232 Hcriews — l^ing and Roivney on Eozoon Canadense. 



appearance of the structure now regarded as Eozoon. He had also 

 felt a difficulty in accounting for the existence of large masses of 

 limestone, except by the operation of organisms living in the sea, 

 in which such deposits had been formed. He could not imagine the 

 sea-water so overcharged with calcareous matter as spontaneously 

 to deposit limestone." ^ Thus cherished by the most eminent 

 students of the protozoa, accepted by the chief geological surveyors, 

 and not doubted by manjj- of the best known mineralogists and 

 petrographers, it is no wonder that Eozoonism was triumphant at 

 the Geological Society, and that Messrs. King and Eowney could 

 but obtain the publication of an abstract of their second paper 

 written in opposition to the then prevailing ideas (1868). 



It is a somewhat singular circumstance that hardly any French 

 author — if we may judge from the "introduction" — has interested 

 himself in the question of " Eozoon," whilst the Germans,'^ on the 

 contrary, have paid great attention to it, and for a long time were 

 strong believers in its organic origin. The objections of Zittel and 

 the defection of Mobius in later years have caused many people both 

 in England and Germany to look upon the " creature of the dawn " 

 as possibly a kind of Archaean Bathybius in close genetic connexion 

 with its modern representative. The case of Mobius is a very strong 

 one. With every wish to believe he was unable to do so. " My 

 task," says he, " was to examine Eozoon from a biological point of 

 view. I commenced it with the expectation of finding that I should 

 succeed in establishing its organic origin beyond all doubt, but facts 

 led me to the contrary. When I first saw the beautiful stem- 

 systems in Prof. Carpenter's sections, I became at once a partizan of 

 the view of Professors Dawson and Carpenter ; but the more good 

 sections and isolated stems I examined, the more doubtful became to 

 my mind the organic origin of Eozoon, until at last the most mag- 

 nificent ' canal-systems ' taken altogether and closely compared with 

 foraminiferal sections preached to me nothing but the inorganic 

 character of Eozoon over and over again." — (Nature, July 24, 1879.) 

 The authors are far from being satisfied with Mobius, and declare 

 that his foraminiferal arguments are little more than an amplification 

 of points advanced by Mr. J. H. Carter and themselves. 



In concluding this short abstract of the history of the controversy, 

 it should be mentioned that experts in "Eozoon "-structure have 



' This is of course totally opposed to Sterry Hunt's "precipitation" views. 



2 It would seem that the idea of tracing organized structure in rock sections has 

 recently become quite a mania with some Germans. This peculiarity has culminated 

 in Hahii's " Urzelle," and above all in his " Die Meteorite," where 32 quarto plates 

 are devoted to photographs of sections of meteorites, which are supposed to show 

 structure like that of corals, crinoids, etc. In many of the photos there is an 

 appearance which is evidently due to the effects produced by the section of some 

 orthtjrhombic mineral —probably enstatite. In the last table of plates there is a 

 photo which certainly is very foraminiferal, but retiirning to the explanation of 

 plates, we find, instead of a celestial nummulite or aerial Eozoon, the disappointing- 

 words " Nummulit von Kempten." Still more recently Herr P. F. Eeinsch has 

 published an elaborately illustrated work, " Microstructur der Steinkohle," where 

 some of the plumose figures intended for organisms have a most suspicious resem- 

 blance to radiations of calcite or other mineral deposit. 



