2. With reference to the general form of Eozoon and its structure on the large scale, I would call attention to two admissions of the authors of the paper, which appear to me to be fatal to their case:--First, they admit, at page 533 [_Proceedings_, vol. x.], their "inability to explain satisfactorily" the alternating layers of carbonate of lime and other minerals in the typical specimens of Canadian Eozoon. They make a feeble attempt to establish an analogy between this and certain concentric concretionary layers; but the cases are clearly not parallel, and the laminæ of the Canadian Eozoon present connecting plates and columns not explicable on any concretionary hypothesis. If, however, they are unable to explain the lamellar structure alone, as it appeared to Logan in 1859, is it not rash to attempt to explain it away now, when certain minute internal structures, corresponding to what might have been expected on the hypothesis of its organic origin, are added to it? If I affirm that a certain mass is the trunk of a fossil tree, and another asserts that it is a concretion, but professes to be unable to account for its form and its rings of growth, surely his case becomes very weak after I have made a slice of it, and have shown that it retains the structure of wood. Next, they appear to admit that if specimens occur wholly composed of carbonate of lime, their theory will fall to the ground. Now such specimens do exist. They treat the Tudor specimen with scepticism as probably "strings of segregated calcite." Since the account of that specimen was published, additional fragments have been collected, so that new slices have been prepared. I have examined these with care, and am prepared to affirm that the chambers in these specimens are filled with a dark-coloured limestone not more crystalline than is usual in the Silurian rocks, and that the chamber walls are composed of carbonate of lime, with the canals filled with the same material, except where the limestone filling the chambers has penetrated into parts of the larger ones. I should add that the stratigraphical researches of Mr. Vennor, of the Canadian Survey, have rendered it probable that the beds containing these fossils, though unconformably underlying the Lower Silurian, overlie the Lower Laurentian of the locality, and are, therefore, probably Upper Laurentian, or perhaps Huronian, so that the Tudor specimens may approach in age to Gümbel's Eozoon Bavaricum.[AR] [Footnote AR: I may now refer in addition to the canals filled with calcite and dolomite, detected by Dr. Carpenter and myself in specimens from Petite Nation, and mentioned in a previous chapter. See also Plate VIII.]