Eozoön Canadense "The Dawn Animal of Canada" Author(S): Charles F

Home , James Dwight Dana

Eozoön Canadense "The Dawn Animal of Canada" Author(s): Charles F. O'Brien Source: Isis, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Summer, 1970), pp. 206-223 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229975 Accessed: 16-04-2017 23:08 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229975?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

The History of Science Society, The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Eozoon Canadense "The Dawn Animal of Canada"

By Charles F. O'Brien*

I 17OZOON CANADENSE, "the dawn animal of Canada," was found in the Pre- Lcambrian rocks of eastern Canada in 1858. The discovery startled the geological world, since at the time few paleontologists believed that such metamorphic rocks could preserve fossils or even that life could have existed so long ago. In fact, what we now call Precambrian was then commonly designated by the term Azoic-lifeless. It is not surprising, then, that the authenticity of Eozoon canadense was disputed. The ensuing controversy lasted for nearly fifty years and developed into one of the most contentious issues in nineteenth-century geology. While the inorganic nature of Eozoon has long been established and Eozoon is no longer of scientific interest, the controversy has significance for the history of science. It provides an example of the manner in which every aspect of nineteenth-century paleontology was scrutinized for its bearing on evolution. It is also a classic case of the confrontation of younger specialists with each other and with the older generation of broadly trained "naturalists." There were two chief reasons for the persistence of the dispute. Most obvious and most important was the inability of early paleontology to settle the matter. The second reason, seldom stated by the disputants, was the significance of Eozodn in the larger issue of derivation of species. For, were Eozoon proved to be organic, evolutionists would be confronted with the most impressive of all gaps in the paleontological record, a gap that would give pause to even the most ardent evolutionist. On the other hand, if this gap were successfully explained or overcome by the finding of subsequent forms related to Eozoon, the evolutionists could rejoice in having found, at the earliest date of known animal life, the simplest form of life, a form reasonably akin to the "one primordial form" of Darwin's speculation.' In short, there was something at stake for both sides in the greater scientific controversy. Darwin himself was interested in Eozoon and its promise for his position. He intro- duced Eozoon into the fourth edition of The Origin of Species: "After reading Dr. Carpenter's description of this remarkable fossil, it is impossible to feel any doubt regarding its organic nature.'2 Darwin cited Eozoon in his famous tenth chapter, "On

* Clarkson College of Technology, Potsdam, Charles Darwin:A Variorum Text (Philadelphia: New York 13676. Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1959), pp. 28-31, 1 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 515. (In the 6th and final edition, this sentence facsimile of the 1st ed. of 1859 (Cambridge: was altered to read: "The existence of the Harvard Univ. Press, 1964), p. 484. Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is 2 Morse Peckham, ed., The Origin of Species by generally admitted"; ibid., p. 515).

206

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 207

the Imperfection of the Geological Record," as an indication that gaps in the paleontological record were being filled, and that as the origins of life were pushed back, natural selection became a more reasonable mechanism of evolution. 3 Eozoon presented a difficult challenge. It occurred in rocks that were so old and so highly metamorphosed that paleontologists had previously doubted even the possi- bility of finding organic remains in them. Furthermore, the most ardent supporters of the organic origin of Eozodn admitted that their best specimens were so thoroughly altered that the details of organic structure were difficult to discern. On the other hand, when those who insisted that Eozoon was a mineral substance looked into their microscopes, they did not see even traces of organic structure. They saw instead a curiously regular arrangement of minerals; such an arrangement, they said, was unusual but not unprecedented. However, just as the supporters of Eozoon persistently failed to produce the unassailable specimen, the opponents were unable to establish any mineralogical sequence which would successfully explain the particular form and composition of Eozoon. In the absence of conclusive evidence on either side, the controversy dragged on for almost thirty years. It was not until the 1890s that the issue was decided in favor of the inorganic origin of Eozoon.

Eozoon began its checkered career in 1858 when a collector for the Geological Survey of Canada brought some unusual rocks to Sir William Logan, the director of the Survey. These specimens came from the Grand Calumet limestone on the Ottawa River. Logan, who was not a paleontologist, recognized the similarity between these specimens and some rocks brought to him some years earlier from the Burgess limestone near Perth, Ontario. The similarity consisted in the alternation of concentric layers of siliceous and calcareous compounds. What attracted Logan's attention was the fact that the particular siliceous and calcareous compounds differed in the two specimens. The Grand Calumet specimen was composed of crystallized pyroxene and carbonate of lime; the Perth specimen of loganite and dolomite. The presence of the same form with different minerals led Logan to speculate that the specimens were really fossils with different in-fillings. 4 Logan displayed these specimens at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1859 and brought them to England in 1862. However, microscopic analysis failed to reveal any evidence of organic structure, and Logan left England with few believers in the organic origin of Eozoon.5 Little was done with Eozoon until 1864, when Logan observed similar forms in the Grenville limestone near Ottawa. This time microscope slices were prepared, and the alleged organic structure

3 Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species Canadense," American Journal of Science, 1865, (6th ed., New York :Appleton, 1873), p. 287. 2nd ser., 40:344-362 (this article appeared 4 William Logan, "On the Occurrence of anonymously but is credited to Dana in John M. Organic Remains in the Laurentian Rocks of Nickles, Geologic Literature on North America, Canada," Quarterly Journal of the Geological Washington:GPO, 1923, pp. 1-2, 271). The only Society ofLondon, 1865, 21:45-48. Other accounts secondary account is contained in George P. of the finding of Eozoon include: William B. Merrill's The First One Hundred Years of Carpenter, "On the Structure, Affinities and American Geology (New Haven :Yale Univ. Press, Geological Position of Eozoon Canadense," 1924), pp. 564-579. The Intellectual Observer, 1865, 7:278-302, and James Dwight Dana, "On the History of Eozo6n 5 Carpenter, "On the Structure," p. 286.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 208 CHARLES F. O'BRIEN was noticed. The slices were then brought to J. William Dawson, the Principal of McGill University and a prot&ge of Sir Charles Lyell. Dawson was already well known for his classic study, Acadian Geology. The McGill geologist confirmed the presence of organic remains and identified the fossil as a foraminifer, hundreds of times larger than any of the microscopic Foraminifera yet found6:

I have had the happiness to submit these remarkable specimens to microscope examina- tion, at the request of Sir W. E. Logan, and have arrived at the conclusion that they are of animal nature, and belong to the very humblest type of animal existence known, that of the Rhizopods, though they far outstrip in magnitude any known modern representative of that group. The discovery of this remarkable fossil, to be known as the Eozo6n Canadense, will be one of the brightest gems in the scientific crown of the Geological Survey of Canada.7

Dawson's identification, confirmed by the leading authority on Foraminifera, William B. Carpenter, was accepted by most naturalists. The accounts of the finding of Eozodn printed in various journals clearly implied widespread acceptance of the organic origin of Eozodn. James Hall of the New York Geological Survey thought Eozodn organic. Hall wrote to T. Sterry Hunt, a mineralogist at McGill who, with Dawson, insisted on the authenticity of Eozodn: "It [Eozodn] is the greatest discovery in geology for half a century at least."8 Dana's account of the history of the discovery implied agreement with Dawson and Carpenter. Dana regularly classified Eozodn as a "primordial fossil" in the index of the American Journal of Science. Darwin and Huxley at various times signified their adherence to the organic theory of Eozooin's origin.9 This short-lived consensus was abruptly shattered. Opinions on Eozoon were to re- main sharply divided for nearly fifty years, and when a new consensus was established it supported the inorganic nature of Eozodn.

