K. Mobius in reply to Dr, Dawson's Criticism. 179 
I was familiar with the structure of fossilized Foraminifera, 
as can be seen from several notations and figures in my paper. 
Nor was I unwilling to admit that the structure of Eozoon 
might be different from that of modern Foraminifera, as is evi- 
dent from the following words in my memoir (p. 188): 
‘Tf all the structures of Eozoon, in the same layers and forms 
that they have in the best specimens circulated by Dawson and 
Carpenter, were indeed produced by living beings, the living 
Kozoon must have had a nature totally different from that of 
all plants and animals we know. If it were possible to prove 
that Eozoon is a fossil and not a mineral, we must then make 
two divisions of organic bodies, viz: 1, organic bodies with 
protoplasmic nature (all plants and animals); 2, organic bodies 
with eozoonic nature (Hozoon Dawson). In the genealogical 
line, in which the theory of evolution or descent unites all 
protoplasmic beings, there is no place for Eozoon.” 
Further, not a single one of all the specimens of Eozoon, 
which I studied, came from the hands of “dealers or injudicious 
amateurs,” but all directly or indirectly from Messrs. Dawson 
and Carpenter. This I have said repeatedly in my paper. I 
am consequently much surprised at the words of Dr. Dawson: 
“The memoir of Professor Mébius affords illustrations of some 
of these difficulties in the study of Eozoon.” : 
_. Why should Principal Dawson write thus about my memoir 
if he has read it throughout with attention and understanding? 
It bears full evidence that I had not to struggle in the slightest 
degree with such difficulties. : 
But Principal Dawson has read my paper, and he points out 
errors in it, viz: 1, I have (on p. 180) taken as a figure of 
full natural size a very large specimen of Eozoon, which Prin- 
cipal Dawson on plate III of his “ Dawn of Life” has resented 
of half the natural size; 2, on the same page I say: “ We know 
Specimens of Eozoon which have more than fifty whitish and 
greenish lamin,” on which Mr. Dawson remarks, that they 
often have more than a hund 
For these corrections I offer my sincerest thanks. Other 
substantial errors he has not mentioned. If he will do so, I 
by the satisfaction of seeing the pure and certain truth come 
forth. No naturalist, in any branch of science, has ever dis- 
Covered and brought out at once the whole truth in all directions. 
It is evident that those two mistakes are of no significance in 
ding the question whether Hozoon Canadense 1s an organism 
no 
OF Hot, ; : 
But Dr. Dawson writes further (p. 197): ‘Mobius has 
