Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
The writer of these notes had hoped to have been able long ago to let the vexed questions respecting Eozoön repose in peace in so far as he was concerned, and he is now induced to offer a short summary of the evidence in the case only with the view of correcting some misapprehensions that seem to have arisen in regard to points well established, and which, independently of any question as to the nature of Eozoön, belong to the certain data of geology. These misapprehensions lead to the confounding of the structures originally discovered by Logan with things in no way related to them, and from which they had been clearly distinguished by my own original studies, and by those of Hunt, Carpenter, and Rupert Jones. New facts relating to pre-Cambrian life have also been coming to light from time to time, and many of these are connected, either directly or indirectly, with the evidence respecting Eozoön.
page 444 note 1 By Dr. Sterry Hunt.
page 445 note 1 See Geological Magazine, June, 1895.
page 445 note 2 According to the geological map of Northern Canada prepared by Dr. G. M. Dawson for the Geological Survey, the area of Laurentian rocks exceeds two millions of square miles. Of this, so far as is known, the older or fundamental gneiss occupies by far the larger portion.
page 445 note 3 American Journal of Geology, vol. i, No. 4, 1893.Google Scholar
page 446 note 1 See also Museum Memoir on Eozoön, pp. 2, 3. Montreal, 1888.Google Scholar
page 447 note 1 Proposed by Hunt.
page 447 note 2 Some of these beds are regarded by Von Hise (Amer. Journ. of Geology, vol. iGoogle Scholar) as a lower member of the Huronian. They may also be identical in part with the “Kewatin” group of Lawson.
page 449 note 1 American Journal of Geology, 1893, No. 4. Also Reports Geol. Surv. of Canada.Google Scholar
page 449 note 2 Bulletin Geol. Soc. of America, March 1895.Google Scholar