III

The first challenge to Dawson and Carpenter came from two mineralogists at Queen's College, Galway-William King and Thomas H. Rowney. In August 1866 King and Rowney published an article in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, "On the So-called 'Eozoonal Rock."' The Irish mineralogists con- fessed to being "zealous advocates at one time of the organic origin" of Eozodn; however, "after a prolonged investigation" they believed themselves "under the necessity of totally relinquishing that opinion."10 King and Rowney were led to this position by a careful comparison of Eozoon with known pseudomorphs. They pointed out, for example, that the alleged "chamber casts" of Eozodn were more or less simulated by chondrodite, coccolite, and pargasite, that the "proper wall" was structurally identical with "the asbestiform layer which frequently invests the grains of chondrodite." They further argued that the "canal system," regarded as conclusive evidence by Dawson and Carpenter, was analogous to coralloids imbedded in Permian magnesian limestone. 11

6 Ibid., pp. 286-287. quent editions of The Origin of Species; Huxley in 7 J. William Dawson, "Extract of Address to discussion at the Geological Society of London the Natural History Society of Montreal," Am. in 1869. See Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 1869, 35:118. J. Sci., 1865, 2nd ser., 38:232. 10 William King and T. H. Rowney, "On the So-called 'Eozoonal Rock,"' Q. J. Geol. Soc. 8 Merrill, The First One Hundred Years, p. 570. Lond., 1866,22:215. F For example, Darwin in the 4th and subse- 11 Ibid.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 209

Equally important from King's and Rowney's point of view was the fact that Eozodn was found only in metamorphic rocks belonging to widely separated geological systems, never in unaltered sedimentary deposits. This, combined with the mineralogical analogies, led them to conclude that Eozodn was "solely and purely of crystalline origin" and to hold "without the least reservation, that, from every available standing point-foraminiferal, mineralogical, chemical, and geological-the opposite view has been shown to be utterly untenable." 12 Thus began the controversy, with relatively good humor and with full faith and credit given to the observations and intentions of opponents. The controversy was destined to be prolonged-to outlive in fact all of the original participants.The decorum lasted only a few months. The lines of the ensuing dispute were clearly drawn in these early papers. The Eozoonists13 had been challenged to produce unassailable specimens and subsequently did, or thought they did. In turn, they insisted that King and Rowney and their partisans show more than mineralogical analogies for "eozoonal structure." They demanded a convincing explanation of the inorganic origin of Eozodn. How, they asked, did these different minerals come to take the same form? The Eozoonists produced the "unassailable specimen" almost as King and Rowney were writing; they also produced a new variety of Eozoon from Europe. In 1866 the Director of the Geological Survey of Bavaria, C. W. Guimbel, announced the discovery of specimens of Eozodn. These specimens showed the typical alternation of calcareous and siliceous layers; they were much smaller than the Canadian specimen and were found in more recent rocks, either Huronian or Cambrian. These considera- tions led Giimbel to name a distinct variety, Eozoon bavaricum, a variety which was immediately accepted by the supporters of Eozodn.14 The anti-Eozoonists questioned the Bavarian specimens as much as they did the Canadian. However, it was assumed by all that a specimen obtained from relatively unaltered rocks and completely preserved in one mineral substance would show for all time the organic origin of Eozoon. Such a specimen was found in the summer of 1866, according to the Eozoonists. The "Tudor specimen" was collected by G. H. Vennor of the Geological Survey of Canada between Kingston and Lake Ontario in Hastings County, Ontario. According to Sir William Logan, the Tudor limestone was comparatively unaltered and the fossil form was preserved entirely in limestone, without the presence of serpentine or other silicate. This specimen was not preserved deeply in the rock; and though, according to Logan, it showed Eozoon structure, the structure was "somewhat obscure." 15 Somewhat obscure or not, Dawson was convinced that in the Tudor specimen the Eozoonists had all that they would need to prove their case. He wrote that this discovery furnished "a conclusive answer" to those who proposed a mineralogical origin for Eozoon.16 Perhaps emboldened by this apparent success, Dawson went further and attacked the quality of the work done by King and Rowney in their original article, "On the So-called 'Eozoonal Rock."' "The fundamental error of Messrs. King and

12 Ibid. 5$ Sir William E. Logan, "On Additional Specimens of Eozoon," Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 13 This term entered the dispute a few years 1867, 23:254-255. later; I have taken the liberty of appropriating it 16 J. William Dawson, "Notes on Fossils simply for convenience of expression. recently obtained from the Laurentian Rocks of 14 "Notes," Am. J. Sci., 1867, 2nd ser., 43:398. Canada," Am. J. Sci., 1867, 2nd ser., 44:367.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 210 CHARLES F. O'BRIEN

Rowney," wrote Dawson, "arises from defective observation-in failing to distinguish in the Canadian limestones themselves, between organic and crystalline forms.""7 King and Rowney resented this imputation and responded the following year with a paper read at the Liverpool meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. They also resented what they regarded as the premature acceptance of Dawson's claim for the Tudor specimen. Eozoon was of such importance, they said, that regardless of its origin, it deserved careful and searching study. Yet the President of the Geological Society of London, W. Warrington Smyth, declared that "the grandest feat of geological science within the last few years is the astounding extension of the scale of geological time consequent on the discovery of Eozoon Canadense" and that "the elaborate arguments of Messrs. King and Rowney in favour of the mineral origin of 'eozoonal' structure had at one time a show of strong support . . . But the announce- ment ... of Dr. Dawson's discovery of 'Eozoon' preserved in carbonate of lime, pure and simple, would appear to close the discussion." 18 Far from closing the discussion, the Tudor specimen opened up a whole new area of dispute. Was it truly a specimen of Eozoon canadense? King and Rowney did not think so, and they were soon joined by others. T. Mellard Reade, a well-known glaciologist who worked on a broad range of geological problems, writing to the editor of Nature, noted that the Tudor specimen represented the first truly new element in the discussion in five years:

The specimen from Tudor has to be disposed of; nor will this be difficult, for it is altogether a lame affair. It is admittedly not from an unaltered rock, so it is difficult to see even how it bears on the question. The distinctive features are also obscure, and the chambers not of the usual form and proportion. To call this Eozoon canadense, and then bring it forward as closing the discussion, is an amusing piece of controversial skill. When it is more certainly coordinated with the original specimens, it will be time to dis- cuss it. I simply ask, would it have been pronounced organic, had it been the only variety discovered? I think not.'9

