FORAMINIFERA. 143 



Upon the whole, therefore, it would appear that the much - vexed 

 question of the true nature of Eozobn is still incapable of receiving its 

 final solution. It is clear that in any endeavour to solve this problem 

 only the best specimens — those, namely, which possess the so-called 

 " canal-system " and " proper wall ' : in a well-preserved state — can be 

 taken into account ; since it is one of the most ordinary experiences of 

 palaeontologists to find that out of a series of specimens of some quite 

 indubitable fossil — such as a coral — only a very limited number retain 

 their internal structure in a recognisable condition. It is also a reason- 

 able argument that until mineralogists or petrologists are able to point in 

 some unquestionable mineral or rock to a structure strictly comparable 

 with the " canal-system ;; of Eozobn, they are not entitled to assert posi- 

 tively that the latter has a purely inorganic origin. Lastly, some weight 

 must be attached to the argument that though analogous structures 

 (banded rocks of various kinds) are known, nothing clearly inorganic has 

 yet been discovered the general structure of which can be regarded as 

 precisely parallel with that of Eozobn. 



In connection, finally, with the subject of Eozobn, it may be noticed 

 that Sir William Dawson has given the name of ArchceosphceritMR to 

 small spherical masses of serpentine, sometimes single, sometimes united 

 together in small numbers, which he finds in the Laurentian limestones 

 of Canada, and which he states to be surrounded by a tubulated cal- 

 careous shell, resembling the " proper wall " of Eozobn. He is of opinion 

 that these bodies are either detached chamberlets of Eozobn, or that 

 they are independent organisms, allied to Eozobn, but of a simpler 

 type. 



