178 K. Mobius in reply to Dr. Dawson's Criticism. 
No one should be able to do so better than he. It was he 
who described the Hozoon Canadense as an organism; who has, 
e 
into error and where I had found the trut 
It is Mr. Dawson’s belief that few scientific men are in a 
position fully to appreciate the evidence respecting the organic 
character of Kozoon; that this is true of the geologists and 
mineralogists, because they do not yet agree with regard to the 
nature of the rocks in which it occurs; and of the biologists, 
because “they. are but little acquainted with the appearance 
of foraminiferal organisms when mineralized with silicates.” 
“Nor are they willing,” he says, ‘to admit the possibility that 
these ancient organisms may have presented a much more gen- 
eralized and less definite structure than their modern successors. 
Worse, perhaps, than all these, is the circumstance that dealers 
and injudicious amateurs have intervened and have circulated 
specimens of Hozoon, in which the structure is too imperfectly 
preserved to admit of its recognition.” These are the principal 
points in the introduction to Principal Dawson’s criticism on 
my paper. He continues: ‘‘The memoir of Professor Mobius 
hypothesis has influenced me in my conclusions. To bypoth- 
no means 
J ompelled me in advance to deny the organic 
nature of Hozoon. On the contrary, in the beginning of my 
studies I hoped to gai lusi id in favor of the organic 
character of Eozoon, as I have stated in my memoir, chapter 
VI: “It is to mea source of regret that I cannot say to Messrs. 
Dawson and Carpenter, who have so kindly aided me in my 
work, that Hozoon Canadense must be iss ay from my re- 
searches also, a fossil Foraminifer.” I quote these words here 
for the benefit of those readers of Principal Dawson's criticism 
who are not acquainted with my memoir. 