It was at this point that the Eozo6n controversy took an unpleasant, personal tone. "Lame affair," "defective observation" became typical of the tone adopted by the disputants. King and Rowney charged Dawson with objecting when they called certain ophites from India, Delaware, Connemara, and Donegal "eozoonal," while seemingly accepting this designation from C. W. Giimbel "who believes in Eozoon."20 Reade accused Dawson and Carpenter of improper procedure in refusing to acknowledge King's and Rowney's objections, "in constantly speaking of the specimens as un- doubted fossils," and in producing illustrations in a "realistic manner in which the fossil Eozoon canadense is drawn as if it were from. . . life."'21 Carpenter's initial response noted that Reade's letter showed a "complete ... misapprehension" of the question. Carpenter argued that there were unquestionable

17 J. William Dawson, "On new specimens of King's and Rowney's. Eozoon Canadense, with a reply to the objections 19 T. Mellard Reade, Letter to Editor, Nature, of Professors King and Rowney," Am. J. Sci., 1870,3:146. 1868, 2nd ser., 46:252. 18 Quoted by William King and T. H. Rowney, 20 King and Rowney, "On 'Eozoon Cana- "On 'Eozoon Canadense,' " Proceedings of the dense,"' p. 512. Royal Irish Academy, 1870, 10:509. Italics are 21 Reade, Letter to Editor, loc. cit.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 211 examples in known fossils of mineral replacement like that alleged in Eozodn. Carpen- ter was especially interested in the fact that many aspects of Eozoon were to be found in existing forms of life like Globigerina and Calcarina. He rested his case primarily on two characteristics of the alleged fossil: first, the fact that the "canal system" passed across the cleavage planes of the calcareous layers, instead of between them, regardless of the mineral filling the canal tubes. A mineralogical explanation of this was, said Carpenter, "in the judgment of some of the most eminent mineralogists of the day, altogether untenable." Second was the fact that the "proper wall"of the chambers consisted of calcareous layers traversed by thin siliceous lines. This arrangement had precise equivalents in modern Foraminifera and could not "be shown in any un- doubted mineral." "To liken this 'Nummuline layer' to Chrysotile or any similar modification of Serpentine, shows a misapprehension of its essentially composite structure."22 Carpenter also thought it entirely possible that Eozoon was still living and would be brought up in one of the several scientific dredging projects underway. Carpenter closed by citing gross errors made by mineralogical opponents of Eozoon in relation to other unquestioned fossils: "Such are not the judges before whom I would consent to plead the cause of Eozoon." 23 Reade answered Carpenter on February 2, 1871, stating ironically that if he ex- hibited a misapprehension of Eozodn he could not "plead in extenuation a want of familiarity" with Carpenter's arguments in favor of the organic theory. "Had he [Carpenter], instead of explaining away imaginary difficulties, addressed himself to those that really exist, his reply would have possessed greater value."24 Reade wanted to bring the discussion back to the metamorphic rocks in which Eozodn was found. Why, he asked, was Eozoon always found in such rocks? Carpenter had stated that some of the best specimens came from the least metamorphosed rocks. Reade wanted to ignore questions of degree of metamorphosis and come to grips with the fact of alteration itself, with the prospect that it was the very metamorphosis of the rocks that produced the eozoonal form. "The consensus of opinion is in favour of serpentine itself being a product of alteration," said Reade.25 In other words, Reade was challenging the Eozoonist chronology which insisted that the fossil be filled with serpentine before alteration; if the serpentine was produced by the very process of alteration, it did not constitute fossil in-filling, and, indeed, Eozoon was no fossil. Furthermore, said Reade, if, as Carpenter suggested, Eozodn was still living, why had it not been found in post-Laurentian limestone? If serpentine was not a product of alteration, why was it not found in unaltered limestone? The fact of the matter was, according to Reade, that neither Eozoon nor serpentine had ever been found anywhere but in metamorphosed limestone (Reade had rejected the Tudor specimen in his first letter). This was presumptive evidence that Eozoon was inorganic.26 Dawson was the next correspondent to use the pages of Nature to conduct the dispute. He was, of course, in Montreal and hence could not respond as easily as Carpen- ter. Consequently his letter of February 9, 1871, was a response to Reade's letter of December 22, 1870. Dawson began by noting that the organic nature of Eozoon was "accepted by all or nearly all those best qualified to judge." Reade's argument regard-

22 William B. Carpenter, Letter to Editor, 24 T. Mellard Reade, Letter to Editor, Nature, Nature, 1871, 3:185-186. 1871, 3:267. 25 Ibid. 23 Ibid., p. 186. 26 Ibid.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 212 CHARLES F. O'BRIEN ing serpentine was declared irrelevant by Dawson on the grounds that three other minerals served as filling material as well as serpentine. That Eozodn was always found in metamorphosed rock was to be expected, said Dawson; Eozoon was a Laurentian fossil, and, as far as was known, Laurentian rocks were always metamorphosed. "When we shall have found unaltered Laurentian rocks it will be time to inquire if this fossil occurs in them, and in what state of preservation."27 Reade had also joined with King and Rowney in pointing out "eozoonal structure" in unquestioned minerals. Dawson's response to this was to cite examples of imitative forms of known fossils and to point out that "such things do not invalidate the evidence of real fossils."28 Finally, Dawson responded to Reade's accusation that the Eozoon- ists were attempting to ignore their opponents and to carry the question by personal authority and constant reiteration: "I have just sent to Dublin a reply to the objection of Profs. King and Rowney."29 Reade, in a letter of March 9, 1871, welcomed Dawson's recognition of King and Rowney and said he would "await with interest" its publication. 30 As far as the body of Dawson's own letter was concerned, Reade found "the lengthy disputes as to what is to be considered Eozobn and what is not. . . most amusing," especially "when each disputant takes up a different position and shifts it as occasion requires."'31 In his view, this very confusion should be regarded as prima facie evidence for suspending judgment on Eozodn. As far as Reade could make out, the whole dispute centered on the question of the "nummuline layer." No evidence had been produced, in his view, to show that this structure differed from a similar structure in the ophites cited by King and Rowney. Until this evidence was brought forth, the question could not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant," as Dawson had done. Dawson's attitude, said Reade, put the Eozoonists in the position of holding that when the structure occurred in an "unlooked for" loca- tion it was an imitative form,32 but when it occurred in an expected locality it was a fossil. 33 As far as the Tudor specimen was concerned, Reade repeated his statement that even Dawson's description of the specimen admitted that "merely traces of structure" were shown by the microscope. "If, indeed, we accept the Tudor specimen and Madoc34 fragments as Eozodn, why refuse this term to the Skye specimens [King's and Rowney's ophites] which apparently possess the true features (chamber casts and nummuline layer) in a much more marked manner ?" If pseudomorphism originated these ophites, "why is it so trying to our faith to consider Eozobn Canadense to have been formed in the same manner?"35 This last letter of Reade's left Carpenter very indignant. He could not "understand Mr. T. Mellard Reade's right to fling a taunt at those who maintain the foraminiferal nature of Eozobn, that 'each disputant takes up a different position, and shifts it as occasion requires."' Carpenter claimed support from every British foraminifer specialist of his acquaintance and mentioned by name H. B. Brady, T. Rupert Jones,

