537 



such a statement has been made ; for we have neither " asserted' 5 the 

 one, nor " ignored" the other.* 



It was stated in our former Paper that we must "be excused 

 accepting any explanation of the process of infiltration, unless it ac- 

 counted for the present appearances of all the presumed sarcode- 

 encasements;" and we especially referred to those cases in which the 

 "parallel lamella disposed like the leaves of a book," the "rounded 

 filaments" of the " solid bundles,"! and the fibres of the asbestiform 

 layer, are not separated by any parietal divisions. Dr. Carpenter 

 virtually admitted the difficulty which attaches to this point by pro- 

 posing a process that has more of alchymy than chemistry in it, and 

 discarding the simple one originally suggested by Dr. Dawson. By 

 either ordinary chemical, or mechanical infiltration, the tubuli of an 

 undisputed " nummuline layer," or " canal system," would become filled 

 up with mineral matter, producing " perfect models" of " pseudopodial 

 threads," and other sarcodic extensions. Dr. Carpenter, however, seeing 

 the " compact" and " solid" nature of the cases to which reference has 

 been made, and knowing well that the extensions just alluded to often 

 unite and form " coalesced bundles in recent foraminifers," emphatically 

 declares that " each case represents a mere aggregation of the elementary 

 forms of sarcodic prolongation," — that " they are not imitations, but the 

 very threads or prolongations themselves turned into stone by Nature's cun- 

 ning, by a process of chemical substitution which took place, particle by 

 particle, between the sarcode body of the animal and certain constituents 

 of the ocean-waters before the destruction of the former by ordinary 

 decomposition. " J 



Our view of such a "process" (it was against the u coneeivability" 

 of it we argued) is correctly represented by Dr. Carpenter in the follow- 

 ing passage : — " This idea has been designated by Professors King and 

 Eowney as so completely destitute of the characters of a scientific hypo- 

 thesis as to be wholly unworthy of consideration.'^ We are, therefore, 

 not surprised that Dr. Carpenter has been under the necessity of aban- 

 doning it. j| But we do not think that his position has been much 



* See " Quarterly Journal of Geological Society," vol. xxii., p. 195. 



t These two are varieties, according to Dr. Carpenter, of the " Canal System." Dr. 

 Dawson, it would appear, does not recognise the organic origin of them, particu- 

 larly the " white amorphous masses" into which they pass (see " Quarterly Journal of 

 Geological Society," vol. xxiii., p. 262). But not a particle of evidence — merely an 

 expression of belief — is offered by way of invalidating the proofs which so completely 

 identify them genetically with the typical representatives of the " canal system." 



X " Intellectual Observer," vol. vii., p. 290, &c. 



§ "Quarterly Journal of Geological Society," vol. xxii., p. 220, foot note. The 

 " quasi-alchymical" idea which we have opposed is given in the "Intellectual Ob- 

 server," and the " Proceedings of the Royal Society of London :" see our former Paper, 

 in " Quarterly Journal of Geological Society" vol. xxii., pp. 202, 203. 



|| See precited foot note. It is singular, however, that Dr. Carpenter makes no ad- 

 mission of his having abandoned this " idea ;" nor is there any allusion to the circum- 

 stance in any of his Papers on " Eozoon" published since we exposed it. But apparently 



