521 



from the description and figure given" of our specimen, " that, whether 

 organic or otherwise, it is not similar to the canals of Eozoon Cana- 

 dense."* Notwithstanding, however, this denial of the similarity that 

 we have contended for, it will not much surprise us if Dr. Dawson 

 himself has not unconsciously shown, in another way, that we are 

 right; for it is strongly to be suspected that the "siliceous bodies" 

 with "minute vermicular processes projecting from their surfaces," 

 occurring in "Laurentian limestone from Wentworth," are nothing more 

 than forms of metaxite,or some allied mineral, — a suspicion that equally 

 applies to the "tubuli of surprising beauty," detected by Dr. Giimbel 

 "in small isolated compact portions of the carbonate of lime" in " a 

 specimen of crystalline limestone from Boden, in Saxony."f 



The irregularity of the "canal system" — the "very remarkable 

 differences in size and form" of its " definite shapes" — is a point not to 

 be overlooked ; while it must be remembered that our statement remains 

 uncontradicted that "no such differences characterize the canal system 

 of any known foraminifer, fossil or recent." 



Morever, examples of the " canal system" occur where it is impos- 

 sible to conceive that their matrix had any relation to a "supplementary" 

 or "intermediate skeleton.'' A specimen of Canadian laminated 

 " eozoonal" ophite, presented to us by Dr. Sterry Hunt, contains an 

 isolated piece of micro- crystalline calcite, about an inch in diameter, 

 which, on being decalcified, exhibited a number of beautifully- developed 

 dendritic forms, opaque and transparent. How are these to be accounted 

 for ? It may be suggested that the piece is an aggregation of fragments 

 of the " skeleton" : in this case the forms ought to be in & fragmentary 

 state as well ; but their perfectly unbroken condition will not allow the 

 suggestion to be entertained for a moment. It may be thought that 

 this is a case in which the " skeleton" and the " canals" are of abnormal 

 growth : the latter "run wild" enough under ordinary circumstances of 

 occurrence ; but here they are inexplicably erratic on the foraminiferal 

 view. And it is infinitely more so with the " tubuli of surprising 

 beauty, both singly and in groups," discovered by Dr. Giimbel in the 

 Boden "crystalline limestone,'''' minus other "eozoonal" structures. 



On the supposition that the rock just named contains the debris of 

 " Eozoon" and that the so-called " tubuli^ are of organic origin, the 

 "isolated compact portions of the carbonate of lime" containing them 

 must be regarded as fragments of the "intermediate skeleton ;" or — in 

 what way have the " tubuli" become imbedded in the " compact por- 

 tions ?" Imagine portions of the " skeleton," with beautiful examples 

 of the "canal system," to occur without any vestige of " chambers," 

 or their " cell- wall !" 



It is now time to go into the subject of the chemical composition of 

 the " canal system" in the celebrated " Madoc specimen." When first 



* " Quarterly Journal of Geological Society," vol. xxiii., p. 263. 

 f «« Canadian Naturalist," December, 1866, p. 100. 



