Life's Dawn on Earth / Being the history of the oldest known fossil remains, and their relations to geological time and to the development of the animal kingdom

by Sir John William Dawson

[CHAPTER VI.]
CONTEMPORARIES AND SUCCESSORS OF EOZOON.

The name Eozoon, or Dawn-animal, raises the question whether we shall ever know any earlier representative of animal life. Here I think it necessary to explain that in suggesting the name Eozoon for the earliest fossil, and Eozoic for the formation in which it is contained, I had no intention to affirm that there may not have been precursors of the Dawn-animal. By the similar term, Eocene, Lyell did not mean to affirm that there may not have been modern types in the preceding geological periods: and so the dawn of animal life may have had its gray or rosy breaking at a time long anterior to that in which Eozoon built its marble reefs. When the fossils of this early auroral time shall be found, it will not be hard to invent appropriate names for them. There are, however, two reasons that give propriety to the name in the present state of our knowledge. One is, that the Lower Laurentian rocks are absolutely the oldest that have yet come under the notice of geologists, and at the present moment it seems extremely improbable that any older sediments exist, at least in a condition to be recognised as such. The other is that Eozoon, as a member of the group Protozoa, of gigantic size and comprehensive type, and oceanic in its habitat, is as likely as any other creature that can be imagined to have been the first representative of animal life on our planet. Vegetable life may have preceded it, nay probably did so by at least one great creative æon, and may have accumulated previous stores of organic matter; but if any older forms of animal life existed, it is certain at least that they cannot have belonged to much simpler or more comprehensive types. It is also to be observed that such forms of life, if they did exist, may have been naked protozoa, which may have left no sign of their existence except a minute trace of carbonaceous matter, and perhaps not even this.

But if we do not know, and perhaps we are not likely to know, any animals older than Eozoon, may we not find traces of some of its contemporaries, either in the Eozoon limestones themselves, or other rocks associated with them? Here we must admit that a deep sea Foraminiferal limestone may give a very imperfect indication of the fauna of its time. A dredger who should have no other information as to the existing population of the world, except what he could gather from the deposits formed under several hundred fathoms of water, would necessarily have very inadequate conceptions of the matter. In like manner a geologist who should have no other information as to the animal life of the Mesozoic ages than that furnished by some of the thick beds of white chalk might imagine that he had reached a period when the simplest kinds of protozoa predominated over all other forms of life; but this impression would at once be corrected by the examination of other deposits of the same age: so our inferences as to the life of the Laurentian from the contents of its oceanic limestones may be very imperfect, and it may yet yield other and various fossils. Its possibilities are, however, limited by the fact that before we reach this great depth in the earth’s crust, we have already left behind in much newer formations all traces of animal life except a few of the lower forms of aquatic invertebrates; so that we are not surprised to find only a limited number of living things, and those of very low type. Do we then know in the Laurentian even a few distinct species, or is our view limited altogether to Eozoon Canadense? In answering this question we must bear in mind that the Laurentian itself was of vast duration, and that important changes of life may have taken place even between the deposition of the Eozoon limestones and that of those rocks in which we find the comparatively rich fauna of the Primordial age. This subject was discussed by the writer as early as 1865, and I may repeat here what could be said in relation to it at that time:—

"In connection with these remarkable remains, it appeared desirable to ascertain, if possible, what share these or other organic structures may have had in the accumulation of the limestones of the Laurentian series. Specimens were therefore selected by Sir W. E. Logan, and slices were prepared under his direction. On microscopic examination, a number of these were found to exhibit merely a granular aggregation of crystals, occasionally with particles of graphite and other foreign minerals, or a laminated mixture of calcareous and other matters, in the manner of some more modern sedimentary limestones. Others, however, were evidently made up almost entirely of fragments of Eozoon, or of mixtures of these with other calcareous and carbonaceous fragments which afford more or less evidence of organic origin. The contents of these organic limestones may be considered under the following heads:—

1. Remains of Eozoon.

2. Other calcareous bodies, probably organic.

3. Objects imbedded in the serpentine.

4. Carbonaceous matters.

5. Perforations, or worm-burrows.