K. Mobius in reply to Dr. Dawson's Criticism. 181 
Eozoon? Or, had he in writing his criticism the opinion that 
it would be read by those only who would never see my paper 
itself ? 
But how can he venture to say: “The fact of the memoir 
appearing where it does conveys the impression of an exhausting 
study of the subject?” A bad paper has never gained the con- 
tinued assent of the public through the fame of the Journal in 
which it appeared. In giving my paper to the editors of the 
illustrious “ Paleontographica” I had by no means the inten- 
tion of gaining for it any higher opinion than it deserves by 
itself. I wished to bring it before a disinterested and judicious 
public; besides, I knew that the publisher of the “ Palsonto- 
graphica” would take care to print my drawings very exactly, 
and he has done so. 
After having made these objections in general, Principal 
Dawson considers “a number of errors and omissions arising 
from want of study of the fossil im situ, and from want ot ac- 
quaintance with its various states of preservation.” 
Tf Principal Dawson demands that epee should venture 
to judge of the nature of Eozoon but those who have seen it 7 
situ, he claims in favor of his Hozoon Canadense an exception 
over all productions of the accessible world. When writing 
these lines he overlooked the fact that Mineralogy, Paleontol- 
ogy, Botany and Zoology contain a very great number of uni- 
versally appreciated memoirs concerning objects which the 
For my purpose, the examination of Kozoon from 
a biological point of view, | was in’a very avorable situation, 
e p' 
them with my best thanks, study them very exactly, and will 
all I shall find conscientiously before the scientific public. 