27 J. William Dawson, Letter to Editor, 32 The text of Reade's letter actually reads Nature, 1871, 3:287. "initiative forms," but this is almost certainly a 28 Ibid. typographical error. 29 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 30 T. Mellard Reade, Letter to Editor, Nature, 34 The text actually reads "Madoe," but again 1871, 3:367-368. this is certainly a typographical error. 31 Ibid., p. 367. 35 Ibid., pp. 367-368.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 213

W. K. Parker, and W. C. Williamson. Eozoon, said Carpenter, should be judged on its "unquestionably foraminiferal structure," not on alleged similarities to minerals: "I do not in the least 'shift' my position, that the character of the Canadian Eozodn is altogether independent of that of later ophites."36 Carpenter closed his letter with the cheer- ful observation that he did not "feel called upon to expend valuable time in giving to Mr. T. Mellard Reade the instruction which he requires to qualify him for discussing this question."37 Carpenter's thrust was followed shortly by the direct answer to King and Rowney that Dawson mentioned in his February letter to Reade. Dawson's response appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, along with an article by the leading Eozoonist mineralogist, T. Sterry Hunt, and followed by a rebuttal from King and Rowney. Dawson's article began with a lament that he had to waste his valuable time in argument. He again challenged the anti-Eozoonists to explain satisfactorily the alleged pseudomorphic origin of Eozodn. King and Rowney "admit their 'inability to explain satisfactorily' the alternating layers of carbonate of lime and other minerals."38 The imperfect tubulation cited by King and Rowney was to be expected in such an old fossil; such imperfections were neither positive nor negative indications of Eozodn's organic origin. Dawson again cited the Tudor specimen as conclusive evidence of his case. Always willing to give events a positive interpretation, Dawson closed with a somewhat tongue-in-cheek recognition of the value of King's and Rowney's services: "I am content to accept the investigations of Messrs. King and Rowney as nearly ex- haustive of the natural history of those imitative forms which may be confounded with Eozoon."39 Hunt followed Dawson with a brief note pointing out that the pseudomorphic hypothesis must come to grips with the fact that the minerals "thus replaced should. . . have assumed the forms of a foraminiferal skeleton. . J this, as all must see, is the gist of the whole matter."40 The response made by King and Rowney to these sallies was heavy with suspicion. They noted, for example, that descriptions of the Tudor specimen were very vague and general; the clear implication was that Dawson and the Eozoonists had accepted the specimen carelessly or were attempting to base their case on a specimen that they knew would not bear close analysis.4' The two Irish scientists repeated a number of the objections they had previously raised-objections that still stood, in their opinion. The "nummuline layer" occurred "unmistakably" in ophite; the so-called stolons were merely crystals; the canal system was completely paralleled in known crystals. They denied that the canal system showed any regularity.42 They also pointed out that the particular minerals composing the siliceous layers in Eozoon-serpentine, loganite, and malacolite-"have a close pseudomorphic relationship, and may therefore replace one another in their naturally prescribed order." This relationship was almost cer-

36 William B. Carpenter, Letter to Editor, 40 T. Sterry Hunt, "Messrs. King and Rowney Nature, 1871, 3:386. on Eozoon Canadense," Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., 37 Ibid. 1871, 2nd ser., 1:124. 41 William King and T. H. Rowney, "On the 38 J. William Dawson, "Note on Eozoon Mineral Origin of the So-called 'Eozoon Cana- Canadense," Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., 1871, 2nd dense,"' Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., 1871, 2nd ser., 1: ser., 1:119. 141. 39 Ibid., p. 123. 42 Ibid., pp. 148-152.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 214 CHARLES F. O'BRIEN tainly not accidental, according to King and Rowney, and was probably a clue to the mineral origin of Eozoon.43 The exchange of letters in Nature and the publication of articles by the main disputants in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy was paralleled by a simultaneous discussion on the American side of the Atlantic. This skirmish was concerned partly with the reprints of several of King's and Rowney's articles in the American Journal of Science, but mainly with the treatment of some of the specimens of Eozoon found in the United States. The American Journal of Science reprinted one of King's and Rowney's articles in January and February of 1871. Dawson apparently wrote to the editor, James Dwight Dana, and protested what he regarded as preferential treatment of the opposition. At least this type of complaint is implied in the response that Dana sent to Dawson on June 20, 1871:

You will find in our February no. that we have quoted further from King and Rowney. But in fact the whole was set up for our January no., and so stood, until we found that we had overrun our number and had to reduce it. Hence this second notice will not be taken as evidence that we are here becoming altogether sceptical about the Eozoon. The part now cited is the Appendix to the paper and it seems to have especial interest to Americans as it treats of the minerals of some American localities.44

The American "minerals" mentioned by Dana were chiefly specimens of Eozodn found near Chelmsford, Massachusetts. The Chelmsford specimens had been collected by L. S. Burbank, who submitted them to Dawson for microscopic analysis. Dawson identified the specimens as Eozoon. Burbank, however, was less than convinced by Dawson that Eozoon was a legitimate fossil, and he wrote in The American Naturalist:

I do not claim sufficient knowledge of the structure of the foraminifera to found any argument on the microscope appearance that I have observed, nor do I mean now to enter into a discussion of the general character of the Eozoon Canadense, as described by Carpenter and Dawson. I am unable however, to reconcile the facts . . . with the theory that the forms in these rocks, which have been identified as belonging to the structure of Eozoon, are of organic origin.'5

Professor John B. Perry, a student of Louis Agassiz and a member of the staff of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, was also interested in the Chelmsford Eozoon. Perry claimed that the organic origin of Eozodn required that the limestone containing the Eozodn be likewise of organic origin. The organic origin of limestone had been taken for granted by most of the previous participants in the controversy (King and Rowney had questioned the organic origin of Laurentian limestone, but not seriously); however, Perry was not willing to grant this. The limestone at Chelmsford

