184 K. Mobius in reply to Dr. Dawson’s Criticism. 
my methods. The two figures which he has chosen out of my 
plates can only serve as evidence for the foraminiferal nature 
oon to those readers of Mr. Dawson’s criticism, who have 
never had my memoir in their hands. In selecting these two 
figures, Mr. Dawson has plainly proved that his views as to the 
eanal nature of the stalk-like bodies are very weakly supported. 
‘“ Another objection against the organic nature of Eozoon,” 
says Principal Dawson, p. 200, “ Mébius takes to the directions 
of the canals, as not being transverse to the laminae, but 
oblique.” Here Mr. Dawson did not understand me rightly. 
I say, chapter IV, p. 184, in regard to the fine tubes of Foramini- 
fera (which are regarded as resembling the chrysotile fibers), 
that they are usually directed transversely to the inner and 
outer sides of the chamber-wall, and I show this by figures of 
Foraminifera, for instance, by the figure of a slice of a Num- 
uline, which Dawson has copied, fig. 4, p. 201. My remark 
about the direction of the fine tubes Mr. Dawson refers to his 
“canal system,” to which it does not belong at all. It is there- 
fore not J, but Mr. Dawson, who makes a mistake. : 
Paragraph 4 of Principal Dawson’s criticism (p. 200), begins 
with the words: “A fatal defect in the mode of treatment 
pursued by Mobius is that he regards each of the structures 
separately and does not sufficiently consider their cumulative 
force when taken together.” Principal Dawson has either not 
read, or not understood, chapter VI of my memoir. In this 
chapter my only object was to compare the structures of 
Eozoon, as a whole, with the structures of Foraminifera. 1 
am convinced that I could not better explain the structure of 
Eozoon than by describing first each structure particularly, 
before I compared them all together with the Foraminifera; 
and all disinterested biologists and paleontologists will agree 
that there is no better method of treating such an object. 
Next follows, in Dr. Dawson’s criticism, a resumé of his well- 
penteria and Polytrema.” No one who is minutely acquainted 
dron, and Polytrema miniaceum, closely with the structures of 
Kozoon, he would certainly not have made this statement. 
The dear old Polytrema! Ever since the celebrated Pro- 
fessor Max Schultze said that it resembled Kozoon, Polytrema 
has served ever and anon as evidence for the organic nature of 
