' 
K. Mobius in reply to Dr. Dawson's Criticism. 183 
rations which were kindly forwarded to me by Dr. Hahn at 
Reutlingen. I add here a drawing of the tubuli in a slice (fig. 2). 
Principal Dawson remarks: “That some of Mébius’s speci- 
mens have contained the proper wall fairly preserved is obvious 
from his own figures, in which it is possible to recognize both 
this structure and the chrysotile veins, though confounded by 
him under the same designation.” Why does he not state what 
firures these are, and why has he neglected to give a copy of 
them in his review, since he has taken some other figures of 
mine as evidence of the foraminiferal character of Hozoon 
In the same paragraph Principal Dawson speaks in detail of 
the different difficulties met with in distinguishing the minute 
tubes. I quote his own words, viz: ‘‘When the proper wall is 
merely calcareous, its structure is ordinarily invisible, and it is 
the same when the calcareous skeleton has, from any cause, lost 
its transparency, or has been replaced by some other mineral 
substance. Even in thickish slices, the tubes, though filled with 
serpentine, may be so piled on one another as to be indistinct.” 
Principal Dawson speaks of my description of what he ealls 
specimens of Eozoon circulated by Dawson and Carpenter al- 
most only such flat and irregular branched stalk-like bodies 
as I have illustrated in my figures. It ought to be admitted 
that as soon as the first objections against the organic character 
of Eozoon were made, Messrs. Dawson and Carpenter distributed 
ond specimens of Eozoon; and it would be very strange, 
if just those of their specimens which came into my hands had 
not the genuine structure, but such qualities as speak against 
the organic nature of Eozoon. ein 
_ Principal Dawson brings before the readers of his criticism 
in the figures 1 and 2 (p. 201), two of my drawings of the stalk- 
like bodies traversing the associated limestone and regarded by 
e has chosen just those whic 