43Ibid. excepting your views .... They have been pre- 44James D. Dana to J. William Dawson, sented in various articles for a number of years." June 20, 1871, Dawson papers (italics mine). The Dana went on to point out that an anti-organic Dawson papers are on deposit in the Rare Book article by King and Rowney was printed only to Room of the Redpath Library, McGill Univer- redress the balance (Dana to Dawson, March 23, sity. Dawson remained unhappy on this score 1872, Dawson papers). and nine months later registered another complaint. Dana's response to the second letter was 45 L. S. Burbank, "On the Eozoon Canadense more explicit: "I thought that we had published in the Crystalline Limestones of Massachusetts," scarcely anything in the Journal on the Eozoon The American Naturalist, 1871, 5:538.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 215 was not really stratified, he said; while it might appear "on casual inspection" to be stratified or laminated, it was really foliated. In Perry's opinion these rocks were not "in any degree made up of organic remains."46 From this he went further to conclude that the "'Eozoon' of Chelmsford is not an organic structure" and that "'Eozoon' properly belongs to the department of Mineralogy, and not, as has been claimed, to that of Paleontology."47

So far in the controversy the Eozoonists had gained the support of a number of Foraminifera specialists; none had spoken out against Dawson's identification of Eozooin with Foraminifera. H. J. Carter was the first to do so. Carter was a surgeon in the Royal Navy and an amateur marine zoologist; he claimed twenty years of research in this area. Carter wrote that "in vain do we seek in the so-called Eozoon Canadense for the unvarying perpendicular tubuli, the sine qua non of foraminiferous formation."48 For Carter, Eozoon bore less resemblance to a foraminifer then the legs of a table did to those of a quadruped. "If such be the grounds on which geological in- ferences are established, the sooner they are abandoned the better for geology, the worse for sensationalism !"49 Carter's position was challenged by Carpenter. Carter was not a genuine Foramini- fera expert, said Carpenter, but was familiar with only a small number of types, types which Carter himself would admit showed no resemblance to Eozoin.50 Worse, Carter had clearly not read any material on the opposite side of the question.51 When Carter, naturally incensed, replied that the case of King and Rowney was so conclusive that Eozoonist articles were irrelevant, Carpenter terminated the exchange by informing Carter that he had better read opposition memoirs for "not only the in- terests of science, but his own reputation."52 On May 16, 1874, Carpenter wrote cryptically to Dawson about the dispute with Carter: "He will receive the 'punishment' he deserves."53 Carpenter was equally annoyed at King and Rowney, who now likewise challenged the views of Dawson and Carpenter on the parallel of Eozoon and known Foraminifera. King and Rowney chided Carpenter for using inaccurate, deceiving drawings of modern Foraminifera. Their specific charge was that Carpenter had borrowed old figures by two French scientists, D'Archiac and Haine, which showed a resemblance between Eozoon and nummulites, but which were widely known to be in error.54 Carpenter responded by again citing the "score or so competent observers" who did. see a parallel between Eozoon and various Foraminifera. Carpenter was in high dud- geon over the implication that he was deliberately using inaccurate figures and

46 John B. Perry, discussion at Boston Natural of the so-called Eozoon Canadense," Ann. Mag History Society, Proceedings of the Boston Nat. Hist., 1874, 4th ser., 13: 456. Society of Natural History, 1872, 14: 199-201. 51 Ibid. 47 Ibid., p. 204. 52 William B. Carpenter, "New Observations on Eozoon Canadense," Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 48 H. J. Carter, "On the Structure Called 1874,4th ser., 13:278. Eozoon Canadense in the Laurentian Limestone 53 W. B. Carpenter to Dawson, May 16, 1874, of Canada," Annals and Magazine of Natural Dawson papers. History, 1874, 4th ser., 13:192. 54 William King and T. H. Rowney, "'Eozoon' 49 Ibid. Examined chiefly from a Foraminiferal Stand- 50 William B. Carpenter, "Remarks on Mr. H. Point," Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1874, 4th ser., 14: J. Carter's Letter to Prof. King on the structure 279.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 216 CHARLES F. O'BRIEN promptly withdrew from the discussion: "As I should now no more think of attempting to convince the Galway 'infallibles' than of trying to convert the Pope, I leave them in triumphant possession of the field."55

Carpenter's withdrawal left Dawson as the only major supporter of the organic theory of Eozoon's origin. Dawson thereupon became even more active in the dispute. He published the first of two books on the Eozoon question in the year following Carpenter's abrupt withdrawal, and, despite occasional brief sallies by Carpenter, Dawson remained the leading Eozoonist until his death. Significantly, the second Eozoon book, Relics of Primeval Life, published in 1897, was the last of more than a dozen books by Dawson. The first book, Life's Dawn on Earth, was for the most part a reworking of the original articles in the Journal of the Geological Society of London, a presentation of the main points of King and Rowney, and a rebuttal of these points. However, for the first time, Dawson made plain some of the larger issues at stake in the Eozoon controversy, especially the relevance of Eozoon for evolution. Darwin had cited the discovery of Eozoon in the fourth edition of The Origin of Species as showing a succession of life from simpler to more complex and as revealing a longer duration for life on earth than had previously been considered. This longer time span, of course, made natural selection a more plausible explanation for evolution. Darwin was also able to cite Dawson himself on the question of indirect evidence for more primitive predecessors of Eozodn.56 This turn of events startled Dawson, who was throughout his life a vigorous opponent of Darwin. In Life's Dawn on Earth, he countered this use of Eozoon with the statement that, far from providing paleontological evidence for evolution, Eozoon's discovery revealed the grandest of all gaps in the record. There was no link whatever between the controverted fossil and any forms of the succeeding geological period. "Those evolutionists who have regarded the dawn-animal as an evidence in their favour have been obliged to have recourse to supposition and assumption."57 There was no evidence that Eozoon was defeated in a struggle for survival; it was merely "superseded" by other species. 8 Eozodn's testimony on Darwinism was not merely negative, according to Dawson. It was powerful evidence for the endurance of species. When we consider Eozoon's endurance, "we acquire a most profound impression of the persistence of the lower forms of animal life, and know that mountains may be removed and continents swept away and replaced, before the least of the humble gelatinous Protozoa can finally perish."59 For Dawson, this was convincing evidence of the solicitude that God showed for all of His creatures. Since Eozoon was a gigantic foraminifer, far surpassing any modern species of Foraminifera in size, it taught us that lower forms may be intro- duced "in some of their grandest modifications as to form and complexity" and subsequently decay and degenerate.60 In short, in Dawson's view Eozoon provided no evi-

