180 K. Mobius in reply to Dr. Dawson's Criticism. 
had access merely to a limited number of specimens min- 
eralized with serpentine. These he has elaborately studied, 
and has made careful drawings of portions of their structures, 
and has described these with some degree of accuracy; and 
his memoir has been profusely illustrated with figures on a 
large scale. This, and the fact of the memoir appearing where 
it does, convey the impression of an exhaustive study of the 
subject, and since the conclusion is adverse to the organic char- 
acter of Eozoon, this paper may be expected, in the opinion 
of many not fully acquainted with the evidence, to be regarded 
as a final decision against its animal nature. Yet, however 
commendable the researches of Mébius may be, when viewed 
on the evidence of the material he may have at command, they 
furnish only another illustration of partial and imperfect investi- 
gation, quite unreliable as a verdict on the questions in hand.” 
On reading these lines one cannot but be astonished and ask, 
whether they were written by the same author, who said a few 
ines before: ‘“ Professor Mébius is a good microscopist, fairly 
acquainted with the modern Foraminifera, and a conscientious 
observer.” This impression he must also have gained from 
my paper on Canadense. 
clusive judgment in regard to its real nature. It has often 
happened that biologists and paleontologists have had not more 
than one specimen in hand, or even not more than a part of a 
specimen, and notwithstanding they were in a position to 
determine surely its place in the organic kingdom. He says, 
further: ‘‘Mébius has made drawings of portions of the structure 
of Eozoon ;” he does not state what structures I have omitted. 
I have certainly made careful drawings and descriptions of all 
the Eozoon-structure, which according to Messrs. Dawson and 
Carpenter corresponds with the chambers, the communications 
between them, the tubuli of the proper wall of the chambers, an 
the canal-system in the intermediate skeleton of Foraminifera. 
rincipal Dawson says again: ‘“ Mébius has described these 
structures with some degree of accuracy.” It would have been 
more satisfactory if he had pointed out the imperfections of 
my descriptions, each one for itself and all without reserve. 1 
should have been grateful for the aid in improving my descrip- 
tions of Eozoon. 
_ Principal Dawson evidently apprehends that my “profusely 
illustrated ” paper may convey the impression of an exhaustive 
study of the subject. That was indeed m he 
not read or understood my remarks (pp. 178 and 17 9) in regard 
to the necessity of many good drawings of all the structures of 
