Chemical Analysis of the Dust on a

Historically Important Collection

The W. B. Carpenter Eozoon Collection at the
Natural History Museum, London

Maria Consuelo Sendino

Department of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; [email protected]

Javier Cuadros
Department of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; [email protected]

Lu Allington-Jones
Core Research Laboratories, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, UK; [email protected]

Jane A. Barnbrook
Department of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; [email protected]

Abstract The Department of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, London,

houses an important historical collection: the W.B. Carpenter collec-
tion of Eozoon, which is of great significance in the history of science,
specifically with regard to a nineteenth-century controversy about the
presence of fossils in rock of Precambrian age. After providing a history
of the Eozoon Collection, we then give an overview of its care and cu-
ration up to the present before describing new research on the history
of the specimens and the origin of the thick black dust which covers
them. Chemical and morphological analysis of the dust using SEM-EDX
(scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectros-
copy) allows identification of one silicate and one sulphur-calcium
phase. The silicate may derive from the Eozoon specimens themselves,
whereas the sulphur-calcium phase may indicate gypsum from plaster.
Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 11, Number 4,

Fall 2015, pp. 291–304. Copyright © 2015 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. 291
292 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DUST ON A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT COLLECTION  O

It is possible that the gypsum dust may have come from collapse of the
ceiling during the fire in November 1885 at Carpenter’s home that led
to his death.

The first specimens of the enigmatic structure that came to be known as Eozoon
Dawson, 1865 were collected from the Grand Calumet Limestone on the Ottawa
River in 1858 (O’Brien, 1970). They consisted of alternating concentric layers of
crystallized pyroxene and limestone. Over the next few years interest grew and
further specimens showing the same pattern were found at Cestra Lipa, Ungeran
and Rasperan in Bohemia; Glen Silt in Connemara, Ireland; the Isle of Harris and
Sutherland, Scotland; Côte St. Pierre and Petite Nation of Canada; and Monte Som-
ma, Italy.
Eozoon became the object of a long controversy between evolutionists and
‘“old-school’” naturalists during the 50 years that followed its discovery. The signifi-
cance of Eozoon hinged on its Precambrian age, with some scientists regarding it as
a foraminiferan (single celled shelly marine organisms) and hence the oldest evi-
dence for life on earth, while others considered it to have an inorganic origin. Even
Charles Darwin (1809–1882) mentioned Eozoon in the Fourth Edition of On the
Origin of Species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races
in the struggle for life (Darwin, 1866), accepting its identity as an ancient fossil. “…
after reading Dr. Carpenter’s description of this remarkable fossil, it is impossible to
feel any doubt regarding its organic nature. …The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly
organised of all classes of animals, but for its class is highly organised” (Darwin,
1866: p. 371). However, Eozoon is now universally recognised as being inorganic in
origin (Schopf, 2001).
The “Dr. Carpenter” mentioned by Darwin was William Benjamin Carpen-
ter (1813-1885) whose expertise in the study of Foraminifera made him the cho-
sen person to confirm that the Canadian specimens described by Sir John William
Dawson (1820-1899), the Principal of McGill University and collaborator of Sir
Charles Lyell (1797-1875), were indeed of foraminiferal origin (See Figure 1). If
Dawson was right, these specimens would be a cornerstone for the study of early
life, contributing significantly to an understanding of the origin of life on earth.
The first Eozoon specimens came to London in 1862, after they had first been
exhibited at the American Association for the Advancement of Science by Sir Wil-
liam Edmond Logan (1798-1875), the Director of the Geological Survey of Canada.
Their microscopic structure initially gave no evidence of organic structure. Later, in
1864, Logan found similar specimens in the Grenville Limestone near Ottawa and
prepared thin sections that were sent to Montreal where they were studied by Daw-
son who identified them as foraminifera. Thin sections were also sent to Carpenter
who supported Dawson’s opinion (O’Brien, 1970).
Subsequently, Carpenter accumulated a huge collection of rock samples from
around the world containing Eozoon from which more than 1000 slides were made.
 293

Figure 1.  Portrait of William

Benjamin Carpenter (1813-
1885). Photograph courtesy
NHM Picture Library.

