It will have been noticed that by far the greater number of Foraminifera are of marine origin, and these occur in such widespread profusion that the finest calcareous particles which constitute the seashore in some places consist almost wholly of their microscopic remains. At former periods of the earth’s history they appear to have existed even in greater profusion than at the present time. This is evidenced by their remains forming the principal constituent of our largest geological formations.
Moreover, during the Canadian Geological Survey large masses of what appeared to be a fossil organism were discovered in rocks situated near the base of the Laurentian series of North America. Sir William Dawson, of Montreal, referred these remains to an animal of the foraminiferal type; and specimens were sent by Sir W. Logan to the late Dr. Carpenter, requesting him to subject them to a careful examination. As far back as 1858 Sir W. Logan had suspected the existence of organic remains in specimens from the Grand Calumet limestone, on the Ottawa River, but a casual examination of the specimens was insufficient to determine the point. Similar forms being seen by Sir W. Logan in blocks from the Grenville bed of the Laurentian limestone were in their turn tried, and ultimately revealed their true structure to Sir William Dawson and Dr. Sterry Hunt, who named the structure Eozoon Canadense.
The masses of which these fossils consist are composed of layers of serpentine alternating with calc spar. It was found by these observers that the calcareous layers represented the original shell, and the silicious layers the softer parts of the once living Foraminifera. The results were arrived at through comparison of the appearance presented by the Eozoon with the microscopic structure which Dr. Carpenter had previously shown to characterise certain members of the Foraminifera. The Eozoon not only exceeded other known Foraminifera in size to an extent that might have easily led observers astray, but, from its apparently very irregular mode of growth and general external form, no help was derived in its identification, and it was only by microscopical examination of its minute structure that its true character was ascertained. Dr. Carpenter wrote:—“The minute structure of Eozoon may be determined by the microscopic examination either of thin transparent sections, or of portions which have been subjected to the action of dilute acids, so as to remove the calcareous portion, leaving only the internal casts, or models, in silex, of the chambers and other cavities originally occupied by the substance of one animal.” Subsequently he found portions of minute structure so perfect that he was able to say that “delicate pseudopodial threads were originally put forth through openings in the shell wall of less than 1⁄10000th of an inch in diameter” ([Plate III]., Nos. 64, 65). In a paper read at the meeting of the Geological Society he stated that he had since detected Eozoon in a specimen of ophicalcite from Bohemia, in a specimen of gneiss from near Moldau, and in specimens of serpentine limestone sent to Sir C. Lyell by Dr. Gümbel, of Bavaria. These also were found to be parts of the great formation of the “fundamental” gneiss, considered by Sir Roderick Murchison as the equivalent of the Laurentian rocks of Canada.[65]
If the remains of Foraminifera be dissolved in dilute hydrochloric acid, an organic basis is left, after the removal of the calcareous matter, accurately retaining the form of the shell with all its openings and pores. The earthy constituent is mainly calcium carbonate; but there is also a small amount of phosphate of lime in the shells of many of them.
Fig. 331.
1. Separated prisms from outer layer of Pinna shell; 2. Skeletons of Foraminifera from limestone; 3. Recent shell of Polystomella crispa; examined under dark-ground illumination.
Infusoria.
We are now brought face to face with animals which possess considerable variation of structure, Infusorial animalcules, as they are termed. It was Ehrenberg who attributed to them a highly complex organisation, but later observations negatived these views and showed them to be animals formed of one or more cells, or colonies of so-called individuals. It is true that this cell or united protoplasm may show a wonderful amount of differentiation, what with its nucleus and vacuole, mouth and gullet, its variously-arranged cilia or flagella, its contractile fibres, its separation into an outer denser and a more fluid inner protoplasm, and its horny cup and stalks.
In these few lines we have a condensed summary of the special qualities of minute forms of life that afford much interesting work for the microscope.