— 182 K. Mobius in reply to Dr. Dawson’s Criticism, 
. 187 of my paper I say: ‘It is impossible to detect in 
sroceine of Eozoon any spot, from which there could have 
originated all the serpentine bodies of this specimen, and which 
therefore might agree with the primary chamber of Foraminif- 
era.” When Mr. Dawson, in alluding to these lines, writes (p. 
198): “ Mobius objects to ‘the impossibility of detecting regular 
rimary chambers like those in modern Foraminifera,” he has 
interpolated the word, ‘‘regular,” for the sake of the argument; 
he adds: “ Mébius seems not to be aware that some Stroma- 
toporee.originate in a vesicular irregular mass of cells, and that 
in  battasn the primary chamber is represented by a merely 
cancellated nucleus.” From this it is Beste that not J, but 
7. Dawson has failed here 
Kozoon which had come from him and Dr. Foldacsen and that 
these were indeed very many in number. I beg him to read 
again the explanations of my drawings, and he will find in 
Cell-wall of Eozoon, when 
highly magnified; after 
J. W. Dawson. 
tubulation.” Both Eozoonists consider the chrysotile a ee 
the proper wall filled with fine cylinders of silicate. I coul 
not detect in any specimen of Eozoon the slightest traces of 
such tubuli as Principal Dawson has figured in “The Dawn of 
Poel (p. 106). Igive here a copy of this figure (1). If Hozoon 
_ did indeed contain tubuli of such organic regularity, we should 
lees reason enough to agree with him in considering it Foram- 
iniferal, as well as the specimen from Kempten, Bavaria, which 
rineipal Dawson adyises me to study (p. 199). I can assure 
him that I did so before I wrote my memoir, and from prepa _ 