He then embarked on a major research project to study this enigmatic material. The
collection was presented by his son, the Reverend Joseph Estlin Carpenter (1844-
1927), to the British Museum (Natural History) in January 1892, almost seven years
after the death of his father. Much of the unfigured material was transferred in 1949
to the then Department of Mineralogy, the rest being kept in the former Depart-
ment of Palaeontology. This collection is now housed partly in the main buildings
of the Natural History Museum in South Kensington, and partly in the Museum’s
storage facility in south-west London.

William Benjamin Carpenter (1813-1885)

William Carpenter was one of the most eminent physiologists in Britain during the
middle part of the nineteenth century (Hall, 1979). The eldest son and forth of six
children, he received a well-rounded education, that included both the classics and
science, at a school in Bristol run by his Unitarian father (Obituary Notices of Fel-
lows Deceased, The Royal Society 1886). At the age of 15 he was apprenticed to a
294 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DUST ON A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT COLLECTION O

local doctor, John Bishop Estlin, He moved to London in 1834 (Hall, 1979), where
he became a qualified practitioner of t he Apothecaries C ompany and a member
of the Royal College of Surgeons. In 1835 while studying medicine in Edinburgh,
Carpenter was inspired by William Pulteney Alison (1790–1859) who held the chair
in Medical Jurisprudence (Hall, 1979). Alison had published two major works on
physiology that greatly influenced C arpenter’s d ecision t o b ecome a p hysiologist
rather than a medical doctor. He began writing essays that were highly regarded,
some receiving awards. Later he authored two important treatises on physiology
(Carpenter, 1839, 1842) that were considered to be major texts for medical students
in English-speaking countries for more than three decades.
However, Carpenter’s own research focused on marine biology (Hall, 1979),
especially Foraminifera. Carpenter was an eminent and highly regarded physiolo-
gist and educator whose career flourished. Recognition of his expertise led to his
appointment as President of the Royal Medical Society, and his election as a Fellow
of The Royal Society. He became Registrar of the University of London in 1856 and
remained in this post until his resignation in 1879. For the rest of his life Carpenter
was a Crown Member of the Senate (Gardiner, 2000) and received a pension from
the University of London (Royal Society, 1886). During his retirement he contin-
ued research on Eozoon until his death from injuries received during a fire in his
house, 56 Regent’s Park Road, London, caused by the overturning of a lamp heating
a vapour-bath that he was using to ease his rheumatism. He was severely burned in
this accident and passed away at three o’clock am on Tuesday, November 10, 1885
(The Engineer, 1885) at his home (Balfour, et al., 1885), aged 73.

Curation of the Eozoon Collection

Since its deposition, the Carpenter Eozoon Collection remained untouched

until two cabinets of slides were “rediscovered” by staff of the Natural History
Mu-seum and it was decided that the long overdue conservation and curation
of this controversial and important historical material should be undertaken.
The unusu-ally thick layer of dust on the specimens inside the cabinets attracted
our attention and led us to search for other parts of the Carpenter Eozoon
collection. This collec-tion was found to be distributed in different buildings and
contained in several cabi-nets. Part belonged to the Mineralogy Section and part
to the Palaeontology Sec-tion, reflecting the early controversy over the inorganic
vs organic origin of Eozoon. The Eozoon Collection is mostly distributed in the
specimen drawers of the main collections, except for two small wooden cabinets
that are kept inside of one of the larger collection cabinets in the Palaeontology
Building. The latter material forms the focus of the current study and contains
cavity slides, thin sections and hand samples. It includes a small slide wooden
cabinet, which we will call the broad cabinet, containing specimens that were
covered by a very thick layer of dust. This
 295

Figure 2.  Page from the accession book of

the British Museum (Natural History) listing
material of Eozoon and other samples present-
ed by Carpenter’s son, Reverend Joseph Estlin
Carpenter (1844-1927). NHM Archives. Photo
taken by the authors.

