From T. G. Bonney 5 February 1882
23 Denning Road, | Hampstead, N.W.
Feb 5. 1882
My dear Sir
I am greatly obliged to you for the trouble which you have taken in writing to me on the subject of the statement in Science1 Either Dr Hahn or the writer of that paragraph, is as I suspect, a person of vivid imagination and inaccurate habits— I disbelieved it when I read it from à priori reasons, but in contradicting a statement one likes to have something better than one’s own conception of the possible or impossible in another person—2
I saw a few of Dr Hahns slides but did not look at many because I saw enough to perceive it would be a waste of time, as he clearly could not distinguish between mineral and organic structures. Such as I saw were not unfamiliar to me as a microscopic petrologist and very different to those organic structures with which occasional work with foraminifera and their slices of sedimentary rocks had acquainted me.3
As regards Eozoon, though I admit the question is not without its difficulties, I think the evidence in favour of its being an organic structure is rather strong—4 The particular direction my researches have taken have made me very familiar with olivine rock serpentine, devitrified glassy rocks, and many kinds of metamorphic sedimentary rocks, and I have very rarely seen structures at all parallel.5 The structure most nearly and commonly paralleled is the ‘nummuline layer’ of the ‘proper wall’—6 I have occasionally seen structures something like—though the resemblance is but distant—to the canal system—and of course one has sometimes rocks irregularly banded with more than one mineral
Now there seem to me two strong arguements in favour of the organic origin— One. that Carpenter Dawson &c positively assert that you have the ‘canal system’ sometimes preserved by infiltration with more than one mineral (in one case with three) I have seen nothing like this in a mineral imitative structure, and it seems to me most improbable that it can occur except in an organism—7 The other: that supposing you get to some minerals or rocks—a sort of chamber like banding— in others occasionally (but seldom) something like the nummuline layer, in others (very rarely) a rude approximation to the canal system— the chance of these three structures being found, and rather persistently, in a large mass of rock is extremely small, unless, seeing they do meet in certain organisms, the specimen has had an organic origin.—
Still I think that it is more prudent to wait for further evidence before building any theories on Eozoon as a foundation—
With many thanks for your kindness in writing | I am Dear Sir | Very faithfully yours | J. G Bonney
Footnotes
Bibliography
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1864a. Additional note on the structure and affinities of Eozoön Canadense. [Read 23 November 1864.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 21 (1865): 59–66.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1866. Supplemental notes on the structure and affinities of Eozoon Canadense. [Read 10 January 1866.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 22: 219–28.
Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.
Dawson, John William. 1864. On the structure of certain organic remains in the Laurentian limestones of Canada. [Read 23 November 1864.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 21 (1865): 51–9.
Hahn, Otto. 1880. Die Meteorite (Chondrite) und ihre Organismen. Tübingen: H. Laupp’schen Buchhandlung.
King, William and Rowney, Thomas Henry. 1866. On the so-called ‘Eozoonal Rock’. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 22: 185–218.
O’Brien, Charles F. 1970. Eozoön Canadense: ‘the dawn animal of Canada’. Isis 61: 206–23.
Origin 4th ed.: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. 4th edition, with additions and corrections. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1866.
Origin: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1859.
Schopf, J. William. 2000. Solution to Darwin’s dilemma: discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 6947–53.
Summary
Thanks for writing. Had disbelieved the story. He has seen Dr Hahn’s slides and it is clear that Hahn cannot distinguish between mineral and organic structures.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-13663
- From
- Thomas George Bonney
- To
- Charles Robert Darwin
- Sent from
- Hampstead
- Source of text
- DAR 160: 246, 248
- Physical description
- ALS 7pp
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 13663,” accessed on 14 October 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13663.xml