304 Chronicles of Science. [April, 



the different layers of chambers, and enables the more deeply-seated 

 portions to receive nourishment. 



There appears, therefore, to be no doubt of the correctness of Dr. 

 Dawson's determination of the Foraminiferal affinities of Eozobn ; but 

 we must refer to Dr. Carpenter's paper for a determination of the 

 family of Foraminifera to which it is most nearly related. 



Dr. Carpenter says that the structure of the " proper wall of the 

 chambers " is so similar to that of recent and fossil Nummulites, that 

 he finds no difficulty in placing Eozobn in the Nummuline series, not- 

 withstanding its zoophytic plan of growth (see Fig. 1). But he 

 observes that it presents also certain resemblances to Calcarina, 

 especially in the mode in which the canal-system traversing the 

 supplemental skeleton originates, namely, in lacunar spaces on the 

 outside of the proper walls of the chambers (Fig. 2, F, and Fig. 3, F), 

 and that it exhibits structures of minor importance, characteristic of 

 some other genera. It should also be mentioned that, according to 

 Dr. Dawson, the Eozobn probably grew in reefs, like the Corals of the 

 present day. 



We have given in Fig. 3 a diagram of the genus Calcarina for 

 comparison with that of Eozobn, because we have found it easier to 

 show the parallelism of the latter to recent Foraminifera by so doing 

 than by giving a diagram of Nummulina, its nearest ally. It will be 

 seen at once, however, that the structure of the " proper wall " of the 

 chambers is different in Calcarina from what it is in Eozobn, and this 

 is considered to be a more important diagnostic character than the 

 presence or absence of a " supplemental skeleton," that structure 

 being rather inconstant in its occurrence. Therefore, it must not be 

 supposed that the relation of Eozobn is so close to Calcarina as to Num- 

 mulina, although the former appears to us better adapted than the 

 latter for a popular comparison. In Figs. 2 and 3 we have indi- 

 cated equivalent structures by the same letters, so as to render the 

 comparison as easy as possible. 



Sir William Logan contended for the organic nature of the Eozobn 

 several years ago ; but, as no microscopic structure could then be made 

 out, his opinion did not receive much countenance ; and when, in 1862, 

 he brought some specimens to England, Professor Ramsay was the 

 only English geologist who coincided with him. His energy, perse- 

 verance, and liberality under such discouraging circumstances, have 

 excited the admiration of all, and we congratulate him most heartily 

 on the magnificent result they have been the chief instrument in pro- 

 ducing. The discovery of microscopic structure in specimens from 

 another locality soon placed the matter beyond all doubt ; these 

 specimens were submitted to Dr. Dawson, and to him the credit is due 

 of having first determined the Foraminiferal nature of the Eozobn. 

 A more perfect series of specimens was finally submitted to Dr. Car- 

 penter, who was thus enabled to corroborate Dr. Dawson's conclusions, 

 as far as they went, and to extend very considerably our knowledge 

 of the minute structure of the fossil. To Dr. Carpenter, also, is 

 due the credit of determining the Nummuline affinities of Eozobn, 

 and of making out clearly the exact nature and physiological meaning 