Figure 3.  One of the labels on the small wooden cabinets containing Eozoon on which is
written the date of the donation. Photo taken by the authors.

cabinet has double hinged doors with a lock, contains 15 trays, and measures 35.5
cm height by 41.5 cm wide by 25.5 cm depth (Figure 4). The other wooden cabinet,
which we will refer as the tall cabinet, has single hinged door with a lock, contains
9 trays (8 are inside the single hinged door and the other is on the lower part of the
cabinet), and measures 44.5 cm height by 31 cm wide by 26.5 cm depth. Given the
good sealing of the Eozoon specimens in the broad cabinet, it is surprising that these
are the dustiest of all of the collection. The dust on the affected samples is several
microns thick and covers thin sections, cavity slides, and rock samples. Some of
the rock samples were covered by protective glass that also had a thick layer of dust
(Figure 5). Given the significance of the Eozoon specimens, we decided to analyze
the dust to try to understand its source and implications for the best way to conserve
these important specimens.
Surface deterioration can be seen on the rock samples, which is probably re-
lated to the experimental decalcification of some specimens that were etched in acid
to show their structure more clearly (Dawson & Carpenter, 1867). These porous
specimens are more vulnerable to damage by dust (Figure 6). Conservation issues
caused by the dust add to general problems with fluctuating humidities and tem-
296 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DUST ON A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT COLLECTION  O

Figure 4. Small wooden slide cabinet that con-

tained the dusty Eozoon specimens studied here.
Photo taken by the authors.

Figure 5.  View of one of the

trays with samples and glass
covers covered by dust. Photo
taken by the authors.

Figure 6.  View of a tray with frag-

ments of disaggregated specimens of
Eozoon. Photo taken by the authors.

peratures affecting the Palaeontology Building at the Natural History Museum, UK

[NHM UK] (Comerford et al., 2008).
Reactions of the dust with the samples are apparent. Particles of limestone
disaggregated from the specimens can be observed spread over the trays in the dust-
affected cabinet, and the specimens themselves easily crack when touched. In the
case of the thin sections, an additional problem is that their coverslips have become
unglued, which is a common problem in old thin sections that have been prepared
using Canada balsam.
When we began the project, we were unaware of the composition and source
of the dust or the time that it had accumulated on the specimens. If the dust proved
to be organic, this could attract insects, which would be attractive to other organ-
 297

isms as food sources (Thomson, 1986). Conversely, inorganic dust can absorb mois-
ture and acids from the air, producing chemical reactions harmful to the specimens
(Pavlogeorgatos, 2003).
Therefore, the Carpenter Eozoon Collection has not only suffered deteriora-
tion from general environmental conditions contributing to granular disintegra-
tion, but also from the accumulation of dust interacting with the decalcified speci-
mens.
In order to avoid any damage to the specimens and the cabinets, we removed
dust from the specimens and drawers using a small low-powered vacuum cleaner
(the nozzle was covered in muslin to prevent fragments from being accidentally
collected by the vacuum cleaner). Subsequently, we used a large soft white goat-
hair brush with a rounded edge to remove the dust remaining on the
specimens. We took photographs before and after the dust-removal process
and uploaded these files the collection management system of the NHM UK
(KE EMu; see Sendino 2009). The information is held in the Condition Reports
Module of KE EMu.
During the cleaning process it became apparent that the dust covering
the specimens inside one of the small wooden cabinets, the broad one, was
different from the dust accumulation in the other tall cabinet, which was very dark
in colour. This suggested that these specimens could have been stored in a
different environ-ment from the others and had a separate history. The dark-
coloured dust could have come from a domestic fire used for heating, an accidental
conflagration, or from the smoking of tobacco.

Research on the History of the Specimens and Dust

We collected several samples of dust from the outer part of one of the dirtiest
speci-mens for SEM-EDX (scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive
X-ray spectroscopy) analysis. At the same time, we investigated the history of the
Carpen-ter Collection both before and after it was transferred to the NHM UK.
We have tried to match the results of the chemical analyses and the historical
record, in order to shed light on the source of the unusually high density of dust.
William Carpenter was Registrar of the University of London from 1856
un-til his retirement 1879 and resided at Burlington House in Piccadilly. It was
during this period that he obtained the majority of his collection of Eozoon
specimens. Burlington House underwent several episodes of building work and
redecoration during the time that Carpenter lived there. However, the
historical and archival documents of Burlington House do not indicate that
there were any extraordinary incidents that could have caused an accumulation
of dust on Carpenter’s Eozoon collection. The Royal Society moved from
Somerset House to Burlington House in the winter of 1856-1857 and at the same
time the Chemical and Linnean societies also occupied rooms in Burlington
House. The University of London moved out of
298 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DUST ON A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT COLLECTION  O

Figure 7.  William Carpenter’s resi-

dence at 56 Regents Park Road, Lon-
don, where he died following a fire in
November 1885. Photo taken by the
authors.

