517 



Dr. Carpenter regards the u structure of the nummuline chamber 

 wall" to be a "feature,'' by which " the organic origin of Eozoon 

 is capable of being most unmistakeably recognised and accordingly 

 he has been led "confidently to assert that no parallel to it can be 

 shown in an undoubted mineral product."* This is a strange assertion 

 to be made after we had stated that, in numerous instances, grains of 

 chondrodite, imbedded in calcite, as in a specimen from New Jersey, are 

 " more or less encrusted with an asbestiform layer, which exhibits 

 modifications, speaking advisedly, the exact parallel of those common 

 to the proper wall" of "Eozoon Canadense :"f it is equally strange that 

 both Drs. Carpenter and Dawson have ignored this specimen. We could 

 describe another, one of the kind that has been detected by us in the 

 coccolite marble of Tyree ; but this " parallel" has already been pointed 

 out by Dr. Gumbel, who discovered it in a specimen of a somewhat 

 similar rock occurring at New York. J He has, moreover, determined 

 that the grains of " green hornblende (pargasite)," characteristic of 

 crystalline limestone, at Pargas, in Finland, are similarly invested. 

 In the latter instance, " a careful microscopic examination of the surface 

 of the grains" revealed numerous small aciculi, called "small tubuli," 

 consisting of a white substance, and otherwise resembling those belong- 

 ing to the " nummuline layer" of " Eozoon." § 



In our early examination of the part under consideration a difficulty, 

 which we mentioned, occurred to us.|| Observing that the " sarcode 

 chambers" of the different superimposed layers are furnished with 

 both an upper and an under " proper wall" — and that " the successive 

 layers, each having its own proper wall, are often superposed one upon 

 another without the intervention of any supplemental or intermediate 

 skeleton" (Carpenter)— it struck us that, on the " eozoonal" view, the 

 pseudopods, presumed to have penetrated the under "proper wall," 

 could not extend themselves, as their egress would have been effectu- 

 ally barred by the upper one of the immediately subjacent layer of cham- 

 bers. Dr. Carpenter, who has noticed oar objection, appears to have mis- 

 understood it ; as the " fact" he has adduced against us, and which he 

 assumes we had "no acquaintance with," is not to the purpose:^" 

 nevertheless, the " fact that many foraminifera (both recent and 

 fossil), having perforated shells, habitually grow affixed to sea weeds, 

 corals, shells, &c, and that the attached side possesses the charac- 

 teristic tubular structure no less than the free," is of considerable 

 importance, viewed in connexion with his belief, " that there inter- 

 venes in the living state a thin layer of sarcode between the shell 

 and the subjacent surface." Assuming this to be the case — and our 



* "Quarterly Journal of Geological Society," vol. xxii., p. 221. 

 f Ibid., vol. xxii., pp. 196, 197, PI. XIV., figs. 5, 6. 

 X " Canadian Naturalist," December, 1866, p. 99. 

 § Ibid., December, 1866, p. 98. 



|| " Quarterly Journal of Geological Society," vol. xxii., p. 191. 



II " Quarterly Journal of Geological Society," vol. xxii , foot note, p. 225, 