55 W. B. Carpenter, Letter to Editor, Ann. Mag. (London:Hodder and Stoughton, 1875), p. 227. Nat. Hist., 1874, 4th ser., 14:371. 58 Ibid., p. 229. 56 Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed., p. 287. 59 Ibid., pp. 224-225. 57 J. W. Dawson, Life's Dawn on Earth 60 Ibid., p. 231.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 217 dence whatever of a higher form developing out of a lower, but rather indicated pre- cisely the opposite. Not surprisingly, Life's Dawn on Earth was no best seller; no second edition was issued, and it soon went out of print.61 King and Rowney, however, had a greater interest in the book than the general public, and they analyzed it at considerable length in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. According to them, Dawson, like the other "active believers in Eozoonism," had a "profound contempt for all laws of organic construction." Referring to the recent debunking of Huxley's Bathybius, they thought it "significant that those who accepted Bathybius are for the most part no- surrender champions of Eozoonism."62 Dawson's rebuttal in Life's Dawn on Earth was no more satisfactory to King and Rowney. In their view, this rebuttal was based on misconception, evasion, and the use of already exploded arguments. When the regularity of the canals in Eozoon was challenged, Dawson evaded the issue by responding that the "canal system is quite definite"; King and Rowney replied that definition was not the same thing as regularity.63 Dawson still avoided the issue of undeniable "eozoonal structure" in the Connemara ophite. He kept trotting out the Tudor specimen, the validity of which was itself in question.64 Honest misconception added to these problems of mutual understanding on the Eozoon question. King and Rowney had earlier pointed out the suspicious fact that the best specimens of Eozoon occurred in the most highly metamorphosed rocks. However, due to unclear phrasing, Dawson had construed this as a simple objection to finding fossils of any kind in altered rocks and had given King's and Rowney's objection short shrift. In their long review of Life's Dawn on Earth they restated their original objection: the point, they said, was that this phenomenon made the mineral origin of Eozoon more probable, while reducing the likelihood of organic origin.65 Finally, King and Rowney chided Dawson for his discourse on Eozoon as evidence of the perma- nence of species and the solicitude of God. This approach they condemned as "natural theology" and insisted that their opponent stick to science.66

VII

So far little interest had been shown in Eozoon by either United States or conti- nental European scientists. King and Rowney were Irish; Carpenter, Reade, and Carter were English, and Dawson, of course, was a Canadian. There had been Giimbel's Eozoon bavaricum and some interest in American specimens of Eozoon. However, with the exception of Perry's short article no American or European had made an original scientific contribution to the dispute. This situation changed sharply between 1875 and 1880. Two German zoologists, Otto Hahn and Karl Mobius, became involved in the Eozoon controversy, and the center of opposition to the organic theory of Eozoon's origin shifted from Galway to Kiel. Hahn had gained notoriety with a theory that the presence of graphite in meteors was evidence of life in outer space. He began his investigation of Eozoon much less

61 J. W. Dawson, Fifty Years of Work in 1876, 4th ser., 17:361. Canada (London/Edinburgh:Ballantyne, Han- 63 Ibid., p. 372. son, 1901), p. 134. 64 Ibid., pp. 374-375. 62 William King and T. H. Rowney, "Remarks 65 Ibid. on 'The Dawn of Life,"' Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 66 Ibid.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 218 CHARLES F. O'BRIEN

sensationally-with the simple question: "Is there such a thing as Eozoon Canadense ?" He, too, had doubts about the nature of Carpenter's studies and wanted to begin again with what he called a "microgeological investigation."67 Hahn was skeptical about Eozoon for a number of reasons. He noted the coinci- dence between more extensive use of the microscope in geology and the discovery of EozoYn and implied that inadequate techniques of microscopy had "created" Eozoon. He also pointed out the relation between the disputed fossil and evolution: "The Darwinian theory wanted a cornerstone; and there it was."68 In Hahn's view, the presumption was always in favor of the inorganic origin of any part of a rock, especially- metamorphosed rocks. He argued that despite the affinities suggested by Dawson and Carpenter, nothing really close to Eozoon had been found. "Individual parts of Eozoon- structure are only to be recognized in different kinds of Foraminifera."69 Hahn also offered the first systematic theory for the inorganic origin of Eozoon. According to him, serpentine was a product of metamorphosis; serpentine "every- where" occurred in association with limestone, "so that alternate layers of the two substances cannot be in the least surprising."70 Hahn's theory was that serpentine resulted from the decomposition of another common silicate, olivine; this decomposition produced both the serpentine and the threads of chrysotile on the edge of the alternating layers. These threads gave the appearance of organic form.71 Hahn's attack on the organic theory drew a response from Carpenter, who chose the occasion to note that he had not "withdrawn from the Eozoic contest," as several people had inferred from his letter to the editor of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History in 1874. It was not the contest he eschewed; it was King and Rowney: "I simply decline to continue it with them."72 As far as Hahn was concerned, Carpenter complained that Hahn had not read some of the more recent literature on Eozoon. While the presumption favored the inorganic origin of structures found in most rocks, calcareous rocks were exceptions; in these, said Carpenter, the presumption was of organic origin.73 He also disputed Hahn's contention that there were no known species to which Eozodn had clear affinities. One of Hahn's fellow German researchers, Karl Mobius, had recently found a new species of Foraminifera, Rhapidodendron album, which, according to Carpenter, had unquestioned affinities to Eozoon.74 In citing Mobius' discovery in support of the organic theory, Carpenter received a much greater response than he expected or, as things turned out, wanted. Mbbius, Professor of Zoology at Kiel and a specialist in Foraminifera himself, promptly became interested in the question of Eozoon's origin. On April 27, 1876, he wrote to Dawson expressing some doubts about Eozoon (although at the time he was a believer in the organic theory). He asked Dawson for some specimens in order to pursue a detailed study of the alleged fossil.75 With fabled German thoroughness, Mobius deter- mined to observe for himself the alleged affinities between Eozoon and various Fora-

67 Otto Hahn, trans. W. S. Dallas, "Is there 72 W. B. Carpenter, "Notes on Otto Hahn's such a thing as Eozoon Canadense? A Micro- 'Microgeological Investigation of Eozoon cana- geological Investigation," Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., dense,"' Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1876, 4th ser., 17: 1876,4th ser., 17:265. 417. 68 Ibid. 73 Ibid., pp. 418-419. 69 Ibid., p. 274. 74 Ibid., p. 422. 70 Ibid., p. 276. 75 Karl A. Mobius to Dawson, April 27, 1876, 71 Ibid., pp. 276-277. Dawson papers.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 219 minifera "in order to form his own judgment" regarding its nature.76 He examined some ninety sections of the specimens which were placed at his disposal by Dawson and Carpenter, the very sections that had led these two scientists to pronounce in favor of organic origin.77 Mbbius' investigation began with the patches of serpentine which in the Eozoonist analysis provided the filling for the chamber that had held the flesh of the organism and which, therefore, should have been nearly the same size and shape as the interior of Eozoon. However, Mobius found that "the relative sizes of the serpentine patches vary very much"; in some cases the variation was of the order of thirty times. This variation also extended to shape. In Foraminifera, said Mobius, the fundamental form was reproduced again and again in a manner that pointed toward the same law of formation for all chambers. According to Mobius, Eozoon showed none of these similarities of form.78 In Foraminifera, canals pass through the chamber wall to allow pseudopods to obtain nourishment for the organism from the water outside. These canals take the shortest route to the water and hence tend to lie at right angles to the inner surface of the chamber. This pattern, according to Mbbius, was "manifest even with the simplest forms of foraminifera."79 In Eozodn, however, such a pattern was "altogether missing." The alleged canals occasionally showed a pattern of parallel structure, but this was evidence of inorganic rather than organic origin, since the canals, although parallel, showed no organic relation between the chamber and outside environment. Mobius tried very hard to keep his dispute with Dawson and Carpenter above the personal level; perhaps he had their long and bitter exchange with King and Rowney in mind. He praised the work of Dawson and Carpenter; he thanked them profusely for their specimens; he was almost apologetic about not agreeing with them. Even after the publication of his detailed paper he wrote to Dawson: "If you may be so kind to send me slices in which I shall find full evidence of the animal nature of Eozoon, I shall not hesitate to confess my errors."80 M'obius was badly rewarded for his trouble. Dawson published a review of his work that was full of insinuations that M6bius was not competent to judge Eozoon. The un- published version of Dawson's review must have been even sharper. After receiving the manuscript, James Dwight Dana wrote to Dawson: "You must allow me to strike out the last paragraph .. . for it is a kind of criticism we are quite unwilling to publish."81 The criticism that Dana was willing to publish struck a familiar note. Mobius was "a zoologist, a good microscopist, fairly acquainted with modern foraminifera, and a con- scientious observer."82 He did not, however, have sufficient geological background to evaluate the alleged fossil properly. He was not able to study the fossil in situ, and he