Burlington House to make way for these societies. Nevertheless, these upheavals are
unlikely to have had an effect on the Eozoon specimens as these were housed in Wil-
liam Carpenter’s private apartment in a separate part of Burlington House.
On his retirement in 1879, Carpenter moved to a private residence at 56 Re-
gent’s Park Road, London (Figure 7) (Balfour, et al., 1885). He remained there until
his death in 1885. In the last years of his life Carpenter was working on a mono-
graph about Eozoon, accumulating further material and making drawings to sup-
port his interpretation of this “fossil” as a foraminiferan. A search of all Carpenter’s
manuscripts, illustrations, and letters in the archives of the NHM UK revealed sev-
eral volumes of illustrations and photographs of Eozoon (Figure 8). We attempted to
match these photographs taken by Philibert Charles Berjeau with the dust-covered
specimens in the cabinets but without success. This may mean that Carpenter did
not regard the dust-covered specimens as being of key importance for his research
and therefore did not have them photographed.
One possibility worth considering for the origin of the dust covering the
specimens that it represents is soot and other debris resulting from the accidental
house fire that led to the death of Carpenter on November 10, 1885. No details of
the extent of the fire are known but it would have at least burned in the room where
Carpenter kept the vapour bath for treating his rheumatism if not elsewhere in the
house. Unfortunately, it is not known whether Carpenter kept his Eozoon collection
in this room.
After the death of Carpenter, his Eozoon collection was apparently kept in the
same house until Carpenter’s wife Louisa became ill (September 1887). The collec-
tion became the property of Carpenter’s second son, Rev. J. Estlin Carpenter fol-
lowing Louisa’s death. Estlin Carpenter commented on his acquisition in a letter
to Mrs. Henrietta Anne Huxley (née Heathorn -1825-1915-), wife of the eminent
biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), dated 15 September 1887 in which he
remarked that he was collecting some of his father’s work (Imperial College London
Archives, 15 September 1887). It seems that Estlin Carpenter kept the Eozoon col-
 299

Figure 8.  Volume containing photographs of Eozoon taken by Philibert

Charles Berjeau (fl. 1863-1900). NHM Archives. Photo taken by the
authors.

lection with him in his residences in Manchester and Oxford while he was the vice-
principal of Manchester New College, later Manchester College, between December
1887 and January 1892 (Long, 1986). There are no records, however, that could
explain accumulation of the dust covering the specimens of Eozoon while in Estlin
Carpenter’s care. In January 1892, he presented his father’s work and collections to
the British Museum (Natural History).
Carpenter’s Eozoon Collection has been stored in at least three locations since
arriving at British Museum (Natural History) (now NHM UK). Its probable first
location was among the Protozoa collections in the south-west corridor of the base-
ment of the Waterhouse Building, South Kensington, specifically Room SW3 where
specimens were mainly kept in wall cabinets (Hodgkinson & Whittaker, 2006).
Some of the specimens were transferred to the mineral collections in 1949 by order
of the Keeper of Geology, Wilfred Norman Edwards (1890-1956). In 1976, the rest
of the collection was moved to the Palaeontology Building, a 1970s extension con-
structed on the east side of the Waterhouse Building, along with the entire foramin-
ifera collection. Once in the Palaeontology Building, the specimens were mainly
stored on the second floor with the microfossil collections, except for the two small
cabinets containing, including the one with dust-covered specimens, which were
kept among the Problematica collections on a shelf in a cabinet on the first floor.
There is no evidence that the covering of dust accumulated during the period
of time that the cabinet was in either the Waterhouse Building or the Palaeontology
Building. Although some damage to collections was received during World War
II when the botanical collections in the higher stores of the Waterhouse Building
(main building in the NHM of South Kensington) were damaged by two incendiar-
ies and an oil bomb (Carter & Walker, 1999), the foraminifera collections were not
300 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DUST ON A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT COLLECTION  O

Figures 9-11.  SEM micrographs showing grains that were analysed for dust composition us-
ing EDX. Snapshot taken by the authors.

apparently affected. To our knowledge there are no other fossil collections that have
been affected by such excessive dust accumulation as Carpenter’s Eozoon material.
This suggests that the dust pre-dates the arrival of this material at the Museum.

