514 



In the following sub-sections, we purpose treating of the different 

 " eozoonal" features. Although it would appear that our former " at- 

 tempt" has failed to bring over to our side those who originated the 

 " received doctrine," we, nevertheless, feel perfectly satisfied of its 

 complete fallacy ; and we trust to establish the view we have taken of 

 it to the perfect satisfaction of every thoughtful inquirer. 



a. " Cell Wall." — We propose to consider this part very closely, 

 because declaredly by it "the organic origin of Eozoon is capable of 

 being most unmistakeably recognised" (Carpenter). Moreover, it affords 

 a " notable illustration" of our " defective observation" (Dawson) ; also, 

 of our "errors of fact so remarkable, that they can only be accounted 

 for on the belief that when" our " Paper was written," we " knew it 

 only by decalcified specimens, and had never seen it in thin transpa- 

 rent sections; for" we "describe it as composed of parallel fibres 

 of chrysotile packed together without any intermediate substance'* 

 (Carpenter). 



The allegation of " defective observation" may be left to be judged 

 of by the sequel. As to the above statement respecting the " proper 

 wall," it does not appear to have been made after a very satisfactory 

 perusal of our Paper ; for, although we described this feature in the 

 terms stated by Dr. Carpenter, we also mentioned that it is " often seen 

 with the fibres standing apart." Further, not only is there given a re- 

 presentation of this particular feature in Fig. 1 of our Plate XLI. ; but 

 we have actually advanced a hypothetical explanation of it.*- Nay, it 

 may be put forward as a remarkable fact, that, at the time our Paper was 

 read, we were the first who unequivocally described the " nummuline 

 layer" as containing any separated aciculi at all.f 



Whatever doubt attaches to their former descriptions of the "num- 

 muline layer," there can be none pertaining to the terms in which 

 Drs. Dawson and Carpenter now describe it. Both speak of it as essen- 

 tially a calcareous cell wall penetrated by separated threads of serpentine. 

 Taking such a restricted view, this part, then, cannot in any instance, 

 as we have stated it to be, be composed of " parallel fibres packed to- 

 gether without any intermediate substance," or, according to Dr. Car- 

 penter, of aciculi " standing side by side like the fibres of asbestos." 



Now, considering the abundance of cases to be seen in Canadian 

 "eozoonal" ophite strictly agreeing with our description, we cannot 



* "Quarterly Journal of Geological Society," vol. xxiii., pp. 191, 193, 195, and 

 199. 



f Respecting Dr. Carpenter's " belief" that when our " paper was written" we 

 11 knew this layer only by decalcified specimens, and had never seen it in thin transparent 

 sections," we can assure him that it is quite erroneous. We only referred to one of the 

 kind ( u Quarterly Journal of Geological Society," vol. xxii., p. 193, PI. XIV., fig. 3) ; 

 more being unnecessary, because, in our opinion, such sections afford but a very im- 

 perfect, and in many cases an erroneous idea of the nature of the " nummuline layer." De - 

 calcified specimens are by far the most instructive and most trustworthy, as will be seen 

 hereafter. We could similarly dispose of some other like statements, somewhat personal, 

 made by Dr Carpenter ; but our Paper must be devoted to purely relevant matter. 



