) and its Resultant Imitation of Organ- 

 isms. With an Introduction giving an Annotated History 

 of the Controversy on the so-called " Eozoon Canadense," 

 AND AN Appendix. By Professors King and Rowney. pp. 183 

 (including introduction), with cuts, and 9 coloured plates. (Van 

 Voorst, 1881.) 

 ri'lHE first portion of this work deals with the question of " Eozoon " 

 X and of simulation of organized structures generally. The second 

 deals with the question of wholesale substitution in rock masses. 



1. Simidation of organized structures. — The spirit of controversy, 

 if kept within reasonable limits, is beneficial to the progress of 

 science, as it serves to fix the attention of many who would other- 

 wise feel but a languid interest in questions involving much technical 

 knowledge, and therefore beyond the detailed criticism of geologists, 

 the majority of whom must plead ignoi'ance to anything beyond an 

 elementary knowledge of foraminiferal structure. As regards the 

 disputants themselves, it is probable that the arguments on either side 

 make but little impression on them : their views have been for the 

 most part well " set " at an early period, and are only hardened as 

 it were bj'^ every stage in the discussion. 



The great " Eozoon " controversy has now been waged for well- 

 nigh twenty j^ears, and we are happy to say that the principals are 

 still as vigorous as ever. Messrs. Dawson, Carpenter, and Sterry 

 Hunt on one side, Messrs. King and Rowney on the other. The 

 biologists favourable to " Eozoon " had an important auxiliary in 

 Sterry Hunt, whose diagenetic doctrines with reference to the 

 Archsean rocks came in very opportunely. Moreover, such eminent 

 mineralogists and petrographers as Sorby and David Forbes are 

 reported to have altogether disowned "Eozoon" as a mineral, whilst 

 Bonney, in the discussion after his paper on the Lizai'd Serpentine, 

 avowed his belief in the organic nature of " Eozoon." Hence it 

 cannot be said that Drs. Dawson and Carpenter have received no 

 support from mineralogists, though these latter have not perhaps 

 given any very active assistance excepting in the case of Sterry Hunt. 

 In point of fact, some ten or twelve years ago the case for 

 " Eozoon " seemed to have been concluded in the affirmative as 

 admitted by Warington Smyth. It was accepted as satisfactory by 

 nearly all the leading geologists, such as Lyell, Logan, Ramsay, 

 etc., etc. The latter " had been struck long ago by the organic 