Chemical Analysis of the Dust

Dust samples were collected using Scotch® Removable Tape (the low tack and lack
of residue pose minimal risk to the specimen surface). Samples were mounted
on stubs and studied uncoated using a LEO 1455VP (a highly versatile scanning
electron microscope that can be used for both imaging and chemical analysis of
specimens and can operate in two modes - variable pressure and high vacuum),
equipped with an Energy Dispersive X-ray spectroscopy system (SEM-EDS), an
analytical instrument used for elemental analysis.
SEM-EDX analysis (Figures 9-11) of the dust collected from the Eozoon spec-
imens reveals two main components. One is a silicate mineral phase, probably of
magmatic origin that contains Si-Al-Mg-K-Fe-Ti (Figure 12), which is compatible
with the pyroxene component of the Eozoon specimens. The other component is
a S-Ca rich substance interpreted as gypsum or another type of calcium-sulphate
salt. There is a large amount of this S-Ca substance present in the sample, producing
large S and Ca peaks in the EDX spectra (e.g., Figure 13), which seems incompatible
with the composition of the Eozoon samples themselves. The source may be plaster,
for example from the walls and ceilings of a house. A third minor component may
be calcium carbonate, as indicated by the chemical analysis of some grains with
high Ca content and low S and Si contents (Figure 14).
No microorganisms were detected in the dust, which is consistent with the
fact that it does not contain a large organic component. Soot aggregates (single par-
ticle chains of sub-spherical carbon beads) were rare.

Conclusions

The Carpenter Eozoon Collection is a historically important collection that was do-
nated to the British Museum (Natural History) in January1892 by the son of the
O  MARIA CONSUELO SENDINO ET AL. 301

Figure 12. EDX spectrum showing

peaks of Si-Al-Mg-K-Fe-Ti, a composition
compatible with the pyroxene compo-
nent of the Eozoon.

Figure 13. EDX spectrum displaying in-

tense S and Ca peaks, interpreted as due
to the presence of gypsum.

Figure 14. EDX spectrum suggesting the

presence of calcium carbonate (or some
other compound with an anion consisting
of carbon and/or oxygen).

distinguished scientist William Benjamin Carpenter. This collection had its origin
in samples sent to Carpenter for study as an international authority on foramin-
ifera. The earliest examples of Eozoon came to London in 1862 with Sir William
Edmond Logan, the Director of the Geological Survey of Canada. Building upon
Logan’s first specimens, Carpenter accumulated more than 1000 samples, which
are now housed at the NHMUK. Some of these specimens housed in small wooden
cabinets, recently ‘re-discovered’ among the problematical fossils, are covered by a
black layer of dust.
Chemical analysis of the dust reveals high contents of Ca and S, interpreted
as indicating the presence of gypsum, most probably of anthropogenic origin (plas-
ter?), and a complex silicate mineral phase compatible with pyroxene present in the
Eozoon specimens. To trace the origin of this dust it is necessary to trace the history
of the collection prior to its arrival at the British Museum (Natural History) in 1892.
The collection was housed initially at Burlington House in Piccadilly, then at 56
Regent’s Park Road, London, and finally in the Manchester and Oxford residences
of Carpenter’s son. It is highly probable that the dust accumulated after Carpenter’s
death, otherwise he would certainly have cleaned these valuable and rare samples.
Nothing is known about the short periods that the collection was in Manchester
and Oxford. Given that only one of the two cabinets, which were stored adjacent to
302 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DUST ON A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT COLLECTION  O

each other, contains dusty samples supports the inference that the dust predates the
arrival of the specimens in the Museum. Although difficult to prove, the most com-
pelling explanation is that the dust originated in the inferno at Carpenter’s home
on November 10, 1885, during which Carpenter received the injuries that led to
his death. Collapse of the ceiling at the time of the fire might account for the high
abundance of gypsum in the dust.
In conclusion it is recommended that historical and modern collections
should be carefully inspected upon arrival at museums to record and to access their
condition prior to storage. Any remedial work considered necessary should be car-
ried out before storage. Subsequently all collections should be inspected regularly
to maintain specimens in their optimum condition. When required to preserve the
collection in the best condition periodic cleaning should be undertaken. The pres-
ervation of specimens is of the utmost importance. Therefore, regular maintenance
is not a luxury but a necessity to preserve important specimens for future research.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the assistance of Alex Ball with the SEM analysis and Dr. Paul D. Tay-
lor for calling our attention to this collection.