76 Karl A. Mobius, "Professor Moebius on the Dawson papers. This exchange of letters took Eozoon Question," Nature, 1879, 20:272. This place in late 1878; the lengthy abstract of Mobius' article was published in two sections in consecu- paper that I have used was not published until tive issues of Nature. It is, in fact, a lengthy July of 1879. Mobius' paper, however, had been abstract of M6bius' German work "Der Bau des published in German in 1878, and Dawson had Eozoon canadense." read it then. This explains the apparent anomaly 77 Ibid., p. 273. in sequence. 81Dana to Dawson, Jan. 4, 1879, Dawson 78 Ibid., pp. 298-299. papers. 79 Ibid., p. 300. 82 J. W. Dawson, "Mobius on Eozoon Cana- 80 Karl A. Mobius to Dawson, Dec. 8, 1878, dense," Am. J. Sci., 1879, 3rd ser., 16: 196-197.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 220 CHARLES F. O'BRIEN had only a limited number of specimens. Mobius had drawn only "portions" of Eozoon, thereby creating a misleading view of the fossil. The "fatal defect" in Mobius' analysis, said Dawson, was the failure to consider the cumulative force of the particular pieces of evidence. No single aspect of Eozoon was conclusive, but the combination of reasonable possibilities added up to a probability. Specifically, Dawson had in mind the following facts: Eozoon did show at least a general resemblance to modern Foraminifera; it showed a chamber wall much like that of extinct nummulites; it showed canal structure; these canals were filled with different minerals. Dawson also pointed out that opponents often had poor specimens, specimens circulated by "dealers or injudicious amateurs." "The memoir of Professor Mobius affords illustrations of ... these difficulties in the study of Eozoon."83 Difficulties were to be expected with fossils so old; in Dawson's view, the remarkable fact was that the structure was preserved at all.84 In relation to Mobius, Dawson pursued much the same course that he and Carpenter had earlier followed with King and Rowney. The first step was to deny the competency of their opponents; the next step was to cite evidence that was not available to the dissenters. The Eozoonists would then shift the burden of proof to the other side. Only as a last resort did they confront the opposition directly. Mobius, understandably, resented this procedure. He fired back in the pages of the American Journal of Science. If it were true that the Eozoon question was so clear, then he and the other anti-Eozoonists could have spared themselves a great deal of trouble, but, said Mobius, everyone who had followed the controversy knew that the question was not clear. Mobius, himself capable of spirited rejoinder, wrote:

Dr. Dawson says further, "As fast as one opponent ... is disposed of, another appears." And he rises, himself to dispose of me, the last of the opponents. No one should be able to do so better than he. It was he who described the Eozoon Canadense as an organism ... I could not, indeed, have wished for a more experienced reviewer, to show me where I had fallen into error.85

Mobius disposed of Dawson's insinuations one by one. He was very familiar with fossil as well as living Foraminifera. As far as specimens were concerned, Dawson's criticism was ill-advised. Mobius wrote: "Not a single one of all the specimens of Eozoon, which I studied, came from the hands of 'dealers or injudicious amateurs' but all directly or indirectly from Messrs. Dawson and Carpenter."86 When it came to accuracy of figures, Mobius was similarly ironic: Dawson and Carpenter had persistently produced figures that showed false structures and implied a nonexistent regularity.87 Just as he had at first accepted the accuracy of Dawson's figures, he had been willing to accept Dawson's list of reasons for the organic origin of Eozooin as a starting point for further investigation. He had in fact done exactly that. The result had shown conclusively that Dawson's theoretical judgments were simply erroneous when applied to the actual specimens. "No error will be changed into truth by constantly believing, nor by persistently declaring it as truth."88

83Ibid., p. 197. Foraminifers," Am. J. Sci., 1879, 3rd ser., 18: 84Ibid., p. 200. 177-179. 85Karl Mobius, "Principal J. W. Dawson's 86 Ibid. criticism of my Memoir on the Structure of 87 Ibid., p. 185. Eozoon Canadense compared with that of 88 Ibid.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 221

VIIi

Mobius' memoir settled the matter for a great many observers.89 However, even granted the correctness of his analysis, several vexing questions remained. What about the Tudor specimen? What about the regular, concentric laminations? No one had really grappled with these questions; neither had anyone produced a convincing, widely accepted, mineralogical explanation for Eozoon. Hence, even for the partisans of M6bius, much of the controversy remained. However, very little was heard from the anti-Eozoonists in the 1880s. Most of the activity was on behalf of the organic theory. One such activity involved the completion of a manuscript left unfinished by the death of William Carpenter in 1885. Carpenter's son, P. Herbert Carpenter, wrote to Dawson in November of that year: "My mother has put into my hands a letter of yours to my late father about Eozoon matters. We should be glad to know what your wishes would be with regard to the completion of the monograph." He then suggested that H. Aleyne Nicholson, Professor of Natural History at Aberdeen and a paleontologist, might undertake the job.90 Nicholson, who had taught at the University of Toronto before going to Aberdeen, was a friend of Dawson's and evidently was willing. Nicholson began an investigation of his own, however, rather than reworking Carpenter's manuscript. The manuscript was never published. Neither were the results of Nicholson's research. His letters to Dawson indicated a general belief in the organic origin of Eozodn, but one has the impression that Nicholson was not willing to stake his reputation publicly. Nicholson's letters were concerned primarily with the defects of EozoYn's opponents. He wrote to Dawson on March 3, 1888: "I have been working further at Eozodn lately and feel bound to say that the more I go into it the more clearly do I feel that the petrologists have not yet met the real difficulties of the case. Mo5bius certainly has not proved his view."91 Nicholson also challenged the views of King and Rowney that the "nummuline wall" was, in fact, a layer of chrysotile similar to that found in asbestos.92 That Nicholson did probably hold the organic view at this time, despite his timidity, was implied from his attitude eight years later. He wrote in 1896 in The Ancient Life-History of the Earth that despite a "severe, protracted and still unfinished controversy," the balance of evidence "decisively" favored the organic origin of Eozoon as a result of the "elaborate and masterly investigations of Carpenter and Dawson."f93 Dawson, for his part, continued the Eozoonist campaign, but in a less magisterial fashion. He was now in his late sixties and, while receiving the laurels of a long and honorable career, was increasingly isolated on a number of scientific issues, for example, the species question and the great dispute over North American glaciation. He was also standing more and more alone on Eozodn. He spoke to the British Association for the Advancement of Science as retiring president in 1887 and advanced the Eozoonist view. Dawson spoke with little effect, judging by a letter he received from a

