I have gone over these objections seriatim, because, though individually weak, they have an imposing appearance in the aggregate, and have been paraded as a conclusive settlement of the questions at issue. They have even been reprinted in the year just past in an English journal of some standing, which professes to accept only original contributions to science, but has deviated from its rule in their favour. I may be excused for adding a portion of my original argument in opposition to these objections, as given more at length in the _Transactions of the Irish Academy_. 1. I object to the authors' mode of stating the question at issue, whereby they convey to the reader the impression that this is merely to account for the occurrence of certain peculiar forms in ophite. With reference to this, it is to be observed that the attention of Sir William Logan, and of the writer, was first called to Eozoon by the occurrence in Laurentian rocks of definite forms resembling the Silurian _Stromatoporæ_, and dissimilar from any concretions or crystalline structures found in these rocks. With his usual sagacity, Sir William added to these facts the consideration that the mineral substances occurring is these forms were so dissimilar as to suggest that the forms themselves must be due to some extraneous cause rather than to any crystalline or segregative tendency of their constituent minerals. These specimens, which were exhibited by Sir William as probably fossils, at the meeting of the American Association in 1859, and noticed with figures in the Report of the Canadian Survey for 1863, showed under the microscope no minute structures. The writer, who had at the time an opportunity of examining them, stated his belief that if fossils, they would prove to be not Corals but Protozoa.