References

Balfour, E.; Walpole, H.; Ormerod, E. .A.; Godley, E.A.O.J.A. and Yeats, J. 1885. “Obituary”. The Jour-
nal of the Society of Arts 33, no 1721: 1137.
Books, LLC, General Books LLC. 2010. Geology Awards: Wollaston Medal, Murchison Medal, Lyell
Medal, Bigsby Medal, Penrose Medal, Roebling Medal, Arthur L. Day Medal. General Books,
2010, ed. Books, LLC.
Botanical Society of Edinburg, 1836. The Botanical Society of Edinburg Instituted 17th March 1836.
Edinburgh: Neill and Company.
Carpenter, R.L. 1842. Memoirs of the Life of the Rev. Lant Carpenter, LL. D., With Selections From His
Correspondence. Bristol: Philp and Evans.
Carpenter, W.B. 1839. Principles of General and Comparative Physiology. London: Churchill.
Carpenter, W.B. 1842. Principles of Human Physiology. London: Churchill.
Carter, D.J. and Walker, A.K. “Collection Environment”. In: Carter and Walker (eds), Chapter 7: Care
and Conservation of Natural History Collections. Oxford: Butterwoth Heinemann, 139-151.
Comerford, G.; Lindsay, W.; Tilleard, S.; Breckon, R. and Cornish, L. 2008. “A Museum Collection
Environment through Thirty Years”. The Conservator 31: 17-30.
Darwin, C. 1866. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Fa-
voured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: Murray. 4th ed.
Dawson, J.W. and Carpenter, W.B. 1868. On New Specimens of Eozoon Canadense, with a Reply to the
Objections of Professors King and Rowney. American Journal of Science [Series 2] 46: 245-257.
Gardiner, B.G. 2000. “William Benjamin Carpenter”. The Linnean 16 (4): 7-13.
Imperial College London (ICL), Letter to T H Huxley from Carpenter, William Benjamin, FRS (1813-
1885), 29 November 1883: 12.113, box number 12, Series 1c.
 303

Imperial College London (ICL), Letter to Mrs Huxley from Carpenter, (Rev) Joseph Estlin, DD (1844-
1927), 15 September [1887]: 12.37, box number 12, Series 1c.
Hall, V.M.D. 1979. “The Contribution of the Physiologist, William Benjamin Carpenter (1813-1885),
to the Development of the Principles of the Correlation of Forces and the Conservation of En-
ergy”. Medical History 23: 129-155.
Hodgkinson, R. and Whittaker, J. 2006. “Reminiscences of the Old Protozoa Section”. Set in Stone
[Special Edition 2006: 50 Years of the Department of Palaeontology 1956 - 2006]: 12-13.
Long, A.J. 1986. “The Life and Work of J. Estlin Carpenter”, 265-289. In Smith, Barbara (ed.), Truth,
Liberty, Religion: Essays Celebrating Two Hundred Years of Manchester College. Manchester Col-
lege, Oxford.
O’Brien, C.F. 1970. “Eozoon Canadense ‘The Dawn Animal of Canada’”. Isis 61 (2): 206-223.
Owen, H.G. 2006. “Transfer of the Department of Palaeontology to the East Wing”. Set in Stone [Spe-
cial Edition 2006: 50 Years of the Department of Palaeontology 1956 - 2006]: 11-12.
Pavlogeorgatos, G. 2003. “Environmental Parameters in Museums”. Building and Environment 38:
1457-1462.
Royal Society, 1886. “Obituary Notes: William Benjamin Carpenter”. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London 41: ii-viii.
Schopf, W.J. 2001. Cradle of life: The Discovery of Earths’ Earliest Fossils. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Sendino, M.C. 2009. “KE EMu and the Future for Natural History Collections”. Collections: A Journal
for Museum and Archives Professionals, 5(2): 149-158.
The Engineer. 1885. “Death of Dr. W. B. Carpenter”. The Engineer, 13 November 1885, 379.
Thomson, G. 1986. The Museum Environment. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. 2nd ed.