$9 See, e.g., Karl von Zittel's famous Textbook 91 H. Alleyne Nicholson to Dawson, March 3, of Palaeontology, trans. Charles R. Eastman 1888, Dawson papers. (London:Macmillan, 1900), p. 35. "The elabor- 92 H. Alleyne Nicholson to Dawson, Nov. 3, ate investigations of Mobius have shown that 1888, Dawson papers. ... Eozoon ... cannot be regarded as organic but rather is a mineral segregation." 93 H. Alleyne Nicholson, The Ancient Life- 90 P. Herbert Carpenter to Dawson, Nov. 23, History of the Earth (New York: Appleton, 1885, Dawson papers. 1896), pp. 68-69.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 222 CHARLES F. O'BRIEN friend telling him that after the reading of his paper "there were as many unbelievers as ever."94 There were as many unbelievers as ever on the other side of the Atlantic as well. In 1888 The American Geologist polled a number of leading geologists on various questions, one of them being, "In your opinion is Eozoon Canadense of organic origin?" Of the fourteen geologists who replied, only three answered affirmatively- Dawson, C. D. Walcott, and Alexander Winchell.95 The Eozoonists might have been the active party in the 1880s, but their efforts had little effect. Their opponents dominated the remaining years of the controversy. The long- standing question of the Tudor specimen was confronted in 1891 by J. W. Gregory. A geologist on the staff of the British Museum, Gregory examined the Tudor specimen with painstaking care and found it to be something very different from Eozoon. He found no evidence of chambers or canals, "or any reasons for regarding the calcite bands as the 'intermediate skeleton' of a foraminifer." Since the Tudor specimen was found on the very edge of the Grenville limestone, Gregory speculated that it was produced by the abrasion of the adjoining series of rocks-the Hastings series- against the older Grenville rocks.96 After Gregory's debunking of the Tudor specimen, a convincing mineralogical explanation of Eozodn was not long in coming. Gregory himself, along with Hugh Johnston-Lavis, produced evidence that Eozoon occurred in ejected blocks of limestone in the area of Mount Vesuvius. A fossil shot out of a volcano was a phenomenon few were prepared to accept! The specimens of Eozoon found near Vesuvius had been formed very recently, from a geological standpoint, and the causes were known-great heat and pressure on limestone. The Vesuvius Eozoon had the advantage of being, for practical purposes, a laboratory-produced specimen.97 Dawson was not daunted, however; he argued, as he had argued twenty-five years earlier when King and Rowney had cited Eozoon in Connemara marble, that the Vesuvius specimens were not Eozoon. He wrote a number of letters and notes to The Geological Magazine challenging Gregory and Johnston-Lavis. He lectured on Pre- cambrian paleontology at the Lowell Institute in Boston during December of 1895. These lectures were published in book form with the title Relics of Primeval Life. In these lectures he reviewed again the evidence for the organic origin of Eozoon and cited the recent work of C. D. Walcott of the United States Geological Survey as showing that Eozoon was not alone, that there were several indisputable fossils of similar age. Dawson speculated that a generation hence, there would be no reason to question Eozoon because of its isolation from the fossils of the Cambrian and Silurian.98 These discoveries, while they may have served to make the organic Eozoon more credible, precluded further use of the alleged fossil against evolution. Dawson was working on still another Eozoon paper when he died in November of 1899.

94W. E. Ferrier to Dawson, Oct. 15, 1897, 97 Merrill, The First One Hundred Years, pp. Dawson papers. 576-577. See also an account of the reading of a 95 Persifor Frazer, "Report of the Sub- paper on this subject by Gregory and Johnston- Committee on the Archean," The American Lavis at the Royal Dublin Society in Nature, Geologist, 1888, 2:175. 1894,49:499. 96 J. W. Gregory, "The Tudor Specimen of 98 J. W. Dawson, Relics of Primeval Life (New Eozoon," The Geological Magazine, 1891, 47: York :Revell, 1897), pp. 193-194, 212-215. 349-353.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE DAWN ANIMAL OF CANADA 223

The active Eozoonist cause died with Dawson, although a futile attempt to revive it was made in 1912 by Randolph Kirkpatrick, a paleontologist attached to the British Museum.99 Little doubt remains of the inorganic origin of Eozoin, although encyclo- pedia and textbook accounts seldom declare its inorganic nature unequivocally; phrases such as "probably of inorganic origin" or "most scientists believe" recur over and over. This caution would seem unnecessary. The Geological Survey of Canada has studied the Grenville series in great detail and most of the questions so perplexing to nineteenth-century geology have been answered. A series of papers on the Precambrian of Canada, chiefly by Survey members, was published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada in 1931. Dawson, the Society's founding president, would have been most surprised with the paper on "Life in the pre-Cambrian of the Canadian Shield." This paper showed evidence that the laminated form of Eozoon was a "mechanical development" and that the alleged fossil itself was formed by the contact of Grenville limestone with igneous intrusives. 100 The Eozoon controversy is another example of the uncomfortable position of nineteenth-century science. During this century, in the field of geology alone, dozens of organized surveys made discoveries which challenged existing attitudes and opinions. Eozoon was one such discovery, the product of the Geological Survey of Canada. It was also in a very real sense the product of improved microscopes. Many of the difficulties over Eozoon were minor reflections of the problems involved in applying a new technology to the results of the great surveys. In this, as in many other areas, nineteenth-century science was sufficiently advanced to raise such questions, but insufficiently developed to settle them.

9 Randolph Kirkpatrick, "On the Structure of "'Morley E. Wilson, "Life in the pre- Stromatoporoids and of Eozoon," Ann. Mag. Cambrian of the Canadian Shield," Transac- Nat. Hist., 1912, 8th ser., 10:446-460. tions of the Royal Society of Canada, 1931, 3rd ser., 25 (sec. 4):122.

This content downloaded from 150.135.211.246 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:08:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms